Unofficial Websites - Pressure on the Press?

[jbrfc 0]

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 November 9, 2008 by jonc127
No need for the reply without erasons behind it...

[JMS 0]

Not that I agree with everthing said by frankie but totally disrespectful to his post to say what you have, please expand on your thoughts.

Either that or fukk off.