Comment on .. and they wonder why nobody buys papers by alexander276.
At last someone in the media has answered a question. (I obviously discount the cut and paste formula replies from the BBC).
I am rather tired of the regurgitated vomit of sycophancy that passes for football journalism. The little boxes advising where to buy your season tickets for a certain team struck me as undeclared advertising and I wondered if cash or kind was exchanged.
The feedback editor of the Times replied at the second time of asking – which is good by the standards of the league she plays in. The answers does not remove my concerns bur it IS an answer and I thank her for it.
My translation is ‘This is not journalism and should not be judged as such: it is cosying up to the big boys.’
There is no breach of ethics in our football reporting, as you suggest. It is common practice for newspapers in Scotland to be invited to press conferences by, especially, the Scottish FA, Celtic and Rangers, with an understanding that the copy which results from the conference (which is never about the actual thing being promoted) will be followed by a reference to the ticket sales (or whatever is being promoted). This is quite clear in the references, eg, “Miller was promoting Rangers’ season-ticket sales. Over 37,000 have been sold and they are still available via www.rangers.co.uk, the Rangers ticket centre or by calling 0871 702 1972”This practice is by no means restricted to Rangers. Celtic, for example, made many of its players available at press conferences last season, which were specifically called in order to boost ticket sales before home fixtures.Yours sincerely,
XXX Feedback editor
.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
This is a report on the consultation about supporter involvement in clubs. I think many points could have been clearer had they consulted about the report …
.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
Call it serendipity but on the page facing the modest piece in Private Eye there is an ad for a Centre for Investigative Journalism conference 14-16 July. If we could persuade one of our leading contributors to attend I am sure we could crowd fund to share the burden. Alternatively could we generate a couple of pages to establish the problem of market censorship with a prize bursary for say £500 to any young journalist who best tackles the topic. If something happens in either direction I would chip in …
We are making little headway with the faux journalists in the Scottish press. Maybe real ones could be attracted to the topic. Like others here I am uneasy that there is more to this than a minor sports matter …
Staying On The Problem
The use of Sutton and Stewart for the draw is significant. They knew they had a process under suspicion and they knew most of the media pack are under even more suspicion. I think Stewart and Sutton are seen as not part of the contamination. Maybe the message is getting through. Certainly there are few others who could deliver that outcome without feeding my scepticism …
The Offline Game
Like Castothousands I am interested in the timeline of events at Armageddon.
I was gratified that the resources of the BBC allowed them to give us details:
16:51:48 – Final Whistle
16:51:58 – Pitch invasion begins
16:53:25 – Fans smash goalpost
16:54:54 – Rival fans clash
16:55:38 – Police horses on pitch
16:57:00 – Police line established
Their commentator actually said something along the lines of Rangers supporters are making their way on to the pitch at 3.52.27 on their clock. That was 54 seconds after the Hibs invasion was mentioned. So is 3.52.27 not a more relevant time (both sides on pitch) than when the cross bar broke (Traditional Scottish exuberance?)
What did the rival fans do between 3.52.27 and 16.54.54/ 3.54.29 when ‘rival fans clashed’. Take selfies?
Of course the BBC timeline is more compatible with the idea of 3 minutes of Hibs supporters traducing Rangers players before noble rescue efforts …
Thank goodness an independent commission under Gordon Smith will sort this out .
I admit I started that European hare running. That little debate was an education. Much appreciated (unfortunately I am not a Scottish sports journalist.)
In the press we are full steam for the return (sic) of Rangers (sic) to Europe. Details such as the score at the cup final to be arranged.
My memory of discussion on this site suggests this is far from automatic. Expectations are being allowed / encouraged in a way that may cause the imposition of rules very difficult. If it is not automatic should supporters not be told now…?
Could the relevant comments on the site not be assembled at the front of the site. If the route to Europe is unclear, it is time this was acknowledged by the paid officers of the game.
(This is part of my general concern that the ‘entry costs’ of following this are too high …)
Bit late to chip in on the REIVER project but a couple of ideas:
Why not send to Regan before releasing. He either has to correct the assumptions or he indirectly confirms legitimacy.
Secondly seems like it could be part of series directed at different targets.
Could answers/ factual origins be on other side – or could the questions link to answers on this site?
Do we not need to progress the timeline idea at the front of this site to give folk an easier access to the detailed discussion in the pages?