Rangers tell Graham Spiers & Chris McLaughlin they are "no longer welcome at Ibrox"

[Mountain Bear 0]

The way things are going, the BBC are going to miss the excitement of The Rangers revival.

 

Their loss.

 

Hopefully Rangers TV gains a few more subscribers as a result.

[Frankie 8,179]

I'm not sure these bans will get us anywhere to be honest. Imbalance is ingrained in a few places (not least BBC Scotland) but this is at editorial level and folk like Spiers and McLaughlin are merely the water carriers making money from the omnipresent anti-RFC tide.

 

If Rangers want to highlight this issue (and why not?) then they have to be clear about their reasons and create the debate they want. A few throwaway lines in articles behind pay walls won't do that.

[JohnMc 2,483]

I'm uncomfortable about banning journalists. Apart from anything else I genuinely believe it's counter-productive although I also dislike any curtailing of reporting because we don't like what the person is saying.

If someone writes or says something that is simply wrong then sue them. Libel and slander are crimes in this country, the laws to deal with these things exist.

 

If the words aren't actually illegal, you/we simply don't agree with them then don't buy the paper, click on the website or listen to the programme. All of these media organisations, even the BBC, rely on readers and audience numbers. If these fall then changes happen. It continues to surprise me how many Rangers supporters continue to read or listen to Speirs. Just don't. Don't buy the Times and don't follow him on Twitter it's really not hard. As a columnist he's only employable if he's read.

 

McLaughlin of course works for the BBC where audience figures aren't as important. However don't think for two minutes that they're ignored, they aren't. Now again we have the choice of simply not listening to BBC Scotland or reading their website, however I understand why licence fee payers would find that unfair. Again though you can still use the BBC, simply ignoring their Scottish football coverage.

 

Ironically I do think BBC Scotland's coverage of Rangers and Scottish football has improved in the last 12 to 18 months. They do have some decent journalists and there's more balance to their output.

 

I'd love to know what our PR strategy is now and what part banning two journalists from our press box plays in it. It won't stop either writing what they want after all. It has clearly played well with the gallery, perhaps that was all it's about; getting some fans onside.

 

One other observation. A lot has been said about McLaughlin's article after the Hibs game and his reporting of arrests for 'sectarian' offences. Everything I've read though has been about criticising him for reporting this, I've yet to read anyone criticise the morons who got arrested. Now innocent until proved otherwise, I accept that, but if we're all being honest we know it still goes on, particularly among a section of the away support. Whether you agree with these stupid laws or not isn't relevant, until it disappears completely from our fanbase people like McLaughlin will be able to report it.

 

As unpalatable as it is building bridges with the media is the only sensible PR strategy our club should have. Offering exclusives, access and help is a very powerful tool, all media organisations are understaffed and under pressure to fill airways and columns.

[RANGERRAB 3,292]

I'm uncomfortable about banning journalists. Apart from anything else I genuinely believe it's counter-productive although I also dislike any curtailing of reporting because we don't like what the person is saying.

If someone writes or says something that is simply wrong then sue them. Libel and slander are crimes in this country, the laws to deal with these things exist.

 

If the words aren't actually illegal, you/we simply don't agree with them then don't buy the paper, click on the website or listen to the programme. All of these media organisations, even the BBC, rely on readers and audience numbers. If these fall then changes happen. It continues to surprise me how many Rangers supporters continue to read or listen to Speirs. Just don't. Don't buy the Times and don't follow him on Twitter it's really not hard. As a columnist he's only employable if he's read.

 

McLaughlin of course works for the BBC where audience figures aren't as important. However don't think for two minutes that they're ignored, they aren't. Now again we have the choice of simply not listening to BBC Scotland or reading their website, however I understand why licence fee payers would find that unfair. Again though you can still use the BBC, simply ignoring their Scottish football coverage.

 

Ironically I do think BBC Scotland's coverage of Rangers and Scottish football has improved in the last 12 to 18 months. They do have some decent journalists and there's more balance to their output.

 

I'd love to know what our PR strategy is now and what part banning two journalists from our press box plays in it. It won't stop either writing what they want after all. It has clearly played well with the gallery, perhaps that was all it's about; getting some fans onside.

 

One other observation. A lot has been said about McLaughlin's article after the Hibs game and his reporting of arrests for 'sectarian' offences. Everything I've read though has been about criticising him for reporting this, I've yet to read anyone criticise the morons who got arrested. Now innocent until proved otherwise, I accept that, but if we're all being honest we know it still goes on, particularly among a section of the away support. Whether you agree with these stupid laws or not isn't relevant, until it disappears completely from our fanbase people like McLaughlin will be able to report it.

 

As unpalatable as it is building bridges with the media is the only sensible PR strategy our club should have. Offering exclusives, access and help is a very powerful tool, all media organisations are understaffed and under pressure to fill airways and columns.

 

Can you explain how the BBC 'rely on readers and audience numbers' when they get their guaranteed revenue via the outdated licence fee?

Removing pondlife mhedia from Ibrox who have a clear agenda against Rangers was long overdue.

Edited August 3, 2015 by RANGERRAB

[der Berliner 3,276]

My main point of bother with McLaughlin is that his bile ... or be kind and say half-info and half-truths - goes out to the world via the main BBC news outlets, who are trusted world-wide. All this new club and liquidated club rubbish alongside some semi-fabricated sectarian sing-song stuff. This may not end because of his ban, but perhaps some folk down in London have at last noted that something IS awry up here.

[JohnMc 2,483]

Can you explain how the BBC 'rely on readers and audience numbers' when they get their guaranteed revenue via the outdated licence fee?

Removing pondlife mhedia from Ibrox who have a clear agenda against Rangers was long overdue.

 

Well simply because programmes on the BBC stand or fall on their popularity with viewers/listeners. Audience figures are measured and used to judge whether a programme is a success or not and whether it will be commissioned again. Falling audience numbers will either lead to a programme not being re-commissioned or being revamped. Programmes such as news, current affairs and sport are more likely to be revamped and changed if audience numbers drop.

Also the BBC’s Royal Commission is currently being reviewed as it is due for renewal in 2016, as such everything it does must be justified either as providing a public service or providing entertainment or education.

[Thinker 886]

I'm uncomfortable about banning journalists. Apart from anything else I genuinely believe it's counter-productive although I also dislike any curtailing of reporting because we don't like what the person is saying.

If someone writes or says something that is simply wrong then sue them. Libel and slander are crimes in this country, the laws to deal with these things exist.

 

If the words aren't actually illegal, you/we simply don't agree with them then don't buy the paper, click on the website or listen to the programme. All of these media organisations, even the BBC, rely on readers and audience numbers. If these fall then changes happen. It continues to surprise me how many Rangers supporters continue to read or listen to Speirs. Just don't. Don't buy the Times and don't follow him on Twitter it's really not hard. As a columnist he's only employable if he's read.

 

McLaughlin of course works for the BBC where audience figures aren't as important. However don't think for two minutes that they're ignored, they aren't. Now again we have the choice of simply not listening to BBC Scotland or reading their website, however I understand why licence fee payers would find that unfair. Again though you can still use the BBC, simply ignoring their Scottish football coverage.

 

Ironically I do think BBC Scotland's coverage of Rangers and Scottish football has improved in the last 12 to 18 months. They do have some decent journalists and there's more balance to their output.

 

I'd love to know what our PR strategy is now and what part banning two journalists from our press box plays in it. It won't stop either writing what they want after all. It has clearly played well with the gallery, perhaps that was all it's about; getting some fans onside.

 

One other observation. A lot has been said about McLaughlin's article after the Hibs game and his reporting of arrests for 'sectarian' offences. Everything I've read though has been about criticising him for reporting this, I've yet to read anyone criticise the morons who got arrested. Now innocent until proved otherwise, I accept that, but if we're all being honest we know it still goes on, particularly among a section of the away support. Whether you agree with these stupid laws or not isn't relevant, until it disappears completely from our fanbase people like McLaughlin will be able to report it.

 

As unpalatable as it is building bridges with the media is the only sensible PR strategy our club should have. Offering exclusives, access and help is a very powerful tool, all media organisations are understaffed and under pressure to fill airways and columns.

 

I think most people would agree with a lot of what you're saying, but there is a bit more to it.

 

What's being published about is us is not illegal - no slander or libel laws have been broken as far as I can see. But there is no doubt in my mind that there is a bias to their reporting - and surely it's reasonable to expect the BBC to treat all its mandatory customers even-handedly? Reports on incidents involving certain other clubs are nicely air-brushed; played down or hidden away. Reports on anything negative surrounding us however get a "warts and all" approach. To me, the story after the Hibs game just smacks of McLaughlin scrabbling for something bad to write about us to take the shine off a really good result. Am I being paranoid for thinking that?

 

Assuming it's not just me, how can you build a bridge with an organistaion like that? There's no cosying up to them and sadly, writing anti-rangers articles seems to be a sound strategy for any unscrupulous journalist to adopt. Whatever you lose in Rangers fans, you more than gain back in OCD haters.

 

I don't think the ban will stop the bias, but at least it lets the world know that we see these reporters as being biased.

[Scott7 5,225]

No journo has been banned. The two smart alecs just have to pay to get in and pay for their pie and a cup of tea at half time. Withdrawal of privilege is not a ban on reporting.

[Frankie 8,179]

Well simply because programmes on the BBC stand or fall on their popularity with viewers/listeners. Audience figures are measured and used to judge whether a programme is a success or not and whether it will be commissioned again. Falling audience numbers will either lead to a programme not being re-commissioned or being revamped. Programmes such as news, current affairs and sport are more likely to be revamped and changed if audience numbers drop.

Also the BBC’s Royal Commission is currently being reviewed as it is due for renewal in 2016, as such everything it does must be justified either as providing a public service or providing entertainment or education.

 

Not to mention such figures may determine how much the BBC can make in commission/broadcasting rights from selling shows abroad.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I agree with the Thinker, you can't build bridges with people or organisations that clearly don't want to be fair or impartial in their reporting. Same goes with bridge building with other clubs, when those other clubs just want to disrespect our club.