BBC - Q&A: Neil Patey on Rangers

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Ummmm,

 

What dB posted were Patey's responses to questions asked by the BBC reporter - not dB's own musings.

 

ummm I know that.

 

dB suggested that the 'Reporter' would have been annoyed by the responses given by Patey. My point is that the responses would have done nothing to annoy the hack because nothing of importance was asked of Patey so nothing of importance was said in reply.

[der Berliner 3,267]

Well, "important" is obviously something we define differently then. And the BBC's usual stance with anything about us in recent weeks has not exactly been positive, so this was very much a change from "their" norm.

[foggy dewhurst 0]

mister patey is the kind of chap that mister green should have on the board at ibrox someone who knows his way about the money side of things .

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Well, "important" is obviously something we define differently then. And the BBC's usual stance with anything about us in recent weeks has not exactly been positive, so this was very much a change from "their" norm.

 

Maybe I'm more cynical about the BBC than you, but to me this article was a non-event. It boiled down to some financial expert saying that Rangers are in a better position now than last year, we have a greatly reduced cost base, we may or may not be running at a loss, Green will be fairly happy because of the money he's made and the fans have been turning out in numbers. Yes...? And...? The point is...?

 

Again, I can't agree that it was a change from their norm. It was exactly their norm.

This article is, at best, neutral - it certainly wasn't positive - and that's the way the BBC works. They pump out 9 negative, biased pieces and then one neutral piece so that they can claim 'objectivity and balance'. Apart from Radio Scotland of course, where they long ago gave up any pretense at objectivity and just decided to turn it into a Rangers hate fest.