Radio Waves

[andy steel 0]

 

I have a radio, which sits on the kitchen window sill. I prefer to call it a wireless, purely because I prefer the sound of the word, but I think probably everybody under 70 call them radios. It usually get switched on when I'm making a cup of coffee or doing the dishes, a chore which has become less frequent after the purchase of a dishwasher a while back. Apparently dishwashers are actually more efficient and environmentally friendly than filling a sink, squeezing in a dollop of Fairy and leaving the bowls to drip on the draining board. Who knew?

 

The draining board, like the term 'wireless', is probably on the way out. I'm all for technology, but it's a bit unsettling to see even the unremarkable kitchen ikons of childhood disappear one by one: the twin tub went years ago, and although my Granny had one well into the 80's, I feel I must resign myself to the fact that the 80's were, in fact, ages ago; the 'big jar' of salt is gone from most pantry shelves, as are the pantries themselves, crushed beneath the remorseless march of Swedish flatpack; and freezers have gone from the wee compartment at the top of the fridge - itself previously a modest, waist high machine - into great grey behemoths, propping up your now equally massive fridge. They loom above puny humans to such an extent that you can hardly reach up to that dusty bottle of toffee liqueur someone left on top of it at a New Year's party three years ago. It's like someone left the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey lying about the place, decided to fill it full of yoghurt, milk and beer and plug it in.

 

Everything changes, and he who tries to resist the tide of change risks looking foolish indeed. Rowing against the current - and currents only become so when the bulk of the population provide their motive force - tends to rely on articles of faith which the individual is unwilling to abandon. As time goes by, the person who resists is left higher and higher up the beach as the tide washes away from him, whether he be a Dixie lovin' Confederate in America's deep south, a Voortrekking Boer in the high veldt, or a portly Scotsman clinging to the expression wireless when he means radio.

 

Some things are worth lamenting when they pass. Others, less so. At any rate, this thought occurred as the unwelcome but still familiar tones of Jim Spence once more entered my kitchen on Off the Ball. Apparently laid off by BBC Scotland a while back, it would take a special kind of person, one who sneers at von Masoch as a diletantte lightweight, to take pleasure in another person's employment misfortune but I will admit to not being especially upset that Jim has moved on to pastures new. Seemingly he is carving a career as a freelance so I wish him good luck, something he was unable to offer my club when it was being butchered by all and sundry.

 

I confess to only hearing the last 15 minutes or so of the show he was on, so he may have revealed some earth shattering news earlier on. But in the portion I heard, a sad voiced Jim lamented the change which has overtaken journalism of late, specifically the abilities of clubs to release news via social media and so cut out the media middleman, to wit, Jim. This is an interesting philosophical question, and comes in a week which sees Rangers play Sat-Mon, and so sees Rangers online types desperate for something to write about, so I seize upon it gratefully.

 

First, is obtaining news tidbits from a club's media liaison wallah really journalism? Certainly Jim made a career out of it, and so did the likes of Chick Young in Glasgow, Frank Gilfeather in Aberdeen, and an older chap in Dundee back in the 80's, Dick Donald. It's a living, but journalism? Really? I was given David Walsh's book The Program at Christmas, the tale of how Walsh pursued Lance Armstrong down the years until finally he was vindicated and Armstrong exposed. He also relates how he went after Irish swimmer Michelle Smith, all the braver since (a) she was a national heroine and (b) Walsh, too, is Irish, and so was exposed to much vitriol. Proper journalism, an unshakable belief allied to a lovely touch with words.

 

Can you imagine Chick or Jim hunting down a story like that over almost a decade, and presenting it to an astonished world? Me neither. Can you imagine them finding Ronny Delia or Steven Thomson to ask them powder puff questions? Me too. If there's any regret that Jim is off air it's that I would love to hear how he would have justified Thomson's one man wrecking ball of a chairmanship at Tannadice. Always one to jeer at succulent lamb journalism, Jim never seemed to notice that he was being fed succulent bridie by Thomson. Fair enough if that's how you roll, but don't dignify it by calling it journalism. What we have in Scotland is people who leech off football clubs and fans and make a very comfortable living doing so.

 

A minor point of interest was that, while Jim felt his career downshift was more to do with this change in journalism, it might also have been connected to 'a coterie of Rangers fans on Twitter' who, as we'll recall, felt Jim was slightly less than objective in his reporting. Whether this be so or no, I was intrigued at Jim's claim that whenever he met Rangers fans in person, they were unfailing pleasant toward him. This is a line regularly used by media types, which relegates the abusive tweeter to a gutless coward, unable to back up their online anger in person when confronted with the corporeal presence of the writer. It may well be true. But in this case, it's odd.

 

My rapidly failing memory seems to recall Jim, at the height of his role as Persecuted Speaker of Truth, claiming he was accosted by an uncouth Rangers fan while out walking with his family.

 

If that happened, it was yet another episode in the 'Things fellow Bears have done which really embarrass me and geez, I wish they wouldn't' file. But if Rangers fans were always fine with him in person, it seems strange. I could handle people being mean to me - it happens often enough. I'd find it a lot harder to forget someone being so to my family, though. That's not the sort of thing I'd brush off, no matter how magnanimous a chap I am. It was a curious, minor aside at the end of a radio show but one which sticks in the mind as atypical of Jim - just unreliable. Our very own Clive James, always unreliable.

 

Which brings us to the rather more important question of Rangers and journalists.

 

Since we've apparently banned the awful Chris McLaughlin, again, and since the BBC have responded by flouncing off to The Ubiquitous Chip en masse, declaring they're never going to darken the door at Ibrox, again, we can consider what it is we gain or lose by this. Certainly, we gain by not having to accommodate people who plainly don't like Rangers, and don't feel any need to pretend otherwise. If you can't stand your neighbours, you don't usually ask them in for dinner. We gain by not having to listen to BBC Scotland types talking about our club, something (with a few exceptions) they've been unable to do in any rational manner for some time now.

 

But what do we lose?

 

Actually, nothing. Long ago, younger reader, when there was no mobile phones or internets your only way of knowing the score, other than to go to the game, was to listen in to whichever station had the rights to the game. That simply isn't the case any more. Various TV stations run a rolling scorecard. multiple websites do the same, even the SPFL website will keep you up to date with the action. All you're missing is filtering the game via the imagination of whoever is reporting on it for the BBC or whoever; call me jaundiced, but I can't think that's a great loss. Football has never attracted the Neville Cardus or the John Arlott standard of reporter-writer which cricket produces in abundance, and if now is no great shakes overall my lifetime has been no golden age - I grew up listening to Richard Park, for Heaven's Sake, a man whose late night music show was called Dr Dicks's Midnight Surgery. It's taken many years to come to terms with that. Thank you, Radio Clyde 261.

 

But there's an opportunity here, I think. Although you can and probably do get your match updates from sources other than the wireless, the lack of match coverage right now must surely inspire someone amongst the Rangers family to provide that service themselves. And not the club, the fans - if the team are playing like 11 Ian Blacks, it needs to be called out for it. Imagine an online feed with someone who can summarise, with a bit of panache, what's happened before throwing to, say, Brahim Hemdani to tell us why Zelalem is a passenger, Clark will never make it and Zinedine Zidane secretly wishes he could play like Nicky Law. Perhaps Rousseau could appear for tactical analysis, or Compo to tell us why it was better in the 60's. Even one of the alarmingly high proportion of posters here who hail from the east might have a go. This last might require voice recognition software for those of us who only speak English, though.

 

There's a chance here for someone to step forward and provide the service fans want without bias and baggage. It might need some fancy footwork regarding licences and equipment, but it's do-able. No-one wants coverage which bangs on about how brilliant we are - it would need to be able to kick hard if needed. But it's not beyond the wit of man to do. I'd love to wander into my kitchen one afternoon when I can't get to the game and tune in to Gersnet Radio.

 

We could be more like the guy in the paper - less moaning, more doing. Let's not leave it to the likes of BBC Scotland to decide when they can and can't be bothered covering our games. Let's not bleat and moan about others. Let's get off our backsides and do it ourselves.

Edited February 23, 2017 by andy steel

[pete 2,499]

I thought that myself when complaining about the podcast we are linked too. Why can't we do one ourselves. I got the answer myself. I have no idea how to do it and it would soak up a lot of Frankie's and the technical guy's. time. Great idea though.

[Frankie 8,182]

Haha - really enjoyed that; even if the ban hammer almost fell nearer the end of the piece...

 

In terms of a radio show, well it's a great idea but it can't happen as even if we did it online, we'd soon be shut down for not having a contract with Rangers and/or the SPFL to cover the games. It could be done via Twitter (ala ByTheMinSport) but I don't think that has the same affect.

 

I'm not sure if you could provide a slightly delayed version (say a few mins) online and I do think some sort of regular phone-in would work well. Rangers Chat do this but I don't think it's very well managed.

[26th of foot 5,856]

I had a two hour drive beginning before noon on Saturday, rescuing a family member from Carlisle. I passed the Lamington viaduct twice and could see for myself; just as well, as the Scottish Transport Minister, Derek McKay appears to have an aversion to imparting full information reference bridges. Anyways, Cosgrove and Cowan were on and announced Jum Spence was their guest, seeking greater employment. Amazing, in his last six months at Pacific Quay, Jum refused to cross the Tay bridge, Apparently, Jum was in a state of high alarm and confined his reports to the Dens/Tannadice/Station park triangle.

 

The first ten minutes confirmed Jum's vicTIMhood, Cosgrove informed the listenership that both the Sons of Struth and Rangersmedia lined up either side of Jum, to fire at him. We were not informed as to what was being fired. Finding himself swimming in soothing, comfortable waters, Jum warmed his intent and offered, "Stuart, you know me? I am leftist in my politics, a nationalist with broad shoulders, a libertarian. Offensive chanting doesn't bother me, water off a ducks back". Now, I am lifting from BBC Scotland's own amplification of an incident in Jum's own village. Jum was out of an evening with his wife when a teenage Rangers supporter(evidence) began shouting at Jum from across the road. Jum was interviewed by a news colleague and told of his state of heightened alarm. He reported the incident to the Police.

 

I don't know if the investigation has arrived at a conclusion? Maybe the next time Stuart is lunching with the Lord Advocate, he can enquire on the listenerships' behalf, in between mouthfuls of succulent lamb of course. Again, given Jum's statement reference libertarianism and broad shoulders, he appears to have pushed the national socialist button in tolerance of a teenage Bear standing across the road. Finally, Jum was continually anxious to flash his job seeking credentials and his answer to the question theme of the show, 'what wouldn't you do'? Petty and ill-informed is Off the Ball's strapline, it should be changed to scripted and rehearsed, "I couldn't continue to support United if they went into administration. I take the Fergus McCann line on humiliation, it would be too much, I would be off to watch Lochee Harp".

 

This, a few months after Cosgrove told us he has two long term mates who are Rangers supporters, and were season ticket holders for in excess of twenty years. However, they have not seen Rangers these last five years because they recognise that they are NOT the same club. Tune in next Saturday for further Pacific Quay fantasies.

[andy steel 0]

I didn't realise the show was now political, I haven't really heard it properly for a long time. Although, Andy Cameron's story about the turnip making your eyes water was hilarious. Fwiw from a Nat pov linking football to politics drives me nuts, as its almost always people who assume being a Nat automatically equals not supporting Rangers, like Jim, Stuart and guys like that Wings twit.

 

But there's only so much use in flogging a dead horse - the guy's gone, and he'll get on with the rest of his life without Bears having to listen. I only used Jim as an example that should we lose the attentions of the media, we're not losing much & anyway if we're that annoyed, we should do something about it ourselves.

[andy steel 0]

Haha - really enjoyed that; even if the ban hammer almost fell nearer the end of the piece...

 

In terms of a radio show, well it's a great idea but it can't happen as even if we did it online, we'd soon be shut down for not having a contract with Rangers and/or the SPFL to cover the games. It could be done via Twitter (ala ByTheMinSport) but I don't think that has the same affect.

 

I'm not sure if you could provide a slightly delayed version (say a few mins) online and I do think some sort of regular phone-in would work well. Rangers Chat do this but I don't think it's very well managed.

 

This is the problem, agreed.

 

But while we twist Rab's arm to let us go live, we could be uploading 30 second videos to youtube or the like; we could be providing, as you say, a twitter feed; even an enhanced version of the match day threads which I at least use as much to keep up with games as I do the radio. We can make a start and get the idea out there before having to get a license (by 'we' I mean Bears, not necessarily Gersnet).

[Frankie 8,182]

I'd be very happy to let someone run with a live text commentary of the game. It's not something I can do myself as I'm usually at them (or watching on TV) but for those that are capable of doing two things at once, feel free to press ahead...

[Frankie 8,182]

[tweet]690087479404335104[/tweet]

[der Berliner 3,282]

I'd be very happy to let someone run with a live text commentary of the game. It's not something I can do myself as I'm usually at them (or watching on TV) but for those that are capable of doing two things at once, feel free to press ahead...

 

Not wanting to interfere with this attempt, but you do get a life-text from both the BBC (no matter what they mumble about not sending people -> http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/35270722 ) and the Rangers twitter feed.

 

NB: You can whip up a twitter account at any PC (or smartphone), whether you actually use twitter or not. Then you can "follow" e.g. the club's feed https://twitter.com/RangersFC and the Rangers Ladies feed https://twitter.com/RFC_Ladies or get the latest words of MW https://twitter.com/MarkWarburton9 for naught.

Edited January 21, 2016 by der Berliner

[Rousseau 9,484]

I have always questioned the label 'journalist' when it comes to our own press (sport). What these guys produce just doesn't align with my conception of Journalism. It seems to me they are merely commentators, writing their regular opinion piece that just happens to contain a item of news: in short, they're columnists.

 

For what it's worth, every reporter (in the broadest sense of the word) is biased; no matter how objective one tries to be, prejudice will rear it's head. I think our problem is that we obviously don't agree with their anti-Rangers perspective, inevitably so. I don't think hiring/encouraging a pro-Rangers reporter will overcome the deficiencies of the anti-Rangers cabal -- despite us probably agreeing with it/them. It's still the same medium.

 

It's hardly necessary to provide a pro-Rangers feed, for there is already a Rangers twitter feed. Moreover, other game reporters -- in terms of reporting incident by incident: "Zelalem scores a 25-yard free-kick" etc. -- are hardly biased one way of the other: it's basic reporting of a game incident. It's when they start 'judging' on the off-field problems that their bias becomes hard to stomach.

 

I think what we need is a better standard of writer. We need to demand journalists that'll state, as eloquently and as objectively as possible, what happened. Leave the opinion-pieces to the columnists. That is what they are there for, to provide their opinion. If you don't agree with it, don't read it. Cricket writers are a better breed, I think, simply because they don't descend into opinion; they merely report what happened in a supremely eloquent manner. 'Journalist' seems to be a catch-all term. There needs to be greater demarcation between roles: columnists shouldn't be the only 'reporter'.

 

(Good read BTW. I got a mention!)