A proposition - Graham Spiers just isn't that bright!

[Guest John1872]

There was an interesting discussion on twitter today about Graham Spiers and I put forward the idea that Graham, although definitely one-sided in the sectarianism debate - is less malicious than supposed.

 

In fact, I would suggest that he just isn't that bright and doesn't understand in a real-life sense, or academically, the full consequences of what he is saying.

 

Now, I am not suggesting he is stupid, or is unaware of his jibes and biased opinions, but merely that he really believes that he - a sports journalist - is the holder of the "Truth" about sectarianism and nothing that anyone says can change that. This is the mark of a dull mind.

 

I said as much in April:

 

"More than most, Graham Spiers has been an unfortunate cheerleader for confusing sectarian songs with the totality of sectarianism. His opinion has far too long been taken as ââ?¬Å?truthââ?¬Â, when he is merely a sports writer who believes Rangers fans sing more offensive songs than Celtic fans.

 

That is it. There is no evidence given. No important analysis of sectarianism in society. The fact he is more offended by the religious stuff than the IRA stuff is his right. It proves nothing and is not a form of special knowledge. It is time someone pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes.

 

He also likes to shout ââ?¬Å?whatabouteryââ?¬Â to anyone who wishes to question sectarian songs of other teams. This is instructive because if you believe in zero tolerance you donââ?¬â?¢t mind wishing to end all types of bigotry. What logical reason could anyone give for downplaying sectarianism of one person but not another?

 

On twitter Graham Spiers has even hinted that, although he doesnââ?¬â?¢t agree on itââ?¬â?¢s usage, that to call someone a ââ?¬Å?hunââ?¬Â is not sectarian abuse when the Justice system has already set legal precedence that it is a religious breach of the peace. To be fair, heââ?¬â?¢s not actually defending bigotry ââ?¬â?? he just doesnââ?¬â?¢t know what he is talking about."

 

http://johndcgow.com/2011/04/04/zero-tolerance-2/

 

He is not a serious figure and the more we, and others, realise this the better.

[Guest Dutchy]

I second your proposition.

[Jim1955 12]

The problem is that he still has an audience despite his warped view.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Is it true though that he has BO?

[Guest John1872]

The problem is that he still has an audience despite his warped view.

 

He does, but the quicker the audience is educated to realise this is no intellectual giant the better.

[Zappa 0]

Personally, I think he's just a lonely and sad attention seeker. You can see from a lot of what he says on Twitter that he's fishing for reaction and attention by shit-stirring. I don't know what he thinks he can ultimately gain from it, so it leaves me thinking that it's just a perversion he's gotten addicted to. Going on twitter and posting nonsense to wind people up doesn't exactly give the impression of some sort of cunning plan or calculated path in a long-game. Like you say John, he's perhaps not the sharpest tool in the box.

[Stimpy 0]

He's an attention seeking whore. If he carried on towards the orcs like he does with us, his windows would be smashed and his family under 24 hour security.

 

Anyone with half a brain would realise that we're a soft touch. I'm not saying we act like them, but he should have been banned from Ibrox a long time ago.

[Frankie 8,200]

This was an interesting debate yesterday John and I'm sorry I'm coming to this thread late.

 

I understand what you're saying but I'm afraid I disagree with it. Graham Spiers is completely aware of what he is doing with regards to the sectarianism debate. He's a graduate, a learned journalist , a son, a husband, a father and older than many of us on here. As such, his life experiences will be the same so he will know right from wrong.

 

Now, right is embarking on a crusade to rid society of sectarianism. I applaud him on his tenacity for that and while many of his articles haven't been popular, there's also no doubt he's made some decent points over the years.

 

Wrong, though, is conducting this crusade from only the one angle and downright refusing to discuss the issue from both ends. Granted his own personal opinions may differ from ours but when not only decency but the law suggests his opinion is flawed then that would indicate his approach lacks sincerity. Offering ignorance as a reason for this partiality is incorrect IMO.

 

Not only that, the guy takes great delight and makes a lot of money from his imbalance. Moreover, he incites and adds to the hatred we see by constantly being deliberately obtuse when 'debating' the issue.

 

Spiers is actually part of the problem because of his chosen behaviour - more so, given he's never offered any kind of solution to the issue he's made a career out of. Quite frankly, he should be ashamed and I'll bet his own father (as a man of the cloth) is on his behalf.

[stewarty 1,896]

Regardless of his motives, the true arbiters are the reader's of his newspaper, who's circulation is plummeting faster than Speirs' reputation.

[Frankie 8,200]

Regardless of his motives, the true arbiters are the reader's of his newspaper, who's circulation is plummeting faster than Speirs' reputation.

 

A valid point but circulations are falling rapidly throughout the industry so it's difficult to blame one journalist for such figures.

 

One would hope that any decent individual would see Spiers' flawed coverage for what it is but in the absence of genuine debate (or other points of view) within the forums he's present in, makes it the picture rather grainy.