Jump to content

 

 

Unofficial Websites - Pressure on the Press?


Recommended Posts

http://www.gersnetonline.net/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693&Itemid=2

 

As our forum regulars will know, I had this article planned last week anyway due to the recent comments from a range of people about the effect of unofficial websites based around football. Fortunately, BBC Radio Scotland also had a debate on this last night, so the topic gains even more relevance.

 

Essentially, of late we’ve had people from Sir David Murray, to Walter Smith, to the likes of Richard Gordon and even that fearless objective crusader at ‘The Times’, Graham Spiers highlighting the role of unofficial sites in the current climate of the obsession with ‘bile’, sectarianism and discrimination in Scottish football. All these people suggest these sites (which I can only assume include this one as they don’t have the courage to name names) are cauldrons of hate – cooking up an intensity of spite and intolerance via misinformation and unchallenged anonymity.

 

Now, I think it is important to acknowledge that some sites do have an element of that. Some forum posters or blog writers may not share the eloquence of the ‘genuine’ Fourth Estate and it’s easy to find non-constructive contributions on most sites. However, I think it’s important to retain objectivity when viewing the overall picture.

 

Firstly, I completely reject any accusation towards Gersnet of sectarianism, bile or anonymity. We write here honestly, openly and always from a (reasonably) balanced view point. We certainly do not allow social intolerance or lies about individuals and we can be contacted easily and effectively via the site. Indeed, Rangers FC are fully aware of who runs this small fansite.

 

To move immediately on, it’s important to discuss why the people/organisations above are now intent on reducing the credibility of such places - even if I don’t think this site is the target of any criticism.

 

1. Money

 

Quite simply, as the stats from independent news-wire sites such as NewsNow will show, unofficial websites cost clubs and the media money. Why would supporters visit their bland ‘official’ websites or buy their offline products when they can access the same information for free? This site often out-performs the orthodox media/news sites and as such we are taking their customers away. We provide genuine competition and they don’t like this.

 

2. Access to Debate

 

Football fans of every club have for years complained that their club doesn’t gain the attention it deserves in the media or that that attention is flawed: e.g.; non-Old Firm supporters complain of West Coast bias, Old Firm supporters complain about imbalance. As such, it’s obvious to anyone that when we can set up our own sites of debate, people will gravitate to these. Perhaps if the clubs and the media groups offered similar official forums (online and offline) for discussion, the need for unofficial ones wouldn’t be so great?

 

3. Quality of Debate

 

Spelling mistakes and grammar errors notwithstanding, unofficial sites also compete in debate quality terms. It’s extremely arrogant and unfair of our critics to suggest that isn’t the case. Football phone-ins and most media platforms are hardly the epitome of accuracy and neither do they attempt to reduce hyperbole of any given subject – particularly sectarianism. In fact they add to it and the contributors do not take responsibility for their actions either. As such it’s rather hypocritical of them to complain about our contribution.

 

4. Hypocrisy

 

It’s interesting to hear these figures complain of such sites so also imperative to note their double-standards. For example, they criticise us publicly but in the background they contact us to publish their latest RSS widget, offer competitions/adverts or even send staff to post on our forums. Most importantly, they suffer from the same alleged problems they accuse us of – inaccuracy, lack of balance, poor quality writing and ill-informed sensationalism. They just don’t like us pointing this out.

 

 

In conclusion, it’s obvious the competition aspect is what the media (in particular) fear from places like this site. They know our contribution is as good (if not better) than anything they have to offer and they feel the pressure from that. This pressure manifests itself in their flawed attempts at discrediting us where in actual fact, they should accept our competition, and use their unrivalled resources to outflank us.

 

Thus, instead of complaining about such places; rise to the challenge and improve your own services. Revamp club websites. Provide genuine supporters representation. Take our complaints seriously. Report accurately on subjects. Be balanced in your coverage. Offer supporters access to proper informed media debate. Provide value for money. Work with the supporters – not against them.

 

Maybe, just maybe, if you stopped passing the buck, Scottish football supporting wouldn’t be as bad an aspect of the game you paint it out to be. Unfortunately, as it stands, the complainers above are not offering solutions but simply pointing the finger of blame. This always seems to be the case so it any wonder division arises?

 

Perhaps if you take responsibility for your own actions then supporters may just stop questioning your own credibility - which is why ‘unofficial’ websites exist in the first place.

Edited by Frankie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Bonkle Bear

Great piece Frankie. Lot of nutters on websites who take away from the sensible and constructive debate that is often on offer from football sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers B_B....

 

I think it's important to note that forums only reflect society as a whole. It's impossible to suggest that when you have thousands of members on any site, a minority of contributors won't be there to cause trouble or have strong contrary opinions.

 

Fortunately, most times these people are challenged and the good-willed majority ensure such viewpoints are not reflective of the place generally.

 

In the same way, it's up to the people who take issue with the forums to challenge them in the same way if they think their opinion is wrong. That doesn't happen so any criticism is then unfair and unqualified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Bonkle Bear
Cheers B_B....

 

I think it's important to note that forums only reflect society as a whole. It's impossible to suggest that when you have thousands of members on any site, a minority of contributors won't be there to cause trouble or have strong contrary opinions.

 

Fortunately, most times these people are challenged and the good-willed majority ensure such viewpoints are not reflective of the place generally.

 

In the same way, it's up to the people who take issue with the forums to challenge them in the same way if they think their opinion is wrong. That doesn't happen so any criticism is then unfair and unqualified.

 

When SDM came out at the AGM and started accusing messageboards of being responsible for encouraging 'sectarianism' I truely believe that he knew this not to be true in the main. In truth I think SDM is well aware that messageboards have been the most voiciferous in criticism of him and the Rangers management and he would like nothing more than to see the back of them. Using the term 'sectarian' was his attempt at getting the current media spotlight to focus more on the minority of posters who could be found guilty of this on messageboards and in turn, have pressure exerted on them to be shut down. It could be said it would be in Murray's best interests to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, you can never shut down all forums as the constitution doesn't allow it. We are free to converse and express our thoughts through any medium we choose - as long as it does not break a specific law, for instance incitement to violence etc.

 

Criticism of Murray will never be illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, it's just another piece of nonsense, why even make these kind of statements ?,I mean I find reading posts on here have much more truth,honesty and challenging open discussions on every subject and is debated well, maybe that's what's wrong as Frankie says,on forums you get to express and debate and that must be a worry for the media, they can't control people on these forums from speaking the truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cracking read Frankie. . .

 

Cant argue with any of it. I also feel the celebrity in football is having an adverse affect. The fact that nowadays, Pundits, presenters, agents and chairman and others of that ilk can become celebrity for their association with football clubs is contributing to the overall detriment of our game. The worst culprits are perhaps journalists though, who are continually ruining our game so they can further their career. Guys like Andy Walker, who argued against everyone and anyone when he started as a radio pundit are going to attract listeners and viewers and cause controversy. The fact that the moronic minorities of clubs supporters can phone in to radio stations and voice their opinions isnt helping football. We'll soon be sitting in our seats on a Saturday unable to sing anything about the team we love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.