Let's All Laugh at Roddy Forsyth

[bmck 117]

personally i just dont care. i dont think websites should be lobbyists at all. websites should stick to what they are good at - discussing what's going on and changing the news-reading market rather than lobbying the news-making companies.

 

i'm quite sure, going by some of the stuff that's read, and understanding how capitalism works, that the major newspapers read forums like this one to get at their target audience. gersnet and websites like it have more power in setting up an alternative to shoddy journalism than lobbying for it to regulate itself. the interaction and large scale opinion that websites can influence will itself force newspapers to realign themselves with their increasingly discerning market.

 

i dont think we should ask them to change. if we continue to get as good information online, written by rangers fans, as we do from their papers, and that this trend increases as it now is, newspapers will be forced to change. newspapers have to adopt to the tastes and prejudices of its readership - they are a reflection of us. as it stands enough people are willing to buy and read this kind of journalism and until that changes no amount of individual lobbying will work.

 

simply by doing what we naturally do the media landscape changes; not with confusing our take on rangers with that of a supporters organisation or lobby group.

[alexscottislegend 2,306]

personally i just dont care. i dont think websites should be lobbyists at all. websites should stick to what they are good at - discussing what's going on and changing the news-reading market rather than lobbying the news-making companies.

 

i'm quite sure, going by some of the stuff that's read, and understanding how capitalism works, that the major newspapers read forums like this one to get at their target audience. gersnet and websites like it have more power in setting up an alternative to shoddy journalism than lobbying for it to regulate itself. the interaction and large scale opinion that websites can influence will itself force newspapers to realign themselves with their increasingly discerning market.

 

i dont think we should ask them to change. if we continue to get as good information online, written by rangers fans, as we do from their papers, and that this trend increases as it now is, newspapers will be forced to change. newspapers have to adopt to the tastes and prejudices of its readership - they are a reflection of us. as it stands enough people are willing to buy and read this kind of journalism and until that changes no amount of individual lobbying will work.

 

simply by doing what we naturally do the media landscape changes; not with confusing our take on rangers with that of a supporters organisation or lobby group.

 

Hope you're right with regard to the 'media landscape' changing thanks to our intervention. By the same token, do you think the RFC management team read this forum? Would be nice to think so, but going by recent team selections, perhaps not!

[bmck 117]

Hope you're right with regard to the 'media landscape' changing thanks to our intervention. By the same token, do you think the RFC management team read this forum? Would be nice to think so, but going by recent team selections, perhaps not!

 

it's said in jest, but i do think the management structure at rangers do think we haven't fundamentally changed as a support in recent times. all walter smith's comments about miller/manchester seem to presuppose the support has pretty much the same attitudes as they did under his first spell, and i think murray thinks approximately the same.

 

but there is a New Rangers fan, i think, and at the club they'd do well to recognise and defend it rigidly. in time it'll become a more wholesale model for what is expected. i'm glad we're not petty-rent-a-cause-reactionaries like the tims: i'd rather be considered the big bad establishment club. "no-one likes us; we dont care" is a good enough attitude for our day. i think, as a culture, we're getting sick of weakness and the romantic image of the rebel - we're becoming less pluralistic, and less scared to offend. so long as we get rid of the bigotry, leave in stuff that cant possibly be considered bigotry, i think there's an attitude and a basis for an attitude that the club could get behind and endorse as appropriate for our times.

 

i just think walter smith/murray just aren't uptodate at all on what the supporters are like and are hence more likely to fold to the inaccurate picture in the media.

 

so, aye - the club could do with reading places like this. there's not a bigot here, but there's no faux-cuddly-cuddly-everyone-be-our-pal-please pish either like those jolly liberal and confused celtic supporters that the media is attracted to because they reflect their own bias.

[Guest ecosse1]

bmck

 

So we sit back and take a passive role seems to be your response, if I interpret your words correctly.

 

There is a difference between lobbying and pointing out bias in what should be by the media impartial reporting. Surely the media should report both fairly and honestly (showing my naivety again!)

 

I think we both seek the same thing, despite you saying (I just don’t care) just different ways of getting it. You seem to want to show by example, which is laudable.

 

However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, surely by communicating with offending journos editors and the like making it clear the stance you are taking ie stopping buying their papers, ignoring their websites; stating unambiguously that you can get the information you need on sites like gersnet (without the biased tosh that they print).

 

Taking action like this, enjoined with the quality of comment found on gersnet by many of the contributors I believe would make more impact, (if only a little) on those we ask to be impartial and honest in their reporting

 

 

.

[bmck 117]

So we sit back and take a passive role seems to be your response, if I interpret your words correctly.

 

no, as you anticipated you didnt interpret my words correctly.

 

i just think lobbying newspapers is a waste of time. its not passivity, its pragmatics. i have better alternatives, and i use them. if more people do the same the papers will change. if not, they deserve everything they get (read).

[Guest ecosse1]

Actually you assume to much when you assert that " I anticipated interpreting your words incorrectly"

 

The only area of disagreement I see between us is you prefer subtlety whilst I see being a little more assertive as the way forward

 

 

 

. :brick:

[bmck 117]

whinging to papers = pointless. grabbing a hold of new media = fruitful.

 

i'm not just saying i dislike the blunter approach, i'm saying it's a waste of time. i mean, if it's something you enjoy, then fair enough. i wouldn't waste my own time with it.

 

the reason we've had someone from one of the tv channels, and papers, 'borrow' or court our opinions, is because new media is the only long term threat to the authority of newspapers. if people can get well written, insightful, free, articles from someone openly in love with the club, and they are online in work/at home everyday, then the very least newspapers will have to do is mirror the sentiments or they will simply be squeezed out of the market.

 

i've set this up as an either/or because i think it is. i dont want or care if the newspapers print crap, because they don't get any of my money anyway. the sooner people do that the better. if people are stupid enough to buy stuff that insults them, then they deserve it. if they are then willing to waste their time essentially begging (which is all you can do after you've said "i wont buy your paper anymore" and they say "ok, we like your custom, but given that we earn millions, gtf") and not just investing their time in using and promoting the genuine alternatives then they'll get nowhere.

 

frankie used the example of graham spiers about whom there was lots and lots of complaints. he ended up resigning/getting fired, and now writes for another newspaper, talks on the radio and is getting his own tv show.

 

i'm not saying one approach is subtle; the other forceful. i'm not saying we just have two different tastes that each have their own virtues. i'm saying one is a complete waste of time.

[Guest ecosse1]

i'm not saying one approach is subtle; the other forceful. i'm not saying we just have two different tastes that each have their own virtues. i'm saying one is a complete waste of time.

 

IT'S GOOD YOU CONCEED THE POINT HEH

[bmck 117]

i'm not saying one approach is subtle; the other forceful. i'm not saying we just have two different tastes that each have their own virtues. i'm saying one is a complete waste of time.

 

IT'S GOOD YOU CONCEED THE POINT HEH

 

if you think im abbrasive, you should check out my geneaology.

[Guest ecosse1]

Hmm, thanks for the invite, but I shall for the moment, decline the offer to check out your geneology...:admin:

 

one just never knows what one would discover ! :eek: