Pacific Quay Musings?

[Soulsonic5791 408]

6 minutes ago, 26th of foot said:

Fifteen years past, Beeb Scotland did a series of Biographies on their main presenters, thirty minutes of what motivated, stimulated, and inspired them to become national broadcasting anchors. Big Dick was one such, his bio' opened with, "I was raised to hate Rangers, absolutely". This privately educated schoolboy had been extremely embarrassed some dozen years before, when he donned the Rangers club blazer and tie to a number of the official club videos during nine-in-a-row. He was suffering grief from his fellow Dandy Dons and he was intent on using the presented opportunity to establish his real credentials. Now, Big Dick had taken the monies offered and no doubt turned in a professional performance. Instead of standing up to his numerous hometown detractors, he went all 'Northern Light' and espoused hatred. Last season, he was reduced to reading out a list of incidents involving Rangers players that might interest the Compliance Officer.

 

On Saturday, Tam Cowan wondered aloud at one point, just after Big Dick had been on Off/On the Ball after One O'Clock to promote Sportsound coming up in an hour, "Aberdenn have issued a very good statement, who's writing it"? Surely, Big Dick cannot be moonlighting as Aberdeen's PR? We should be told, particularly after all the on air grief Jim Traynor suffered after leaving the Beeb? Of course, Jum Spence did the very same for his beloved United, any number of them continually vie to do it furra Sellik, .......... etc.

 

Here's the thing, imagine a license fee paying Bear went on Beeb Scotland and began, "I was raised to hate Richard Gordon, absolutely"? Nah, we are better than that. Listen to them carefully during this three year abdication of their responsibilities to us, and point out their continual massive lapses in professionalism. 

This is it mate.

 

Compile the dossier and continue to do so. When appropriate call them out with unequivocal evidence of their wrongdoing.

 

We are better than them but making excuses for them in a vain effort to be balanced is a no no.

 

P.S. I'm not accusing you of doing such a thing btw.

[buster. 5,196]

17 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

You can be objective and not succumb to apology mate. In fact, resorting to apology actually devalues your objectivity.

 

Edit.

 

N.B. In response to Buster's comments not 26th's.

I agree but I'm unclear as to who or what content you refer to when you talk about 'apoligists'.

[Uilleam 5,940]

14 minutes ago, buster. said:

I agree but I'm unclear as to who or what content you refer to when you talk about 'apoligists'.

i can't discern anyone endeavouring to vindicate the BBC, particularly its coverage of 'The National Game'. In fact, I see the opposite.

 

It is certainly the case that posters' observations are generally couched in a polite manner, but their content seems to me often to be forthright, and far from conciliatory. 

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,752]

The best way to win this "stand off" with the BBC PQ is success on the pitch. The BBC Scotland football team have basically operated under the rather foolish pretence that Rangers will forever be in Celtics shadow and we will keep making arse of things off and on the park. Now that there is change coming down the line in the shape of SG, their rather short sighted feathers are starting to get ruffled. They will seriously have to work out how they approach their coverage of Rangers and on top of all this, the BBC I down south will be wondering why there is not more coverage of what SG is doing up north. If we can win the league, it will be check mate Rangers IMO.

[Soulsonic5791 408]

Ok gents, just to clarify, I was speaking in general terms. I detect among the Rangers online community (not confined to Gersnet or other forums btw) the odd departure from conventional wisdom re the BBC and its interaction with the club. Although small in number, the occurrences appear to be on the rise.

 

From my point of view there is an insistence in some quarters, and I'm not accusing any one individual here, that the BBC should stand apart from reasoned criticism simply because we have been historically conditioned to regard it as a paragon of journalistic virtue. Ergo, BBC Scotland Sport and its agenda is merely thought of as a parochial aberration and that the proclaimed ethics of the corporation as a whole be factored in to any reasoned analysis of said department's output.

 

I'm not imagining this. If you look, you'll find it. 

 

And furthermore, in the interests of context, I can appreciate that in some cases the tone of forum posts can be misinterpreted. I'm not in the business of intentionally offending anyone, least of all, on here.

[buster. 5,196]

Soulsonic,....I think some want a solution and are 'prepared to bargain', somewhat.

 

FWIW I think what is the vast majority slant of negative opinion regards BBC Scotland amongst the Rangers support would be seen as stronger if we don't insist on groupthink.

 

Opinions vary, debate is good but the body of evidence that this thread alone provides, is very difficult to argue with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Soulsonic5791 408]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

Soulsonic,....I think some want a solution and are 'prepared to bargain', somewhat.

 

FWIW I think what is the vast majority slant of negative opinion regards BBC Scotland amongst the Rangers support would be seen as stronger if we don't insist on groupthink.

 

Opinions vary, debate is good but the body of evidence that this thread alone provides, is very difficult to argue with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough mate. That's your take on it.

 

As an aside, McLaughlin's access privileges were revoked because the club believed, rightly in my opinion, that he intentionally abused his position to propagate unsubstantiated untruths about Rangers supporters and their alleged behaviour. He then proceeded to tie himself in knots on social media when trying to justify his language and referral to sources. He was caught out, not for the first time, and his inaccuracies were rightly pointed out publicly by the club who were at pains to point out that previous attempts at conciliation regarding his professional behaviour had taken place with his employer and had subsequently proved to be fruitless. BBC Scotland then took the decision to stand squarely behind his report and refuted the club's claims, (for report read 'story') thereby adopting the organisational stance which has resolutely remained unchanged until present.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what benefit 'bargaining' if that's the correct term, will do when trying to curb this sort of thing. Obviously, litigating for defamation is probably a non-starter for a multitude of reasons but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't fight your corner in other ways.

 

There are some keen minds within Rangers and they have played the long game on this one. And, despite people having issues with how certain actors might or might not have adversely impacted on our situation to our own disadvantage, backing down when you are in the right does little for you in the long run if you ask me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Soulsonic5791

[buster. 5,196]

9 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

Fair enough mate. That's your take on it.

 

As an aside, McLaughlin's access privileges were revoked because the club believed, rightly in my opinion, that he intentionally abused his position to propagate unsubstantiated untruths about Rangers supporters and their alleged behaviour. He then proceeded to tie himself in knots on social media when trying to justify his language and referral to sources. He was caught out, not for the first time, and his inaccuracies were rightly pointed out publicly by the club who were at pains to point out that previous attempts at conciliation regarding his professional behaviour had taken place with his employer and had subsequently proved to be fruitless. BBC Scotland then took the decision to stand squarely behind his report and refuted the club's claims, (for report read 'story') thereby adopting the organisational stance which has resolutely remained unchanged until present.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what benefit 'bargaining' if that's the correct term, will do when trying to curb this sort of thing. Obviously, litigating for defamation is probably a non-starter for a multitude of reasons but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't fight your corner in other ways.

 

There are some keen minds within Rangers and they have played the long game on this one. And, despite people having issues with how certain actors might or might not have adversely impacted on our situation to our own disadvantage, backing down when you are in the right does little for you in the long run if you ask me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The recent podcast put me right regards the timeline of those events you describe and you'll get no argument or pleading for mitigation for McLaughlin, from me. 

 

I'd imagine that any kind of voluntary 'settlement' will need a compromise on both sides. The alternative is the status quo or BBC Scotland coming under pressure from a 3rd party and being forced to climbdown.

 

I'd argue that the more important 'long game' regards this dispute should be focused on the lack of coverage/effectively free and prominent advertising and the trickle down effect of the current 'negative indoctrination' that is in place.

 

We could settle this dispute tomorrow but the same 'pundits' and presenters wil be in place who very often blatantly skew their views and reports as if we were the enemy of Scottish football. In other words, the inherent problems we have with BBC Scotland aren't going away anytime soon. 

 

 

 

 

[compo 7,044]

Get yourselves a digital radio you can program it for the stations you want to listen to and drop BBC Scotland ,I would rather listen to the wife than that crap .

[JohnMc 2,754]

4 hours ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

Ok gents, just to clarify, I was speaking in general terms. I detect among the Rangers online community (not confined to Gersnet or other forums btw) the odd departure from conventional wisdom re the BBC and its interaction with the club. Although small in number, the occurrences appear to be on the rise.

 

From my point of view there is an insistence in some quarters, and I'm not accusing any one individual here, that the BBC should stand apart from reasoned criticism simply because we have been historically conditioned to regard it as a paragon of journalistic virtue. Ergo, BBC Scotland Sport and its agenda is merely thought of as a parochial aberration and that the proclaimed ethics of the corporation as a whole be factored in to any reasoned analysis of said department's output.

 

I'm not imagining this. If you look, you'll find it. 

 

And furthermore, in the interests of context, I can appreciate that in some cases the tone of forum posts can be misinterpreted. I'm not in the business of intentionally offending anyone, least of all, on here.

I'm guilty of that from time to time. The BBC is such a vast and disparate organisation I think all criticism of it has to be in context. I refuse to allow the poor professionalism of a handful of BBC Scotland Sport producers cloud my enjoyment of From Our Own Correspondent, Last Night Of The Proms or CBeebies. They are unconnected and rightly so. 

 

Anyone who judges the entire BBC because of what comes out of some quarters of Pacific Quay is making a mistake in my opinion. I'm genuinely supportive of the BBC, I approve of how they are funded and the editorial independence that affords them. When they make mistakes, and they do, I think they should be criticised for it. 

 

We're in a strange period just now, one I think will be studied by future historians. The demise of the written press in much of the Western world has created a vacuum that's not been adequately filled in my view. There has never been a better time for politicians or powerful entities and individuals to to do harm, because there are few organisations powerful enough to bring them to book. When I was born there were two daily evening papers in Glasgow, as well as the plethora of morning ones. This ensured councillors were scrutinised, decisions reported, individuals held to account. Not today, The Evening Times now barely functions as a newspaper, the Herald isn't much better. Nobody is watching closely at the City Chambers. That's the case across towns and cities the length of the country. 

 

Bloggers and websites haven't filled this void adequately. Very little 'reporting' is actually done online, few can afford to put the resources and time required. That's not changing anytime soon either. 

 

Which is why I'm reluctant to criticise the BBC when they do some things right and very keen to point out when I feel they are falling below their remit. We currently need them more than ever. We need an independent, powerful, credible media, both locally and nationally. Our club was almost destroyed in full view of everyone. Sir David Murray's words were accepted without scrutiny by too many in the media for fear of falling out with him (his only dissenting voices were from Rangers supporters) and Craig Whyte was likewise allowed to buy our club without real media scrutiny. By the time he was scrutinised it was too late. 

 

I hold organisations like BBC Scotland partly responsible for what happened to Rangers. Not the dancing on our grave stuff, or the risible 'Men Who Sold The Jerseys' documentary, an abject lesson in bolting the stable door when the horse is already in the South of France, no I want to know why they weren't much more critical of SDM and why they weren't asking far more searching questions of Craig Whyte. 

 

I think we need a functioning BBC in our society, more than ever. An organisation that can afford to upset some powerful or wealthy people without being concerned their advertising revenue will be affected. I really wish our dispute with BBC Scotland could be resolved. On a basic level I want to hear the same coverage of my side that every other side gets. I'll not manage to see the start of the Villareal game, but I should be able to hear it, if only their was coverage. I think Pedro and Murty were lucky they didn't have to face interviews post match after a number of our home games last season. From our perspective though it might have helped focus a few minds on the ruinous road we were headed down. 

But on a different level I want someone in the media to scrutinise our club's directors. Ask them difficult questions, demand clarity, hold them to account. BBC Scotland Sport aren't doing that on any level. We should be demanding they do, and not just at our club either. 

 

So I'll defend and criticise the BBC simultaneously, whilst hoping that someone there realises the responsibility and opportunity they have, and does something about it. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by JohnMc
mistakes, of course.