Bbc sport scotland

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I'm happy with the BBC ban and hope it continues indefinitely. The BBC Scotland will continue with their lies and anti-Rangers propaganda for the foreseeable future, least now they are not doing it within or via the hospitality and comfort of Ibrox and Auchenhowie.

[Zappa 0]

*You'd hope that the Easdales act as the Bluenoses they supposedly are.

 

You'd have to be a special kind of Bluenose to do your first TV interview on a bus with the scrote after buying some shares in the Club.

[54andcounting 0]

You'd have to be a special kind of Bluenose to do your first TV interview on a bus with the scrote after buying some shares in the Club.

 

Lesson learned from that 'error'.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

As for banning them ... It does give the BBC bad publicity though.

 

No it doesn't, it gives US bad publicity.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

BBC Scotland is over-populated with individuals who have an agenda against us. Full co-operation with them can only be resumed once that situation changes

 

So censor the BBC?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'm happy with the BBC ban and hope it continues indefinitely. The BBC Scotland will continue with their lies and anti-Rangers propaganda for the foreseeable future, least now they are not doing it within or via the hospitality and comfort of Ibrox and Auchenhowie.

 

Banning the BBC or indeed any journalist is self-defeating. It just makes us look small and narrow minded.

 

If they write or broadcast stuff that is factualy inaccurate or obviously biased or unbalanced then there are ways to complain as has been said (the more detailed the better), which means that they have to spend time replying to the complaint, which IS a waste of time and money, too much of that and their bosses in London WILL soon sit up and take notice.

[der Berliner 4,042]

No it doesn't, it gives US bad publicity.

 

Can't follow that line of thought. It is them doing their job not properly. It is them who are not controlled by an impartial authority. Who but not those being harmed and able to act can actually curb their employees antics?

 

What is important here, and we live in the 21st century, we need to make clear to all why the BBC is banned. The material is out their.

[Darthter 542]

Can't follow that line of thought. It is them doing their job not properly. .

 

it's also "them" that are providing an account of things that is distributed to thousands of unsuspecting readers on a daily basis. It's not difficult to paint one party in VERY bad light while still sticking to the basic facts of a story.

 

If the club were to ban the BBC completely, and the BBC then do a number of follow up reports stating that they have been victimised by a club who has a history of banning media sources who don't just publish what the club wants etc.....how does the club combat that (providing the reports sticks to facts). The only real outlet is via the club website....which is only read by fans, and therefore the thousands of folk who read the paper or watched a news report are only hearing one side of the story & take it as fact.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Banning the BBC or indeed any journalist is self-defeating. It just makes us look small and narrow minded.

 

If they write or broadcast stuff that is factualy inaccurate or obviously biased or unbalanced then there are ways to complain as has been said (the more detailed the better), which means that they have to spend time replying to the complaint, which IS a waste of time and money, too much of that and their bosses in London WILL soon sit up and take notice.

 

What is self-defeating is the club forever maintaining the dignified silence, many many Bears write and complain. The BBC was censured for a breach of their own reporting rules a few months ago, but still they keep misrepresenting our club. Our club can continue to do nothing or start to take them on, banning them hopefully is the first part of a prolonged campaign from the club of dealing with their anti-Rangers propaganda.

 

Doing nothing is not an option, if there is just one journalist left with any professional integrity at Pacific Quay, then this ban should at least embarrass their professionalism. Whoever he or she may be might start to ask questions why our club feel the need to take this action.

[calscot 0]

I don't think we can ban all and sundry but we do have to make a point when the reporting seems consistently mendacious.

 

The BBC are also a special case in that they are not properly regulated and the fans have no practical way of avoiding paying for their services - actually that is a sore point, the BBC is supposed to be a service to its licence payers and a the large Rangers support are not only being denied an impartial and fair reporting service for their club, but they are also being frequently unfairly demeaned by that same service.

 

If nothing else, statements and a ban will draw attention to the higher echelons of what is actually a British corporation and eventually they will have to take notice. Even at it's basest effect, the guy in charge at Pacific Quay will have to continually explain the situation to many people which surely make him squirm after a while.

 

For me, tabloids (and unfortunately all newspapers are tabloids now in size and nature) have an agenda that attracts their targeted readership and we can buy or not buy them if it doesn't match ours. The BBC are supposed to be an impartial institution that serves all and I'm disgusted at their level of reporting over the last several years. They are making themselves moribund and losing their rasion d'etre.

 

If they can't do what they are supposed to do then it's time to abolish the licence fee. I'd prefer them to get their house in order as a proper BBC could be a great oasis in a sewer of journalistic excrement that today's media represents.