The Ongoing Media Challenge - Can The Assembly Force Change?

[Zappa 0]

Traynor may talk about the OF.

LOL, yeah he likes to do that, surprise surprise.

 

Speirs talks only about Rangers when the sham campaign is being debated.

That's not in question. My point was that he's not the only one who prints/publishes biased material, so where do we draw the line in terms of calling for journalists to be banned from Ibrox??? People are calling for a line to be drawn on the issue of biased media coverage of the club, but where/what should that line be? What should be the core of any sort of new criteria for journalists being banned from Ibrox in this hypothetical scenario?

[Frankie 8,186]

The RSA won't force any changes, why would anyone seriously think they could? The change we all seek can only come from within the club itself and there isn't the slightest hint of that happening. Chatter is all very well but it would be wrong of anyone to actually believe the RSA would ever put pressure on the club and madness to think the club would ever yield to such pressure. Only more of the same to look forward to ........ and we know it.

 

The thread title was somewhat of a rhetorical question - however IMO, if people utilise the Assembly properly (since many no longer buy into the alternatives); then we can perhaps find some common ground.

 

I've already said a ban for Spiers is unlikely. But I do think there are other ways of spreading the message about him which would be greatly improved if the club helped - tacitly or otherwise.

 

You or I might rightly ask why it has to be done tacitly but in the absence of a greater appetite we have to work with what we have. We begin by forcing the Assembly to act and we seem to have an immediate (although slight) improvement from them in that regard. Now, we force them to take it up with the club in an official sense and use the club's own statements about the organisation to show there is a fan mandate for a change of strategy.

 

As ever, I don't deny that will be easy or that I'm maybe being overly optimistic but, I find creating debate a healthy way of finding a manner in which we can address the issue - imperfect or not.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Frankie

[Frankie 8,186]

Not sticking up for Britney here, but believe it or not, he does indeed write articles about a wide variety of footballing matters & issues. He does mostly write articles about Rangers & Celtic since they're the hottest topic in Scottish football, but it's only occasionally that he starts sh*t stirring the bigotry & sectarian subject. He writes a quite a lot of articles about the SFA & the Scotland manager & team as well. I only know what he's writing because I took it upon myself to find out by digging through the Times website & I can say with 100% certainty, that the idea that all the guy does is have a go at our particular club & fans is completely false, absolute nonsense in fact. It seems like we only make a big deal about him being anti-Rangers once or twice a year when he manages to get one of his more controversial pieces published and we inevitably perceive it as deliberately trying to damage our club, which is probably the correct conclusion to come to in most instances to be fair, since the likes of him rattling on about bigotry & sectarianism problems as if they were only a problem on one side of the OF, certainly isn't doing our club & reputation within football any good.

 

Mate,

 

I also read most of Spiers articles and I agree the majority are harmless enough and occasionally he makes some valid points in them. He wouldn't be in a job otherwise - poor Times readership or not.

 

You also rightly say he concentrates on the Old Firm - a natural phenomenon in a country these teams dominate in.

 

However, the problem occurs when he writes about sectarianism. Quite simply he does not do this from a balanced point of view. He concentrates completely on Rangers' problems (alleged or otherwise) and only mentions other teams on the very odd occasion so he can claim objectivity.

 

In addition to that, many supporters who can see past this one-sidedness (it isn't easy) will see that, while raising the issue reasonably regularly over the last 5 years or so, he always fails to offer solutions for the problem. UEFA/SPL can ban songs all they like but the problem will just go elsewhere. That's because, as we all know, the issue of sectarianism is a social one - not a football one - so biased, inflammatory and inaccurate articles like that of Spiers (and Michael Walker et al) only serve to increase tensions instead of solve them.

 

Thus, while defending Spiers overall journalistic contribution is probably valid enough, his MO is clear and Rangers supporters have every right to take umbrage with his disgraceful coverage - no matter how often he writes about it.

 

The man is an anti-Rangers buffoon who has used a social problem to make himself money. His hypocrisy is disgusting and he is much a source of sectarianism as anything and anyone else. And he knows it.

[Frankie 8,186]

LOL, yeah he likes to do that, surprise surprise.

 

 

That's not in question. My point was that he's not the only one who prints/publishes biased material, so where do we draw the line in terms of calling for journalists to be banned from Ibrox??? People are calling for a line to be drawn on the issue of biased media coverage of the club, but where/what should that line be? What should be the core of any sort of new criteria for journalists being banned from Ibrox in this hypothetical scenario?

 

I don't think anyone is saying everyone and everything should be banned from Ibrox as soon as a bad word is written about our club. Mistakes can be made and sometimes it could be argued negative coverage is deserved. As such, only the very worst and the consistent offenders should be addressed - ban or otherwise.

 

Graham Spiers is by far the worst person for writing negatively and inaccurately about our club while refusing to open up the debate about others in the same way. Guys like Traynor, Walker and Jackson don't even come close. See Jaaz's splendid article of years past for the evidence.

 

It is this continued appallingly non-objective coverage that should see Graham Spiers banned from Ibrox Stadium. Or at the very least see the club work with fans to ensure every supporter knows their feelings on such journalists while refusing to work with media such as The Times or Radio Clyde who employ him.

 

I don't think any of that is unreasonable.

[maineflyer 0]

The threat title was somewhat of a rhetorical question - however IMO, if people utilise the Assembly properly (since many no longer buy into the alternatives); then we can perhaps find some common ground.

 

I've already said a ban for Spiers is unlikely. But I do think there are other ways of spreading the message about him which would be greatly improved if the club helped - tacitly or otherwise.

 

You or I might rightly ask why it has to be done tacitly but in the absence of a greater appetite we have to work with what we have. We begin by forcing the Assembly to act and we seem to have an immediate (although slight) improvement from them in that regard. Now, we force them to take it up with the club in an official sense and use the club's own statements about the organisation to show there is a fan mandate for a change of strategy.

 

As ever, I don't deny that will be easy or that I'm maybe being overly optimistic but, I find creating debate a healthy way of finding a manner in which we can address the issue - imperfect or not.

 

I'm all for debate and this is a hugely important subject. However, it would be wrong to think that "we" are in a position to force anything. We can coerce and encourage but we're not in a position to force anyone to do anything. That's the foundation for any debate.

 

Then there are two other factors to take into account. Firstly, the track record suggests that no supporters' organisations will ever assert their views on the club. Secondly, experience equally shows that the clubs will not be swayed into action by any supporters' organisation..... some would suggest otherwise but I've never bought into any of these claims.

 

Personally, I'd not only ban Spiers from Ibrox, I'd have his balls lopped off and fed to the pigs. But who is going to do it? One thing is probably as likely to happen as the other. Like I said, I'm all for debate, just so long as no one encourages unreasonable expectations. The club leadership (there's a misnomer) has demonstrated only weakness and disinterest ..... the RSA has shown only weakness. Has anything happened to make anyone think it will be different in future?

[Frankie 8,186]

The recent fans forum has showed the Assembly are at least willing to stimulate public debate. They have then acted upon the mandate given to them at that forum by firstly taking the issues to their main committee and AGM; then agreeing to be more pro-active with regard to such issues.

 

This has manifested itself in one of the first media statements I can recall from them - widely welcomed by the (online) support at large. I'd like to think others will follow - and not just with regard to the media either but in many areas that most bears will agree need improvement.

 

That is the easy bit.

 

The hard bit is, as you rightly say, attempting to invoke that change in a tangible sense. A statement on one's own website is simple. Taking the message offline for broad fan agreement then getting the club round the table and agreeing to change of strategy isn't - more so when their outlook is sometimes the opposite from that of the support. However, in the past the club have claimed certain opinions are not representative of the wider fanbase. Ergo, by using the Assembly to take forward our opinions (hopefully continued by further fans forums and united online co-operation) we use their own creation to assert our views.

 

I'm as sceptical as you as to whether this will work or whether a new chairman may see a different view from Rangers FC. But I think it's worthy of exploration before we say it won't work or that the club won't be prepared to be more flexible than before. Therefore, I don't think it is wrong to say we can attempt to force change. We just need to be better organised and go about it in the correct way. I think there have been a few small steps in the right direction recently even if we need to keep pushing and carrying people towards the destination.

[maineflyer 0]

The recent fans forum has showed the Assembly are at least willing to stimulate public debate. They have then acted upon the mandate given to them at that forum by firstly taking the issues to their main committee and AGM; then agreeing to be more pro-active with regard to such issues.

 

This has manifested itself in one of the first media statements I can recall from them - widely welcomed by the (online) support at large. I'd like to think others will follow - and not just with regard to the media either but in many areas that most bears will agree need improvement.

 

That is the easy bit.

 

The hard bit is, as you rightly say, attempting to invoke that change in a tangible sense. A statement on one's own website is simple. Taking the message offline for broad fan agreement then getting the club round the table and agreeing to change of strategy isn't - more so when their outlook is sometimes the opposite from that of the support. However, in the past the club have claimed certain opinions are not representative of the wider fanbase. Ergo, by using the Assembly to take forward our opinions (hopefully continued by further fans forums and united online co-operation) we use their own creation to assert our views.

 

I'm as sceptical as you as to whether this will work or whether a new chairman may see a different view from Rangers FC. But I think it's worthy of exploration before we say it won't work or that the club won't be prepared to be more flexible than before. Therefore, I don't think it is wrong to say we can attempt to force change. We just need to be better organised and go about it in the correct way. I think there have been a few small steps in the right direction recently even if we need to keep pushing and carrying people towards the destination.

The RSA would struggle to clarify whether we're the People's Front for Judea or the Judean Peoples Front ...... but no doubt they could stimulate endless debate on the subject and take it to the wider support for opinion. In short, the RSA is like the RST, a talking shop that will sweep as easily from one stance to another as shit sliding off the edge of a shovel. It's always been that way and ever will be.

 

Given an thoroughly intransigent board of directors, only confrontation will (a) establish a solid, credible position and (b) provoke any reaction from the club's overlords. Too many fans are too ready to feign outrage at the idea of confrontation for that to be possible, so not only will the club remain where it is in respect of people like Spiers but the support will also remain as smugly ineffectual as ever.

 

Of course, I could just be unreasonably pessimistic and blind to the fact that our representative organisations are actually full of activists rather than mouthpieces.

[Frankie 8,186]

So we shouldn't attempt to try and influence positive change just because it is likely to be fruitless?

 

FWIW, I don't think you're being overly pessimistic, just realistic; as I share your doubt. However, I've seen the signs that change may be possible with the right nudges in the right places. Will that change the position of the club? Probably not. Will that change the apathy of the majority fans? Possibly not.

 

But it is worth a go in the absence of anything else.

[maineflyer 0]

So we shouldn't attempt to try and influence positive change just because it is likely to be fruitless?

 

FWIW, I don't think you're being overly pessimistic, just realistic; as I share your doubt. However, I've seen the signs that change may be possible with the right nudges in the right places. Will that change the position of the club? Probably not. Will that change the apathy of the majority fans? Possibly not.

 

But it is worth a go in the absence of anything else.

 

I've nothing but admiration for those who try..... sitting down to write a letter to the BBC or a newspaper editor or the chairman of RFC - or holding up a protest banner. However, that said, it also does no harm to realise that we can waste a hell of a lot of time and effort pursuing the unobtainable.... and the illusion of progress that can create simply prevents more radical and possibly more effective action ever being taken. It's just a view.

[Frankie 8,186]

Agree with that. However in the absence of anything more radical, I'll settle for the former...