insane bbc bias

[bornabear 6,205]

21 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 there's an established anti-Rangers editorial stand.

 

There we have it, dude finally admits to an  anti-Rangers stand.

Taken from his own words.

[G.E.C. 18,801]

No comment 

[Amokachi 3,050]

I often listen to Clyde 2 where the hourly news report will have a wee bit about the footy at the end.  

Without fail the newsreader (usually a female) will refer to Rangers as ‘they’ or simply ‘Rangers’. 

However when that mob are mentioned, there’s a noteable upbeat change in the tone & words like ‘the hoops’ or ‘the celts’ are introduced.  

Find it quite petty & amateurish.  

[govanblue 16,847]

49 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Wait, so what I post on here is indcative on an anti-Rangers agenda in the media despite this not being part of the media?

Or the fact I'm, on the whole pretty positive about most things Rangers. If you don't believe that there's literally thousands of articles (and a few podcasts ) to back it up .

this IS part of "the media" but we'll let that slide.

Yes you're right.  Although I don't read much of your paid stuff (or anyone else's) what little I do see of your football writing is generally pro-Rangers.

I should have been more precise with my assertion, so I'll admit I got that wrong, and refine my assertion somewhat:

 

The media has an anti-Rangers agenda (or a pro-c*lt*c one, or maybe a bit of both).

For proof of that, one need look no further than:

Rangers fans destroy kid's sandcastle versus Kid gets in the way of bottle-throwing man in green.

Your agenda, as I see it, is one of trying to ingratiate yourself with "the media" by picking fights with Rangers fans over their choice of non-footballing traditional values, I guess to show yourself as more liberally enlightened than we knuckledraggers, but that is just a guess.

As I see it, The Fans ARE the Club, so in that sense I see you as anti-Rangers, and with the second point, I see you as a lackey of that anti-Rangers, pro-c*lt*c media.

 

 

 

And you are still a disgrace.

 

 

[The Godfather 71,996]

12 minutes ago, G.E.C. said:

No comment 

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,510]

20 minutes ago, Amokachi said:

I often listen to Clyde 2 where the hourly news report will have a wee bit about the footy at the end.  

Without fail the newsreader (usually a female) will refer to Rangers as ‘they’ or simply ‘Rangers’. 

However when that mob are mentioned, there’s a noteable upbeat change in the tone & words like ‘the hoops’ or ‘the celts’ are introduced.  

Find it quite petty & amateurish.  

What a strange thing to be bothered about.

[The Godfather 71,996]

24 minutes ago, bornabear said:

There we have it, dude finally admits to an  anti-Rangers stand.

Taken from his own words.

It’s obvious.

Ive yer to see the anti-celtic one though, that’s not been around since 2011.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, govanblue said:

this IS part of "the media" but we'll let that slide.

Yes you're right.  Although I don't read much of your paid stuff (or anyone else's) what little I do see of your football writing is generally pro-Rangers.

I should have been more precise with my assertion, so I'll admit I got that wrong, and refine my assertion somewhat:

 

The media has an anti-Rangers agenda (or a pro-c*lt*c one, or maybe a bit of both).

For proof of that, one need look no further than:

Rangers fans destroy kid's sandcastle versus Kid gets in the way of bottle-throwing man in green.

Your agenda, as I see it, is one of trying to ingratiate yourself with "the media" by picking fights with Rangers fans over their choice of non-footballing traditional values, I guess to show yourself as more liberally enlightened than we knuckledraggers, but that is just a guess.

As I see it, The Fans ARE the Club, so in that sense I see you as anti-Rangers, and with the second point, I see you as a lackey of that anti-Rangers, pro-c*lt*c media.

And you are a disgrace.

 

 

I don't expect that anyone in "the media" gives a flying fuck what my views are on "non-footballing traditional values." It's certainly never been omething anyone has ever mentioned to me in any way.

So disagreeing with some Rangers fans on issues - by your own admission - are nothing to do with football - makes me anti-Rangers? 

I think you massively over-estimate these sort of places. Nobody outside Rangers media gives a fuck about anything that happens on here. The idea that 'picking fights' can help ingratiate myself with the media is utterly laughable and as ridiculous a claim as Eeejay thinking I get paid to post here.

You're seriously losing it. This is proper tinfoil hat shit here.

[They Gnu 11,553]

58 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

Too much work, sorry.

Furfuxsake,I never learn.

[govanblue 16,847]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

... can help ingratiate myself with the media...

I mean in your own head obviously.  you don't work for the media, you work for a mickey mouse news aggregator.  No offense like.

[They Gnu 11,553]

56 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

On this forum? football??

- bbc,  marching, snp bad, which Rangers player do you hate the most- those are the topics of choice - football tends to be far down the list. 

Shut up you republican cunt.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

28 minutes ago, govanblue said:

this IS part of "the media" but we'll let that slide.

Yes you're right.  Although I don't read much of your paid stuff (or anyone else's) what little I do see of your football writing is generally pro-Rangers.

I should have been more precise with my assertion, so I'll admit I got that wrong, and refine my assertion somewhat:

 

The media has an anti-Rangers agenda (or a pro-c*lt*c one, or maybe a bit of both).

For proof of that, one need look no further than:

Rangers fans destroy kid's sandcastle versus Kid gets in the way of bottle-throwing man in green.

Your agenda, as I see it, is one of trying to ingratiate yourself with "the media" by picking fights with Rangers fans over their choice of non-footballing traditional values, I guess to show yourself as more liberally enlightened than we knuckledraggers, but that is just a guess.

As I see it, The Fans ARE the Club, so in that sense I see you as anti-Rangers, and with the second point, I see you as a lackey of that anti-Rangers, pro-c*lt*c media.

 

 

 

And you are still a disgrace.

 

 

Post of the day 👍

[The Dude 20,026]

14 minutes ago, govanblue said:

I mean in your own head obviously.  you don't work for the media, you work for a mickey mouse news aggregator.  No offense like.

I do? Weird that, because not one of the sites in the group are news aggregators. Can't imagine it's easy for news aggregators to get media accreditation from clubs and governing bodies.

[govanblue 16,847]

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I do? Weird that, because not one of the sites in the group are news aggregators. Can't imagine it's easy for news aggregators to get media accreditation from clubs and governing bodies.

Damn.  I'm wrong. I guess I should have bothered to have a look at your site first, eh?

Now are you ready to admit that only the OP indicated offense at the football story appearing in the OPs Rangers stream, and that you were wrong to accuse "people" of being offended, or do we need to ask jb and  cb themselves whether they were offended by it?  And will you then call them liars?

Do you not see the damage you do yourself by refusing to admit your mistakes. Especially a mistake which is so blatantly obvious to anyone who can read and competently interpret.

or shall you ever be a disgrace?

 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, govanblue said:

Damn.  I guess I should have bothered to have a look at your site first, eh?

Now are you ready to admit that only the OP indicated offense at the football story appearing in the OPs Rangers stream, and that you were wrong to accuse "people" of being offended, or do we need to ask jb and  cb themselves whether they were offended by it?  And will you then call them liars?

Do you not see the damage you do yourself by refusing to admit your mistakes. Especially a mistake which is so blatantly obvious to anyone who can read and competently interpret.

or shall you ever be a disgrace?

 

Let's see if you answer the question you dodged earlier....what should we have been complaining about (as stated in one of the posts I quoted) if we aren't offended by something?

 

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,764]

Honest to fuck time to / thread 

[bornabear 6,205]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Let's see if you answer the question you dodged earlier....what should we have been complaining about (as stated in one of the posts I quoted) if we aren't offended by something?

 

 

So it's  your way or the highway, 

You're  right when you're  wrong.

 You have proved to be the most argumentative  guy on RM

Fuck if I would ever want to have a drink with a guy like you.

As GB said, Your an absolute disgrace

[govanblue 16,847]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Let's see if you answer the question you dodged earlier....what should we have been complaining about (as stated in one of the posts I quoted) if we aren't offended by something?

 

 

I didn't answer, because I failed to comprehend the question.  I still don't comprehend the question, and I'm officially good at English.

Are you asking me what CB is complaining about? He's complaining about the general situation described by jintybear.  He is most definitely not complaining about the OP's experience.  Nor is jintybear.

You are 100% wrong if you assert that any of the posters you quoted were bemoaning the OP's experience.  They had totally disregarded it and were having a different conversation.

Why can't you just admit you were shit-stirring without fact-checking.

 

 

17 hours ago, jintybear said:

We can all laugh and be faux offended but see to be honest it is starting to get beyond a joke. They are making our brand seem less important than them over the city. Neutral people actually watch/read BBC and when headlines are always negative about us and positive about them then people do tend to believe it  because it mostly goes unchallenged. We should be complaining about it because as the OP said they are supposed to be neutral.

 

17 hours ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Straight out of the taig playbook, tell a lie often enough it becomes fact. 

BBC Scotland are masters of it. 

 

[ForeverAndEver 71,560]

6 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Honest to fuck time to / thread 

Should have been a long time ago.

[The Dude 20,026]

17 hours ago, jintybear said:

We can all laugh and be faux offended but see to be honest it is starting to get beyond a joke. They are making our brand seem less important than them over the city. Neutral people actually watch/read BBC and when headlines are always negative about us and positive about them then people do tend to believe it  because it mostly goes unchallenged. We should be complaining about it because as the OP said they are supposed to be neutral.

 

4 minutes ago, govanblue said:

I didn't answer, because I failed to comprehend the question.  I still don't comprehend the question, and I'm officially good at English.

Are you asking me what CB is complaining about? He's complaining about the general situation described by jintybear.  He is most definitely not complaining about the OP's experience.  Nor is jintybear.

You are 100% wrong if you assert that any of the posters you quoted were bemoaning the OP's experience.  They had totally disregarded it and were having a different conversation.

Why can't you just admit you were shit-stirring without fact-checking.

 

 

 

 

'We should be complaining about it because as the OP said they are supposed to be neutral.'  - complaining about what? It's really not a difficult question.

 

[The Dude 20,026]

8 minutes ago, bornabear said:

So it's  your way or the highway, 

You're  right when you're  wrong.

 You have proved to be the most argumentative  guy on RM

Fuck if I would ever want to have a drink with a guy like you.

As GB said, Your an absolute disgrace

Not at all. I asked for an answer to  a question that GB dodged several times.  Nothing more.

 

[Siam69 26,987]

17 hours ago, ForeverAndEver said:

If you read what is in the article you'd know why it's at the top.

Like the OP, I've the settings on the BBC app set so as to show Rangers as well, and other stuff i'm interested in such as Northern Ireland news.

When I first seen the headline to the 'story' a few days ago, I was also a bit taken aback. But then when I read the article I realised why it was there, the Rangers connection in it. 

Thought no more about it until I noticed this thread just now, and the OP stating, and I quote, 'this is a new low' 

Obviously 'new lows' will all be relative, and the OP is entitled to his opinion, but I find it kinda headshaking stuff here, myself ...

Haven't read the rest of the thread, but that it's made 8 pages I also find kinda headshaking.  I'll not put myself through reading it, as I can see myself cringing quite a bit ...

[govanblue 16,847]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

 

'We should be complaining about it because as the OP said they are supposed to be neutral.'  - complaining about what? It's really not a difficult question.

 

Are you really so poor at reading comrehension?

Do you really think that the  "it" she is referring to is the football boot story, or is it the general situation, which she describes...

"They are making our brand seem less important than them over the city. Neutral people actually watch/read BBC and when headlines are always negative about us and positive about them then people do tend to believe it  because it mostly goes unchallenged."

Would you like to place a bet on whether she is complaining about that or the OP's streaming [edit: I mean news feed] experience.

 

[LaudrupsPatrickBoots 13,510]

Sometimes when you read a thread on this forum it's easy to forget that we're all supposedly on the same side.

[Moody Blue Legend 61,555]

Hory shet.