BBC Scotland have another cowardly dig

[Super_Ally 0]

I think that is very fair critique SA. I would see such engagement as a Home Guard rearguard action akin to holding the fort until the big guns arrive.

 

The big guns I refer to are the Club themselves entering the fray and forcing the necessary change and attitude with what I believe is very much an institution of Rangers bashing.

 

Is there really anything else we can do till that time' date=' if ever arrives ?[/quote']

 

Good point. Are we ever likely to get the club doing what they should though? Murray didn't, whyte didn't. Green sort of did but ad bigger issues elsewhere when he was in charge.the Easdales don't. Would King/McColl?

[MikeN63 0]

it has to come down to the right people, with the right credentials being in charge of the Club. I don't see the Easdales as being malicious in their running of Rangers, inexperienced and unknowledgeable, yes. It is down to experience and McColl has that, his CV strap line is 'company doctor', but on an impressive scale.

 

a turn around expert, sounds exactly the kind of capable hands we need. not really bothered if he doesn't invest his own cash, in the first couple of years, but as a man with his depth of business acumen, the best offer we've had so far. Him and King on the board, has the potential to be a dream ticket. A big aspect of their credibility for me is that they're both proven Rangers fans, unlike what we've been presented with before.

 

That is key to me in the trust stakes and I think that word has materialised a lot in conversations and threads recently, again, based on the charlatans who have duped many of us in the past.

[amms 0]

To be honest I think amms, D'art andy steel etc (sorry to throw you all into one group but you seem to have a similar view on how we should address this) are the equivalent of the US going in and fighting according to the rules of war when they get into e.g. Vietnam and its all jungle fighting or Iraq with suicide bombers and hiding amongst the civilians.

 

You're trying to fight a clean war against the dirtiest, most cowardly and untrustworthy people out there. Keep going that way and you have no chance of victory (where victory us an even handed approach in the press).

 

I'm not sure about your analogies there SA, both Vietnam and Iraq were utter follies undertaken for idealistic and commercial reasons, they weren't about righting wrongs or fairness. This is.

 

We might not be able to temper the behaviour of certain individuals but we can influence the whole discourse. We're not just now, our refusal to take part in means our voice is simply not heard at all. As the biggest and most important club in the country it's important we are represented and our voice is heard. An example of that was Chris Graham's appearances on STV, he was able to articulate how many Rangers supporters were feeling and denounce Speirs nonsense there and then.

We're currently unable to do that on the BBC. I accept that the BBC have a way to go before they'll embrace balance like STV do but they aren't immune from criticism. It isn't for nothing that Kris Boyd is now a regular guest on BBC Scotland, whilst he's a Kilmarnock player again he's still very much seen a a Rangers man, likewise Derek Ferguson and Billy Dodds are regular contributors and both are readily identified with Rangers.

 

If sensible, articulate and informed voices from the Rangers support and club became available to the BBC then we could begin the process of changing opinions and setting agendas. When our reaction to slander is to ban them then we only harm ourselves. The right of reply is what we should demand. Spence wouldn't stand a chance against some of our 'people'.

Always remember the BBC belongs to us as much as anyone, it's almost our duty to become involved with it.

 

PS I think you can expect a lawers letter from D'Art tomorrow for 'grouping' him with Andy and me!!

[Super_Ally 0]

Before the ban we engaged with them and the situation was no better. Your post sounds great in theory but the evidence of recent history shows the exact opposite.

 

If Billy Dodds is being used as balance and a Rangers man then the BBC really are having a fucking laugh. If you didn't know he played for Rangers you'd never know from listening to him.

[D'Artagnan 173]

PS I think you can expect a lawers letter from D'Art tomorrow for 'grouping' him with Andy and me!!

 

We may have differing opinions on a number of subjects - but I never forget that we are on the same side.

 

PS The letter has been sent and served by personal courier today

[Zappa 0]

I think the BBC does a fabulous job nationally,

 

It does a great job with some things Andy, but not all and it also unfortunately does a fabulous job of heavily promoting a lot of lies and propaganda both nationally and worldwide.

[amms 0]

Before the ban we engaged with them and the situation was no better. Your post sounds great in theory but the evidence of recent history shows the exact opposite.

 

If Billy Dodds is being used as balance and a Rangers man then the BBC really are having a fucking laugh. If you didn't know he played for Rangers you'd never know from listening to him.

 

I disagree, our issues with the BBC were manageable prior to the club going into administration, from then on they rapidly went down hill. That of course coincided with the club being unable to defend itself properly. If we could sort our shit out at boardroom level we could begin defending ourselves again.

 

Dodds was fairy outspoken about EBTs and if they constituted cheating. He of course benefited from one.

Of the BBC Scotland football summarisers three have a clear Rangers connection; Dodds, Ferguson and Craig Paterson. I can only think of Murdo MacLoed and Willie Miller (both boyhood bluenoses of course...) as other regular ex-players contributing. The recent introduction of Kris Boyd and Michael Stewart to the midweek shows also suggests it isn't completely Tim-central everyday.

 

My issue on our tactics currently is that we can't win, we've no leverage here. Simply refusing to talk to the BBC doesn't stop them reporting on matches and events surrounding us, it simply means we don't get to put our side across. We can ban and complain all we like but it's not going to make a great deal of difference to them.

 

We forget that despite our lowly position we are still a force in this country. If you want to get better or fairer press then give them stories. One of the reasons the media are loathe to criticise Jack Irvine is he keeps filling their airtime and pages for them. I think at times we've a basic misunderstanding of how the media work. In most cases they won't bite the hand that feeds them.

[Zappa 0]

The view many in the BBC will take is 'are we really going to severely reprimand a journalist because he misnamed a football team?'. The complaints system exists and complaints can be taken all the the way to the top but I suspect those at the top will look at it and wonder is this really the biggest issue facing the BBC.

 

That describes the exact crux of the problem we face with the BBC and there's people employed at Pacific Quay who knowingly exploit it.

 

Protests won't change anything and neither will complaints, but it's a cumulative situation and by not only highlighting the problems, but mocking them and complaining about them too, guys like D'Art and others are fighting a good fight. It's a battle they might not win, but it's one worth fighting nonetheless.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Zappa
typo! :p

[SteveC 150]

To be honest I think amms, D'art andy steel etc (sorry to throw you all into one group but you seem to have a similar view on how we should address this) are the equivalent of the US going in and fighting according to the rules of war when they get into e.g. Vietnam and its all jungle fighting or Iraq with suicide bombers and hiding amongst the civilians.

 

You're trying to fight a clean war against the dirtiest, most cowardly and untrustworthy people out there. Keep going that way and you have no chance of victory (where victory us an even handed approach in the press).

 

Is this claiming that the Vietnamese were cowardly and fighting a dirty war? The ones that were being napalmed and bombarded by the mightiest technological weapons in the world were fighting "dirty" from their straw houses? Jeezo, what's "clean" about napalming defenceless third world villages.

[Zappa 0]

Is this claiming that the Vietnamese were cowardly and fighting a dirty war? The ones that were being napalmed and bombarded by the mightiest technological weapons in the world were fighting "dirty" from their straw houses? Jeezo, what's "clean" about napalming defenceless third world villages.

 

Don't forget all that depleted uranium used in our fight against 'insurgents' in the middle east. How to dispose of your nuclear waste: drop it on other countries.