Unofficial Websites - Pressure on the Press?

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

Great OP Frankie, and sums up the current situation perfectly.

 

I think we can all work out that Murray's attack on forums is directly focused on MD and the personal abuse on FF directed towards himself and his puppet, sorry Chief Executive.

 

If he loses the argument, this time about how the club will have to sell players in January to balance the books, he changes the focus onto something that will grab the media attention, this time the forums.

 

It is just the same old, tired, lazy responses from a busted flush of a Chairman who wants out, but on his own terms.

[Super_Ally 0]

Sorry Tannoch, but "MD"?

[biggordy 0]

I used to work on the Stranraer/Belfast Ferry.

99% of Rangers and Celtic fans were great fun and full of banter ( and drink !!! )

During one November crossing, about half a dozen supporters demanded that the stewards take urgent action because there were people, families, wearing Poppies on board. It took an apology from the Skipper before they calmed down all due to the fact that they felt offended by such " sectarian regalia ". Some folks are easily offended especially when they have an agenda.

 

A small percentage of people will always find offence where none is intended but it would not surprise me in the least if the Press were to set such things up.

The phrase " never let the truth get in the way of a good story " springs to mind.

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

Sorry Tannoch, but "MD"?

 

IMO Murray is continuing his discrediting of Mark Dingwall, the owner of FF and his mates. This has been most prominent since the summer changes in the RST.

 

The fact that he does not come out and name FF is not required to work it out for yourself, but has the effect whereby Frankie and other forum owners feel the need to defend themselves when I am sure they were not the target in the first place.

 

But as I said in my earlier post, it was merely tactics to change the subject from his own poor stewardship and it has worked again, as usual.

[Super_Ally 0]

Ah the infamous Mr Dingwall.

 

Don't know if I have this all wrong, (feel free to delete admin) but thought that MD had a meeting with Murray after which FF became highly censored with regards to talking about Murray to the point that I and I assume many other have no idea what occurred and MD was slated by a few for "sucking up to Murray".

 

Also thought he was largely to blame for the demise of the RST that could have continued with it's enormous successes and maybe got a fan on the board if MD had not tried to engineer it so it was he that got the board position.

 

As I say apologies if any of this is anyway accurate, but with the censorship of FF and talking about Murray/RST it was extemely difficult to find out what occurred.

[maineflyer 0]

IMO Murray is continuing his discrediting of Mark Dingwall, the owner of FF and his mates. This has been most prominent since the summer changes in the RST.

 

The fact that he does not come out and name FF is not required to work it out for yourself, but has the effect whereby Frankie and other forum owners feel the need to defend themselves when I am sure they were not the target in the first place.

 

But as I said in my earlier post, it was merely tactics to change the subject from his own poor stewardship and it has worked again, as usual.

 

You are hitting part of the head of the nail here. However, while I cannot see the whole picture, the relationship between MD and Murray is more complex and intertwined than first meets the eye.

 

I hope debate will be allowed on this subject since MD is not just the owner of another Rangers forum, which might introduce some sensitivity, but has also been one of the central characters in the RST and in an ongoing, semi-clandestine dialogue with Murray over the last few years. Any involvement of Murray in that website is also hugely relevant to every other Rangers forum on the web.

 

The ebb and flo of that particular relationship is intriguing and seems to show that both parties continue to depend on each other to a lopsided extent, while simutaneously despising that very dependency. Murray has has certainly attempted to influence the running of FF with a combination of sticks and carrots and has succeed in the large part, with continual censorship purges on selected topics and some areas of debate relentlessly denied and removed on the basis of subject rather than content. That this often followed "meetings" is no coincidence. However, such self-censorship, however manipulated, must involve at least some compliance and underlying aspiration - and I've never believed that the relationship was entirely confrontational. Exactly what it is remains well hidden and it's not immediately obvious to me exactly who spins what.

 

Personally, I haven't visited that particular website for a very long time and have little interest in how it chooses to run its affairs. But the provision of facilities for the free expression of opinion on Rangers matters is important to me, as is any attempt by the club to coerce or intimidate that opinion, whether here or elsewhere. Murray clearly seeks to control and influence but well-moderated forums such as this probably offer much less purchase than others and it is hard to see how he can actually succeed. I have seen a quiet but profound shift in the wider attitude towards the chairman during the last year or so, with opinion hardening, not on his historic contribution but more importantly on the prospective value of his methods and his ability to move the club forward. Partly this is due to the further passage of time and the fact that people have sufficient memory to recognise the repetitious failures, and partly it is because the open exchange of opinion on forums like this allows knowledge to grow and propaganda to be weakened.

 

I think Murray now increasingly sees the lack of space around him and it must be a concern. Fewer fans than ever are willing to be spun and deflected, and there may soon come a time when the attitutes of even more moderate supporters will harden dramatically towards Murray. The AGM outburst and the ridiculous compromising of Walter Smith that followed show me that Murray realises this.

Edited November 6, 2008 by maineflyer

[bmck 117]

just read this just now. even without the petty agendas evident in so much of what's written, old media in general must be quite nervous about simply being cut out of the equation altogether. why woudl i listen to some petty journalist abstract the soul right out of the game i love with big words and tepidity (if that's a word) when i can read some eloquent person's opinion who loves the team and the game as much as me? it's an easy choice, and one more people will continue to make.

 

the papers, even if its unconsciously, will give extra foregrounding of anything that likewise suits their agenda. if someone says something bad about the internet they're going to make sure their readers get to hear it, to create brand loyalty.

 

but the thing i think's strongest about the article is that, maintaining a sense of decorum, you don't just blindly rant at the papers. the only way to get your opinion heard is to treat them as partners, rather than antagonising the weakness they're beginning to show.

 

great read frankie.

[Bluedell 5,599]

I have seen a quiet but profound shift in the wider attitude towards the chairman during the last year or so, with opinion hardening, not on his historic contribution but more importantly on the prospective value of his methods and his ability to move the club forward. Partly this is due to the further passage of time and the fact that people have sufficient memory to recognise the repetitious failures, and partly it is because the open exchange of opinion on forums like this allows knowledge to grow and propaganda to be weakened.

Got to say that I haven't seen this. The people that always had issues still have them and people who only care about the result on a Saturday were concerned about the defeat by Kaunus, but are now back to where they were following a good league run.

 

The biggest problem is that forums like this are read by such a small percentage of our support.

[maineflyer 0]

Got to say that I haven't seen this. The people that always had issues still have them and people who only care about the result on a Saturday were concerned about the defeat by Kaunus, but are now back to where they were following a good league run.

 

The biggest problem is that forums like this are read by such a small percentage of our support.

 

The number of fans taking part in forums like this is tiny. However, it is not unusual to see these sites act as a catalyst for ideas that find themselves spread and debated amongst a much wider audience. I suppose the extent to which you notice a difference in opinions over time may be a function of the social circles you move in but I remain convinced there has been an erosion of the sense of infallibility that our chairman used to command amongst so much of the Rangers support. There will always be an unquestioning rump but it has definitley diminished over the last couple of years in particular, a trend that is hardly likely to be reversed.

[Bluedell 5,599]

The number of fans taking part in forums like this is tiny. However, it is not unusual to see these sites act as a catalyst for ideas that find themselves spread and debated amongst a much wider audience. I suppose the extent to which you notice a difference in opinions over time may be a function of the social circles you move in but I remain convinced there has been an erosion of the sense of infallibility that our chairman used to command amongst so much of the Rangers support. There will always be an unquestioning rump but it has definitley diminished over the last couple of years in particular, a trend that is hardly likely to be reversed.

I'd agree with your comment in bold, and it could be the reason for the difference in our observations. Hopefully you're correct, as the questioning of the Chairman can only be a good thing.