|
The Media
|
|
Topic Started: 1 Nov 2017, 11:12 PM (581,194 Views)
|
|
maestromichael
|
10 Nov 2017, 09:15 AM
Post #361
|
- Posts:
- 156
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #35,505
- Joined:
- 12 March 2017
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- Kingslim
- 9 Nov 2017, 06:03 PM
- Clydebank Bhoy
- 9 Nov 2017, 03:29 PM
- Harris Tottle
- 9 Nov 2017, 09:14 AM
I’m less bothered about Mark Daly doing whatever he does than I am about the conduct of the Press for just about as long as I’ve been around.
Murray, pre and post implosion, is a character ripe for a whole series of documentaries. His remarkable renaissance having written off, at the expense ultimately of the taxpayer, several hundred million has passed without any meaningful comment in the Press. Then there was Whyte, a man so transparently not what he was presented to be. And King, who has made umpteen grandiose statements, ranging from the inconsistent to down right whoppers. You could have spent a lifetime door stepping this cast of characters, yet their treatment in the Press has ranged from soft soap to outright hagiography.
I think all anyone would hope for is a sense that there is no slant on it, but I’ve lived through hearses parked outside Celtic Park for comic effect, “thugs and thieves” headlines and disgraceful comparisons between Fergus and Saddam Hussain. And now, we have outright liquidation denial, frankly bizarre rhetoric involving hitherto unknown concepts (the company that used to own the club) and EBT recipients pontificating on national radio having never once faced a question about tax. All delivered with a pious “turn the other cheek” instruction that might be easier to swallow if the whole shambles at Ibrox was not being aggressively airbrushed out of history. Just exactly why should I be required to buy the life after liquidation keech that I read and hear endlessly for the good of the game? Why should one club be allowed to operate a broken business model with members of the Press rushing to present multi million pound losses as reasons to be cheerful?
Whether it’s fear or favour, I don’t care. A bit of even handedness would be nice.
Great post. It's the absolute hypocrisy of the press that really rattles my tatties.
I initially read that as “rattles my titties”  Really made my morning KS( this and the Villa game report on the development team thread)... the weekend has begun
|
|
|
| |
|
littlegmbhoy
|
10 Nov 2017, 09:27 AM
Post #362
|
- Posts:
- 4,261
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #34,917
- Joined:
- 20 June 2016
- Favourite all-time player
- Henke
|
- This Bhoy's Life
- 10 Nov 2017, 08:30 AM
Radio Scotland now referring to Hampden as the Grand Old Lady of Scottish football. Just how many are there? The old lady???
The old coup more like...Its souless, to far away fromt the action, atmosphere is drab and should be knocked down and start again..only they cannot afford to do it.
We have the worse stadium for a nation team out of all the national teams from the UK isles.
The SFA just stumble from one disaster to another.
I notice King Kenny saying yesterday he loves it etc. but it may have been electric 40 years ago but is far from that for the last 20.
|
|
|
| |
|
screwtop
|
10 Nov 2017, 11:01 AM
Post #363
|
- Posts:
- 644
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #35,402
- Joined:
- 18 January 2017
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik Larsson
|
- littlegmbhoy
- 10 Nov 2017, 09:27 AM
- This Bhoy's Life
- 10 Nov 2017, 08:30 AM
Radio Scotland now referring to Hampden as the Grand Old Lady of Scottish football. Just how many are there?
The old lady??? The old coup more like...Its souless, to far away fromt the action, atmosphere is drab and should be knocked down and start again..only they cannot afford to do it. We have the worse stadium for a nation team out of all the national teams from the UK isles. The SFA just stumble from one disaster to another. I notice King Kenny saying yesterday he loves it etc. but it may have been electric 40 years ago but is far from that for the last 20. "UK isles"? Where did you go to school?
|
|
|
| |
|
littlegmbhoy
|
10 Nov 2017, 11:04 AM
Post #364
|
- Posts:
- 4,261
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #34,917
- Joined:
- 20 June 2016
- Favourite all-time player
- Henke
|
- screwtop
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:01 AM
- littlegmbhoy
- 10 Nov 2017, 09:27 AM
- This Bhoy's Life
- 10 Nov 2017, 08:30 AM
Radio Scotland now referring to Hampden as the Grand Old Lady of Scottish football. Just how many are there?
The old lady??? The old coup more like...Its souless, to far away fromt the action, atmosphere is drab and should be knocked down and start again..only they cannot afford to do it. We have the worse stadium for a nation team out of all the national teams from the UK isles. The SFA just stumble from one disaster to another. I notice King Kenny saying yesterday he loves it etc. but it may have been electric 40 years ago but is far from that for the last 20.
"UK isles"? Where did you go to school? 30 seconds sleep last night due to my wee one up all night so thats my excuse
Hampden is pish. We need a new one. SFA are skint so we are onto plums.
|
|
|
| |
|
Oscar Strummer
|
10 Nov 2017, 11:13 AM
Post #365
|
The Artist Formerly Known As lubomir25
- Posts:
- 5,307
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #3,991
- Joined:
- 5 June 2006
|
- This Bhoy's Life
- 10 Nov 2017, 08:30 AM
Radio Scotland now referring to Hampden as the Grand Old Lady of Scottish football. Just how many are there?
Ann Budge ?
|
|
|
| |
|
Kingslim
|
10 Nov 2017, 11:19 AM
Post #366
|
- Posts:
- 17,986
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #33,465
- Joined:
- 1 May 2014
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- Oscar Strummer
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:13 AM
- This Bhoy's Life
- 10 Nov 2017, 08:30 AM
Radio Scotland now referring to Hampden as the Grand Old Lady of Scottish football. Just how many are there?
Ann Budge ? Surely, that crown should be reserved for Aggie, the Tea lady?
Edited by Kingslim, 10 Nov 2017, 11:19 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
BombJack
|
10 Nov 2017, 11:57 AM
Post #367
|
He twists, he turns, Tommy Burns...
- Posts:
- 8,553
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,468
- Joined:
- 7 July 2005
|
Here's the question I'd like answered...
I'm a firm believer in the following, basic way of thinking. For the most part most mass media is produced for a reason - not solely as a public service for the good of the population. I'm not talking about freelance journalism, blogging or that kind of thing - but the sort of media that gets published on a large scale by large global media firms.
There is generally a specific motive or series of motives. For the most part, the main motive is to get viewers, because eyes on the publication, or TV show means potential eyes watching adverts that break up the content. Adverts = revenue for the TV station/newspaper/website etc etc. Someone somewhere pays the wages, and as a result, in the main, the guys that pay the bills make the decisions as to what is published or broadcast, and what isn't, or at least has a huge say in what gets aired and the direction the broadcaster/media company goes. This is why, and it's been shown time and again, that some actors, presenters, etc will be fired if a key advertiser thinks they've overstepped the mark. It happens all the time.
So - the BBC. The BBC supposedly is run off the back of licence fees. There is no advertising revenue, supposedly. So there has to be some other main reason for the BBC existing. My view on this is that the BBC is basically a propaganda machine. The whole point of it is to steer opinion and the behaviour of the viewers. It is supposed to be impartial, but it clearly isn't. Whether it's the biased nature of the Scottish referendum news reporting, the almost non-existent negative reporting of the monarchy, or the fact that every man and their dog in the run up to remembrance day is seen wearing a poppy (if that's not mind control, what is???) - the BBC clearly has an agenda - and will have an agenda for pretty much all the key stories it reports on.
I mean, if Corsica's story mentioned above gets spiked, when it seems like it's a slam dunk as Corsica has already done the donkey work, a half a million quid charity theft, and yet the "Paradise Papers" story gets spun to highlight Dermot Desmond (who isn't even a UK citizen) - someone somewhere has an agenda as to why one story is published and the other isn't. "No appetite" doesn't cut it for me.
Re: DD, could it be a misdirection? I mean, the biggest story, REALLY re: the Paradise Papers is the fact that the Queen isn't paying her due taxes and yet a lot of people have been expending their energy on DD and others - I mean Mrs Brown's Boys - FFS!? As some have observed, the Queen was the big story when the Paradise Papers story broke, but quite rapidly her part in the story was taken over by many many other protagonists, including DD.
But, back in 2011/12 - what was the point of the Mark Daley "The men who sole the jerseys" documentary? How come it made it to our screens in the first place? Most people had no idea about the EBT thing (apart from bampot paranoid Tims and so on), - it seems strange to me given their generally softly softly approach to anything RFC, why would BBC Scotland decide to broadcast the story? What was the real fundamental point of it? I'm not buying that it was just a huge public interest story. In the same way as Harvey Weinstein is a massive story globally, there has to be an underlying reason for why his behaviour is being brought into sharp focus right now. He's been known for a while as being a certain kind of person - he's supposedly been doing his thing for decades, and yet now it's a big deal. Why now?
And the same goes for the RFC things. The original Daley piece is broadcast back in the day, but as many have pointed out other key aspects of the story haven't been followed up to any real extent since. The whole thing has been soft soaped. Seems to me that in the main the EBT thing, RFC wrong doing, it's deliberate non-disclosure of documents and general obfuscation, the Resolution 12 thing - all of these things are interlinked, and yet don't seem to get the real forensic going over that you'd expect for such a far reaching story in this part of the world. The present day - King and the supposedly very questionable sources of revenue which are keeping the Sevco ship afloat - again potentially a massive story - but not covered to any extent at all.
So, getting back to it, why did the Daley piece ever see the light of day?
Was it to stir up the hordes for the impending doom that RFC was approaching? Kick in a siege mentality? I'm really not sure, but it's certainly strange to me anyway - and as we know, the story could probably have been released well ahead of when it was broadcast, as most if not all of the content had been well known for quite a while beforehand - and even then the program wasn't quite as hard hitting as I expected it to be...
|
|
|
| |
|
tenerifetim
|
10 Nov 2017, 12:07 PM
Post #368
|
- Posts:
- 7,273
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #29,009
- Joined:
- 6 July 2011
- Favourite all-time player
- henrik larrson
|
- BombJack
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:57 AM
Here's the question I'd like answered...
I'm a firm believer in the following, basic way of thinking. For the most part most mass media is produced for a reason - not solely as a public service for the good of the population. I'm not talking about freelance journalism, blogging or that kind of thing - but the sort of media that gets published on a large scale by large global media firms.
There is generally a specific motive or series of motives. For the most part, the main motive is to get viewers, because eyes on the publication, or TV show means potential eyes watching adverts that break up the content. Adverts = revenue for the TV station/newspaper/website etc etc. Someone somewhere pays the wages, and as a result, in the main, the guys that pay the bills make the decisions as to what is published or broadcast, and what isn't, or at least has a huge say in what gets aired and the direction the broadcaster/media company goes. This is why, and it's been shown time and again, that some actors, presenters, etc will be fired if a key advertiser thinks they've overstepped the mark. It happens all the time.
So - the BBC. The BBC supposedly is run off the back of licence fees. There is no advertising revenue, supposedly. So there has to be some other main reason for the BBC existing. My view on this is that the BBC is basically a propaganda machine. The whole point of it is to steer opinion and the behaviour of the viewers. It is supposed to be impartial, but it clearly isn't. Whether it's the biased nature of the Scottish referendum news reporting, the almost non-existent negative reporting of the monarchy, or the fact that every man and their dog in the run up to remembrance day is seen wearing a poppy (if that's not mind control, what is???) - the BBC clearly has an agenda - and will have an agenda for pretty much all the key stories it reports on.
I mean, if Corsica's story mentioned above gets spiked, when it seems like it's a slam dunk as Corsica has already done the donkey work, a half a million quid charity theft, and yet the "Paradise Papers" story gets spun to highlight Dermot Desmond (who isn't even a UK citizen) - someone somewhere has an agenda as to why one story is published and the other isn't. "No appetite" doesn't cut it for me.
Re: DD, could it be a misdirection? I mean, the biggest story, REALLY re: the Paradise Papers is the fact that the Queen isn't paying her due taxes and yet a lot of people have been expending their energy on DD and others - I mean Mrs Brown's Boys - FFS!? As some have observed, the Queen was the big story when the Paradise Papers story broke, but quite rapidly her part in the story was taken over by many many other protagonists, including DD.
But, back in 2011/12 - what was the point of the Mark Daley "The men who sole the jerseys" documentary? How come it made it to our screens in the first place? Most people had no idea about the EBT thing (apart from bampot paranoid Tims and so on), - it seems strange to me given their generally softly softly approach to anything RFC, why would BBC Scotland decide to broadcast the story? What was the real fundamental point of it? I'm not buying that it was just a huge public interest story. In the same way as Harvey Weinstein is a massive story globally, there has to be an underlying reason for why his behaviour is being brought into sharp focus right now. He's been known for a while as being a certain kind of person - he's supposedly been doing his thing for decades, and yet now it's a big deal. Why now?
And the same goes for the RFC things. The original Daley piece is broadcast back in the day, but as many have pointed out other key aspects of the story haven't been followed up to any real extent since. The whole thing has been soft soaped. Seems to me that in the main the EBT thing, RFC wrong doing, it's deliberate non-disclosure of documents and general obfuscation, the Resolution 12 thing - all of these things are interlinked, and yet don't seem to get the real forensic going over that you'd expect for such a far reaching story in this part of the world. The present day - King and the supposedly very questionable sources of revenue which are keeping the Sevco ship afloat - again potentially a massive story - but not covered to any extent at all.
So, getting back to it, why did the Daley piece ever see the light of day?
Was it to stir up the hordes for the impending doom that RFC was approaching? Kick in a siege mentality? I'm really not sure, but it's certainly strange to me anyway - and as we know, the story could probably have been released well ahead of when it was broadcast, as most if not all of the content had been well known for quite a while beforehand - and even then the program wasn't quite as hard hitting as I expected it to be...
Alex Thompson has also backed off some of his coverage - said to me in e-mail he wouldn't touch Charlotte Fakes as it was "Toxic " due to it's provenance - he still has a jibe at the occasional Hun annoying him on Twitter but hasn't followed up on any realted story recently with other issues being more important . Maybe Mark will take up the Charlotte Story & why GASL payed £25K for the Tapes that were never used ?
Just WTF is Lord Bannatyne doing these days , my arse is itching again !
|
|
|
| |
|
The Gorbals Urchin
|
10 Nov 2017, 12:08 PM
Post #369
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 11,024
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #26,571
- Joined:
- 29 July 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- Kingslim
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:19 AM
- Oscar Strummer
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:13 AM
- This Bhoy's Life
- 10 Nov 2017, 08:30 AM
Radio Scotland now referring to Hampden as the Grand Old Lady of Scottish football. Just how many are there?
Ann Budge ?
Surely, that crown should be reserved for Aggie, the Tea lady? Derika Johnstone .
|
|
|
| |
|
Dubz
|
10 Nov 2017, 01:45 PM
Post #370
|
- Posts:
- 4,757
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #27,189
- Joined:
- 7 November 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Daniel Fergus McGrain
|
- BombJack
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:57 AM
Here's the question I'd like answered...
I'm a firm believer in the following, basic way of thinking. For the most part most mass media is produced for a reason - not solely as a public service for the good of the population. I'm not talking about freelance journalism, blogging or that kind of thing - but the sort of media that gets published on a large scale by large global media firms.
There is generally a specific motive or series of motives. For the most part, the main motive is to get viewers, because eyes on the publication, or TV show means potential eyes watching adverts that break up the content. Adverts = revenue for the TV station/newspaper/website etc etc. Someone somewhere pays the wages, and as a result, in the main, the guys that pay the bills make the decisions as to what is published or broadcast, and what isn't, or at least has a huge say in what gets aired and the direction the broadcaster/media company goes. This is why, and it's been shown time and again, that some actors, presenters, etc will be fired if a key advertiser thinks they've overstepped the mark. It happens all the time.
So - the BBC. The BBC supposedly is run off the back of licence fees. There is no advertising revenue, supposedly. So there has to be some other main reason for the BBC existing. My view on this is that the BBC is basically a propaganda machine. The whole point of it is to steer opinion and the behaviour of the viewers. It is supposed to be impartial, but it clearly isn't. Whether it's the biased nature of the Scottish referendum news reporting, the almost non-existent negative reporting of the monarchy, or the fact that every man and their dog in the run up to remembrance day is seen wearing a poppy (if that's not mind control, what is???) - the BBC clearly has an agenda - and will have an agenda for pretty much all the key stories it reports on.
I mean, if Corsica's story mentioned above gets spiked, when it seems like it's a slam dunk as Corsica has already done the donkey work, a half a million quid charity theft, and yet the "Paradise Papers" story gets spun to highlight Dermot Desmond (who isn't even a UK citizen) - someone somewhere has an agenda as to why one story is published and the other isn't. "No appetite" doesn't cut it for me.
Re: DD, could it be a misdirection? I mean, the biggest story, REALLY re: the Paradise Papers is the fact that the Queen isn't paying her due taxes and yet a lot of people have been expending their energy on DD and others - I mean Mrs Brown's Boys - FFS!? As some have observed, the Queen was the big story when the Paradise Papers story broke, but quite rapidly her part in the story was taken over by many many other protagonists, including DD.
But, back in 2011/12 - what was the point of the Mark Daley "The men who sole the jerseys" documentary? How come it made it to our screens in the first place? Most people had no idea about the EBT thing (apart from bampot paranoid Tims and so on), - it seems strange to me given their generally softly softly approach to anything RFC, why would BBC Scotland decide to broadcast the story? What was the real fundamental point of it? I'm not buying that it was just a huge public interest story. In the same way as Harvey Weinstein is a massive story globally, there has to be an underlying reason for why his behaviour is being brought into sharp focus right now. He's been known for a while as being a certain kind of person - he's supposedly been doing his thing for decades, and yet now it's a big deal. Why now?
And the same goes for the RFC things. The original Daley piece is broadcast back in the day, but as many have pointed out other key aspects of the story haven't been followed up to any real extent since. The whole thing has been soft soaped. Seems to me that in the main the EBT thing, RFC wrong doing, it's deliberate non-disclosure of documents and general obfuscation, the Resolution 12 thing - all of these things are interlinked, and yet don't seem to get the real forensic going over that you'd expect for such a far reaching story in this part of the world. The present day - King and the supposedly very questionable sources of revenue which are keeping the Sevco ship afloat - again potentially a massive story - but not covered to any extent at all.
So, getting back to it, why did the Daley piece ever see the light of day?
Was it to stir up the hordes for the impending doom that RFC was approaching? Kick in a siege mentality? I'm really not sure, but it's certainly strange to me anyway - and as we know, the story could probably have been released well ahead of when it was broadcast, as most if not all of the content had been well known for quite a while beforehand - and even then the program wasn't quite as hard hitting as I expected it to be...
Follow the timeline and you will find what needed burying at the time. Programme was aired 23rd May 2012.
|
|
|
| |
|
Torquemada
|
10 Nov 2017, 03:00 PM
Post #371
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 12,932
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #216
- Joined:
- 15 September 2004
|
- BombJack
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:57 AM
Spoiler: click to toggle Here's the question I'd like answered...
I'm a firm believer in the following, basic way of thinking. For the most part most mass media is produced for a reason - not solely as a public service for the good of the population. I'm not talking about freelance journalism, blogging or that kind of thing - but the sort of media that gets published on a large scale by large global media firms.
There is generally a specific motive or series of motives. For the most part, the main motive is to get viewers, because eyes on the publication, or TV show means potential eyes watching adverts that break up the content. Adverts = revenue for the TV station/newspaper/website etc etc. Someone somewhere pays the wages, and as a result, in the main, the guys that pay the bills make the decisions as to what is published or broadcast, and what isn't, or at least has a huge say in what gets aired and the direction the broadcaster/media company goes. This is why, and it's been shown time and again, that some actors, presenters, etc will be fired if a key advertiser thinks they've overstepped the mark. It happens all the time.
So - the BBC. The BBC supposedly is run off the back of licence fees. There is no advertising revenue, supposedly. So there has to be some other main reason for the BBC existing. My view on this is that the BBC is basically a propaganda machine. The whole point of it is to steer opinion and the behaviour of the viewers. It is supposed to be impartial, but it clearly isn't. Whether it's the biased nature of the Scottish referendum news reporting, the almost non-existent negative reporting of the monarchy, or the fact that every man and their dog in the run up to remembrance day is seen wearing a poppy (if that's not mind control, what is???) - the BBC clearly has an agenda - and will have an agenda for pretty much all the key stories it reports on.
I mean, if Corsica's story mentioned above gets spiked, when it seems like it's a slam dunk as Corsica has already done the donkey work, a half a million quid charity theft, and yet the "Paradise Papers" story gets spun to highlight Dermot Desmond (who isn't even a UK citizen) - someone somewhere has an agenda as to why one story is published and the other isn't. "No appetite" doesn't cut it for me.
Re: DD, could it be a misdirection? I mean, the biggest story, REALLY re: the Paradise Papers is the fact that the Queen isn't paying her due taxes and yet a lot of people have been expending their energy on DD and others - I mean Mrs Brown's Boys - FFS!? As some have observed, the Queen was the big story when the Paradise Papers story broke, but quite rapidly her part in the story was taken over by many many other protagonists, including DD.
But, back in 2011/12 - what was the point of the Mark Daley "The men who sole the jerseys" documentary? How come it made it to our screens in the first place? Most people had no idea about the EBT thing (apart from bampot paranoid Tims and so on), - it seems strange to me given their generally softly softly approach to anything RFC, why would BBC Scotland decide to broadcast the story? What was the real fundamental point of it? I'm not buying that it was just a huge public interest story. In the same way as Harvey Weinstein is a massive story globally, there has to be an underlying reason for why his behaviour is being brought into sharp focus right now. He's been known for a while as being a certain kind of person - he's supposedly been doing his thing for decades, and yet now it's a big deal. Why now?
And the same goes for the RFC things. The original Daley piece is broadcast back in the day, but as many have pointed out other key aspects of the story haven't been followed up to any real extent since. The whole thing has been soft soaped. Seems to me that in the main the EBT thing, RFC wrong doing, it's deliberate non-disclosure of documents and general obfuscation, the Resolution 12 thing - all of these things are interlinked, and yet don't seem to get the real forensic going over that you'd expect for such a far reaching story in this part of the world. The present day - King and the supposedly very questionable sources of revenue which are keeping the Sevco ship afloat - again potentially a massive story - but not covered to any extent at all.
So, getting back to it, why did the Daley piece ever see the light of day?
Was it to stir up the hordes for the impending doom that RFC was approaching? Kick in a siege mentality? I'm really not sure, but it's certainly strange to me anyway - and as we know, the story could probably have been released well ahead of when it was broadcast, as most if not all of the content had been well known for quite a while beforehand - and even then the program wasn't quite as hard hitting as I expected it to be...
Good post. As I've written recently, the whole point of Daly's documentary, from its absurd and misleading title to the way it was presented, was to create the myth that Rangers (and by extension their fans) were the victims of a crime rather than the instigators.
In the many and varied discussions of Rangers' "plight" that we've heard on Sportsound in the years since, the one aspect that is never referred to is that Rangers did it to themselves. Nope, it was done to them. Whyte, Green, Ashley -- you get the picture. Dave King voted against the CVA that would have saved the club. Who in the BBC has ever mentioned that?
|
|
|
| |
|
corsica1968
|
10 Nov 2017, 03:13 PM
Post #372
|
- Posts:
- 415
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32,465
- Joined:
- 26 April 2013
- Favourite all-time player
- Lennox
|
This is now getting silly. So (in my best Allo, Allo voice) I shall say zis only once: Mark Daly was not the person who informed me the piece was dead because of pressure from above.
I still think he has skated on the coat-tails of others and is not the Pulitzer-prize winner that some believe.
Scottish "journalists" are a joke and a waste of time and effort, and I don't think there is a single one who can look at the past 6 years and think themselves satisfied that they have done their job.
That is my final word on it (and for the avoidance of doubt - no pressure has been brought to bear on me to clear this up).
|
|
|
| |
|
The Gorbals Urchin
|
10 Nov 2017, 03:43 PM
Post #373
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 11,024
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #26,571
- Joined:
- 29 July 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
Get a room you two.
|
|
|
| |
|
BombJack
|
10 Nov 2017, 03:51 PM
Post #374
|
He twists, he turns, Tommy Burns...
- Posts:
- 8,553
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,468
- Joined:
- 7 July 2005
|
- Torquemada
- 10 Nov 2017, 03:00 PM
- BombJack
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:57 AM
Spoiler: click to toggle Here's the question I'd like answered...
I'm a firm believer in the following, basic way of thinking. For the most part most mass media is produced for a reason - not solely as a public service for the good of the population. I'm not talking about freelance journalism, blogging or that kind of thing - but the sort of media that gets published on a large scale by large global media firms.
There is generally a specific motive or series of motives. For the most part, the main motive is to get viewers, because eyes on the publication, or TV show means potential eyes watching adverts that break up the content. Adverts = revenue for the TV station/newspaper/website etc etc. Someone somewhere pays the wages, and as a result, in the main, the guys that pay the bills make the decisions as to what is published or broadcast, and what isn't, or at least has a huge say in what gets aired and the direction the broadcaster/media company goes. This is why, and it's been shown time and again, that some actors, presenters, etc will be fired if a key advertiser thinks they've overstepped the mark. It happens all the time.
So - the BBC. The BBC supposedly is run off the back of licence fees. There is no advertising revenue, supposedly. So there has to be some other main reason for the BBC existing. My view on this is that the BBC is basically a propaganda machine. The whole point of it is to steer opinion and the behaviour of the viewers. It is supposed to be impartial, but it clearly isn't. Whether it's the biased nature of the Scottish referendum news reporting, the almost non-existent negative reporting of the monarchy, or the fact that every man and their dog in the run up to remembrance day is seen wearing a poppy (if that's not mind control, what is???) - the BBC clearly has an agenda - and will have an agenda for pretty much all the key stories it reports on.
I mean, if Corsica's story mentioned above gets spiked, when it seems like it's a slam dunk as Corsica has already done the donkey work, a half a million quid charity theft, and yet the "Paradise Papers" story gets spun to highlight Dermot Desmond (who isn't even a UK citizen) - someone somewhere has an agenda as to why one story is published and the other isn't. "No appetite" doesn't cut it for me.
Re: DD, could it be a misdirection? I mean, the biggest story, REALLY re: the Paradise Papers is the fact that the Queen isn't paying her due taxes and yet a lot of people have been expending their energy on DD and others - I mean Mrs Brown's Boys - FFS!? As some have observed, the Queen was the big story when the Paradise Papers story broke, but quite rapidly her part in the story was taken over by many many other protagonists, including DD.
But, back in 2011/12 - what was the point of the Mark Daley "The men who sole the jerseys" documentary? How come it made it to our screens in the first place? Most people had no idea about the EBT thing (apart from bampot paranoid Tims and so on), - it seems strange to me given their generally softly softly approach to anything RFC, why would BBC Scotland decide to broadcast the story? What was the real fundamental point of it? I'm not buying that it was just a huge public interest story. In the same way as Harvey Weinstein is a massive story globally, there has to be an underlying reason for why his behaviour is being brought into sharp focus right now. He's been known for a while as being a certain kind of person - he's supposedly been doing his thing for decades, and yet now it's a big deal. Why now?
And the same goes for the RFC things. The original Daley piece is broadcast back in the day, but as many have pointed out other key aspects of the story haven't been followed up to any real extent since. The whole thing has been soft soaped. Seems to me that in the main the EBT thing, RFC wrong doing, it's deliberate non-disclosure of documents and general obfuscation, the Resolution 12 thing - all of these things are interlinked, and yet don't seem to get the real forensic going over that you'd expect for such a far reaching story in this part of the world. The present day - King and the supposedly very questionable sources of revenue which are keeping the Sevco ship afloat - again potentially a massive story - but not covered to any extent at all.
So, getting back to it, why did the Daley piece ever see the light of day?
Was it to stir up the hordes for the impending doom that RFC was approaching? Kick in a siege mentality? I'm really not sure, but it's certainly strange to me anyway - and as we know, the story could probably have been released well ahead of when it was broadcast, as most if not all of the content had been well known for quite a while beforehand - and even then the program wasn't quite as hard hitting as I expected it to be...
Good post. As I've written recently, the whole point of Daly's documentary, from its absurd and misleading title to the way it was presented, was to create the myth that Rangers (and by extension their fans) were the victims of a crime rather than the instigators. In the many and varied discussions of Rangers' "plight" that we've heard on Sportsound in the years since, the one aspect that is never referred to is that Rangers did it to themselves. Nope, it was done to them. Whyte, Green, Ashley -- you get the picture. Dave King voted against the CVA that would have saved the club. Who in the BBC has ever mentioned that? So you think it was just a piece to steer the narrative? Nothing else to it? That may well have been the case - I'm just not sure. I guess if the narrative is presented on national TV it probably has more reach than your average listeners who tune in to Superscoreboard of a weekend, or even the nightly phone-ins on Clyde etc. If what you are saying is right though, this also suggests a bit of long term thinking from some people - crisis management as it were. I really should watch that program again - it's been a while since I saw it...
|
|
|
| |
|
k3vkr
|
10 Nov 2017, 04:05 PM
Post #375
|
The weather is fine in Majorca
- Posts:
- 6,454
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #13,749
- Joined:
- 7 January 2008
- Favourite all-time player
- The King of Kings
- Twitter Name
- @k3vkr
|
- BombJack
- 10 Nov 2017, 03:51 PM
- Torquemada
- 10 Nov 2017, 03:00 PM
- BombJack
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:57 AM
Spoiler: click to toggle Here's the question I'd like answered...
I'm a firm believer in the following, basic way of thinking. For the most part most mass media is produced for a reason - not solely as a public service for the good of the population. I'm not talking about freelance journalism, blogging or that kind of thing - but the sort of media that gets published on a large scale by large global media firms.
There is generally a specific motive or series of motives. For the most part, the main motive is to get viewers, because eyes on the publication, or TV show means potential eyes watching adverts that break up the content. Adverts = revenue for the TV station/newspaper/website etc etc. Someone somewhere pays the wages, and as a result, in the main, the guys that pay the bills make the decisions as to what is published or broadcast, and what isn't, or at least has a huge say in what gets aired and the direction the broadcaster/media company goes. This is why, and it's been shown time and again, that some actors, presenters, etc will be fired if a key advertiser thinks they've overstepped the mark. It happens all the time.
So - the BBC. The BBC supposedly is run off the back of licence fees. There is no advertising revenue, supposedly. So there has to be some other main reason for the BBC existing. My view on this is that the BBC is basically a propaganda machine. The whole point of it is to steer opinion and the behaviour of the viewers. It is supposed to be impartial, but it clearly isn't. Whether it's the biased nature of the Scottish referendum news reporting, the almost non-existent negative reporting of the monarchy, or the fact that every man and their dog in the run up to remembrance day is seen wearing a poppy (if that's not mind control, what is???) - the BBC clearly has an agenda - and will have an agenda for pretty much all the key stories it reports on.
I mean, if Corsica's story mentioned above gets spiked, when it seems like it's a slam dunk as Corsica has already done the donkey work, a half a million quid charity theft, and yet the "Paradise Papers" story gets spun to highlight Dermot Desmond (who isn't even a UK citizen) - someone somewhere has an agenda as to why one story is published and the other isn't. "No appetite" doesn't cut it for me.
Re: DD, could it be a misdirection? I mean, the biggest story, REALLY re: the Paradise Papers is the fact that the Queen isn't paying her due taxes and yet a lot of people have been expending their energy on DD and others - I mean Mrs Brown's Boys - FFS!? As some have observed, the Queen was the big story when the Paradise Papers story broke, but quite rapidly her part in the story was taken over by many many other protagonists, including DD.
But, back in 2011/12 - what was the point of the Mark Daley "The men who sole the jerseys" documentary? How come it made it to our screens in the first place? Most people had no idea about the EBT thing (apart from bampot paranoid Tims and so on), - it seems strange to me given their generally softly softly approach to anything RFC, why would BBC Scotland decide to broadcast the story? What was the real fundamental point of it? I'm not buying that it was just a huge public interest story. In the same way as Harvey Weinstein is a massive story globally, there has to be an underlying reason for why his behaviour is being brought into sharp focus right now. He's been known for a while as being a certain kind of person - he's supposedly been doing his thing for decades, and yet now it's a big deal. Why now?
And the same goes for the RFC things. The original Daley piece is broadcast back in the day, but as many have pointed out other key aspects of the story haven't been followed up to any real extent since. The whole thing has been soft soaped. Seems to me that in the main the EBT thing, RFC wrong doing, it's deliberate non-disclosure of documents and general obfuscation, the Resolution 12 thing - all of these things are interlinked, and yet don't seem to get the real forensic going over that you'd expect for such a far reaching story in this part of the world. The present day - King and the supposedly very questionable sources of revenue which are keeping the Sevco ship afloat - again potentially a massive story - but not covered to any extent at all.
So, getting back to it, why did the Daley piece ever see the light of day?
Was it to stir up the hordes for the impending doom that RFC was approaching? Kick in a siege mentality? I'm really not sure, but it's certainly strange to me anyway - and as we know, the story could probably have been released well ahead of when it was broadcast, as most if not all of the content had been well known for quite a while beforehand - and even then the program wasn't quite as hard hitting as I expected it to be...
Good post. As I've written recently, the whole point of Daly's documentary, from its absurd and misleading title to the way it was presented, was to create the myth that Rangers (and by extension their fans) were the victims of a crime rather than the instigators. In the many and varied discussions of Rangers' "plight" that we've heard on Sportsound in the years since, the one aspect that is never referred to is that Rangers did it to themselves. Nope, it was done to them. Whyte, Green, Ashley -- you get the picture. Dave King voted against the CVA that would have saved the club. Who in the BBC has ever mentioned that?
So you think it was just a piece to steer the narrative? Nothing else to it? That may well have been the case - I'm just not sure. I guess if the narrative is presented on national TV it probably has more reach than your average listeners who tune in to Superscoreboard of a weekend, or even the nightly phone-ins on Clyde etc. If what you are saying is right though, this also suggests a bit of long term thinking from some people - crisis management as it were. I really should watch that program again - it's been a while since I saw it... I remember being massively underwhelmed, as there was nothing new really brought to the fore..
Daly has certainly made a name for himself off the back of it, as i cant really remember him being so high profile previous to it
|
|
|
| |
|
Larbertbhoy
|
10 Nov 2017, 04:44 PM
Post #376
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 1,784
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32,252
- Joined:
- 10 February 2013
- Favourite all-time player
- Chris Sutton
|
- littlegmbhoy
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:04 AM
- screwtop
- 10 Nov 2017, 11:01 AM
- littlegmbhoy
- 10 Nov 2017, 09:27 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
"UK isles"? Where did you go to school?
30 seconds sleep last night due to my wee one up all night so thats my excuse Hampden is pish. We need a new one. SFA are skint so we are onto plums. We dont need a new one IMO. JUst take the games on the road .
|
|
|
| |
|
Govan Super Casino
|
10 Nov 2017, 05:06 PM
Post #377
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 11,491
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #29,578
- Joined:
- 23 September 2011
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- k3vkr
- 10 Nov 2017, 04:05 PM
- BombJack
- 10 Nov 2017, 03:51 PM
- Torquemada
- 10 Nov 2017, 03:00 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep Spoiler: click to toggle Here's the question I'd like answered...
I'm a firm believer in the following, basic way of thinking. For the most part most mass media is produced for a reason - not solely as a public service for the good of the population. I'm not talking about freelance journalism, blogging or that kind of thing - but the sort of media that gets published on a large scale by large global media firms.
There is generally a specific motive or series of motives. For the most part, the main motive is to get viewers, because eyes on the publication, or TV show means potential eyes watching adverts that break up the content. Adverts = revenue for the TV station/newspaper/website etc etc. Someone somewhere pays the wages, and as a result, in the main, the guys that pay the bills make the decisions as to what is published or broadcast, and what isn't, or at least has a huge say in what gets aired and the direction the broadcaster/media company goes. This is why, and it's been shown time and again, that some actors, presenters, etc will be fired if a key advertiser thinks they've overstepped the mark. It happens all the time.
So - the BBC. The BBC supposedly is run off the back of licence fees. There is no advertising revenue, supposedly. So there has to be some other main reason for the BBC existing. My view on this is that the BBC is basically a propaganda machine. The whole point of it is to steer opinion and the behaviour of the viewers. It is supposed to be impartial, but it clearly isn't. Whether it's the biased nature of the Scottish referendum news reporting, the almost non-existent negative reporting of the monarchy, or the fact that every man and their dog in the run up to remembrance day is seen wearing a poppy (if that's not mind control, what is???) - the BBC clearly has an agenda - and will have an agenda for pretty much all the key stories it reports on.
I mean, if Corsica's story mentioned above gets spiked, when it seems like it's a slam dunk as Corsica has already done the donkey work, a half a million quid charity theft, and yet the "Paradise Papers" story gets spun to highlight Dermot Desmond (who isn't even a UK citizen) - someone somewhere has an agenda as to why one story is published and the other isn't. "No appetite" doesn't cut it for me.
Re: DD, could it be a misdirection? I mean, the biggest story, REALLY re: the Paradise Papers is the fact that the Queen isn't paying her due taxes and yet a lot of people have been expending their energy on DD and others - I mean Mrs Brown's Boys - FFS!? As some have observed, the Queen was the big story when the Paradise Papers story broke, but quite rapidly her part in the story was taken over by many many other protagonists, including DD.
But, back in 2011/12 - what was the point of the Mark Daley "The men who sole the jerseys" documentary? How come it made it to our screens in the first place? Most people had no idea about the EBT thing (apart from bampot paranoid Tims and so on), - it seems strange to me given their generally softly softly approach to anything RFC, why would BBC Scotland decide to broadcast the story? What was the real fundamental point of it? I'm not buying that it was just a huge public interest story. In the same way as Harvey Weinstein is a massive story globally, there has to be an underlying reason for why his behaviour is being brought into sharp focus right now. He's been known for a while as being a certain kind of person - he's supposedly been doing his thing for decades, and yet now it's a big deal. Why now?
And the same goes for the RFC things. The original Daley piece is broadcast back in the day, but as many have pointed out other key aspects of the story haven't been followed up to any real extent since. The whole thing has been soft soaped. Seems to me that in the main the EBT thing, RFC wrong doing, it's deliberate non-disclosure of documents and general obfuscation, the Resolution 12 thing - all of these things are interlinked, and yet don't seem to get the real forensic going over that you'd expect for such a far reaching story in this part of the world. The present day - King and the supposedly very questionable sources of revenue which are keeping the Sevco ship afloat - again potentially a massive story - but not covered to any extent at all.
So, getting back to it, why did the Daley piece ever see the light of day?
Was it to stir up the hordes for the impending doom that RFC was approaching? Kick in a siege mentality? I'm really not sure, but it's certainly strange to me anyway - and as we know, the story could probably have been released well ahead of when it was broadcast, as most if not all of the content had been well known for quite a while beforehand - and even then the program wasn't quite as hard hitting as I expected it to be...
So you think it was just a piece to steer the narrative? Nothing else to it? That may well have been the case - I'm just not sure. I guess if the narrative is presented on national TV it probably has more reach than your average listeners who tune in to Superscoreboard of a weekend, or even the nightly phone-ins on Clyde etc. If what you are saying is right though, this also suggests a bit of long term thinking from some people - crisis management as it were. I really should watch that program again - it's been a while since I saw it...
I remember being massively underwhelmed, as there was nothing new really brought to the fore.. Daly has certainly made a name for himself off the back of it, as i cant really remember him being so high profile previous to it I'd never heard of him before the huns demise, doesn't seem to have a lot of work available online before that http://journalisted.com/mark-daly
|
|
|
| |
|
Smiley
|
10 Nov 2017, 05:56 PM
Post #378
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 14,803
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #33,119
- Joined:
- 9 December 2013
|
- corsica1968
- 10 Nov 2017, 03:13 PM
I still think he has skated on the coat-tails of others and is not the Pulitzer-prize winner that some believe. lol it's nearly all journalists, everywhere.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dubz
|
10 Nov 2017, 06:21 PM
Post #379
|
- Posts:
- 4,757
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #27,189
- Joined:
- 7 November 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Daniel Fergus McGrain
|
- corsica1968
- 10 Nov 2017, 03:13 PM
This is now getting silly. So (in my best Allo, Allo voice) I shall say zis only once: Mark Daly was not the person who informed me the piece was dead because of pressure from above.
I still think he has skated on the coat-tails of others and is not the Pulitzer-prize winner that some believe.
Scottish "journalists" are a joke and a waste of time and effort, and I don't think there is a single one who can look at the past 6 years and think themselves satisfied that they have done their job.
That is my final word on it (and for the avoidance of doubt - no pressure has been brought to bear on me to clear this up). I think that's all johnnyd60 was looking for from the start.
|
|
|
| |
|
Nisi Dominus Frustra
|
10 Nov 2017, 06:27 PM
Post #380
|
- Posts:
- 4,262
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #5,904
- Joined:
- 8 December 2006
|
- Smiley
- 10 Nov 2017, 05:56 PM
- corsica1968
- 10 Nov 2017, 03:13 PM
I still think he has skated on the coat-tails of others and is not the Pulitzer-prize winner that some believe.
lol it's nearly all journalists, everywhere. Royal Television Society Award for "The Secret Policeman". Joined the cops in Manchester for six months to find out if they were racists.
Wouldn't have thought it would take that long to work that one out.
|
|
|
| |
| 3 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
|