The Terrible Journalism & Tom English Thread

[Ric]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

That’s a position the bbc are taking and fair play, as a matter of principle it’s correct.

But as a point of fact, the bbc have/had a choice here. 

I think it's important for people to know exactly why the BBC is banned, because the snowflakes at Ibrox didn't like what they wrote. Not that it was factually incorrect or that it was in an way illegal or broke journalistic norms,  but because they didn't like it. There is no justification for the refusal.

For your argument to hold it suggests that Rangers have the right to determine who works for any company that has a connection to Ibrox. If they think the person selling the pies happens to support Celtic, they could refuse entry. If a steward happened to think Rangers were liquidated and not the same company pre-2012, then Rangers could demand he no longer works at Ibrox. That's simply not acceptable, and while legally permissible - after all it's private property and they have the right to determine who enters or not, it's certainly not "moral" or "ethical" (with the obvious caveats).

 

However, we can very easily sidestep all of this, in many ways it's irrelevant whether it's McLaughlin or the BBC that are banned, the fact is the BBC seem to show continuing deference to the club. This is primarily down to the way Scottish football is, for all intents and purposes, a duopoly, but it's a position that many, me included, find somewhat odd.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Ric

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

I think it's important for people to know exactly why the BBC is banned, because the snowflakes at Ibrox didn't like what they wrote. Not that it was factually incorrect or that it was in an way illegal or broke journalistic norms,  but because they didn't like it. There is no justification for the refusal.

For your argument to hold it suggests that Rangers have the right to determine who works for any company that has a connection to Ibrox. If they think the person selling the pies happens to support Celtic, they could refuse entry. If a steward happened to think Rangers were liquidated and not the same company pre-2012, then Rangers could demand he no longer works at Ibrox. That's simply not acceptable, and while legally permissible - after all it's private property and they have the right to determine who enters or not, it's certainly not "moral" or "ethical" (with the obvious caveats).

 

However, we can very easily sidestep all of this, in many ways it's irrelevant whether it's McLaughlin or the BBC that are banned, the fact is the BBC seem to show continuing deference to the club. This is primarily down to the way Scottish football is, for all intents and purposes, a duopoly, but it's a position that many, me included, find somewhat odd.

 

Right, so when I said it was the correct principled position, but as a point of fact it is correct to say the bbc are not banned from ibrox, you totally agree. Good stuff. 

[Ric]

It should also be noted that the utterly childish nature of the Rangers hierarchy extends beyond the BBC.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7711446/celtic-sutton-lennon-rangers-lyon-safety-concerns/

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, AJF said:

Just for some clarity, the BBC isn't banned from Ibrox, Chris McLaughlin is. As a result, the BBC boycott Ibrox.

Whenever I read @Ric‘s post, it was just a case of which Rangers fan on here would be the first to get the “the BBC aren’t banned from Ibrox” retort in. Congratulations.

[AJF]

8 minutes ago, Ric said:

I think it's important for people to know exactly why the BBC is banned, because the snowflakes at Ibrox didn't like what they wrote. Not that it was factually incorrect or that it was in an way illegal or broke journalistic norms,  but because they didn't like it. There is no justification for the refusal.

For your argument to hold it suggests that Rangers have the right to determine who works for any company that has a connection to Ibrox. If they think the person selling the pies happens to support Celtic, they could refuse entry. If a steward happened to think Rangers were liquidated and not the same company pre-2012, then Rangers could demand he no longer works at Ibrox. That's simply not acceptable, and while legally permissible - after all it's private property and they have the right to determine who enters or not, it's certainly not "moral" or "ethical" (with the obvious caveats).

 

However, we can very easily sidestep all of this, in many ways it's irrelevant whether it's McLaughlin or the BBC that are banned, the very fact is the BBC seem to show deference to the club. This is primarily down to the way Scottish football is, for all intents and purposes, a duopoly, but it's a position that many, me included, find somewhat odd.

@Dons_1988has covered it for me already. As he mentions, the BBC themselves are not banned. Rangers have confirmed in the past that the BBC as an organisation are welcome, it's only Chris McLaughlin that isn't. The BBC have also confirmed that they will continue to boycott Ibrox - no mention of them being banned.

Whether you agree with the reasoning behind it or not, Rangers reserve the right to ban whoever they see fit from Ibrox, regardless of their occupation. This is not Rangers determining who the BBC can employ, it's simply a case of one of their employee's is not welcome at Ibrox.

It's akin to Sir Alex Ferguson refusing to do interviews with the BBC for the best part of a decade because he didn't like the way they portrayed his son. Nobody was kicking up a fuss over that.

Edited March 28, 2022 by AJF

[AJF]

1 minute ago, kingjoey said:

Whenever I read @Ric‘s post, it was just a case of which Rangers fan on here would be the first to get the “the BBC aren’t banned from Ibrox” retort in. Congratulations.

Thanks, I guess? Why wouldn't I confirm what is true?

[Ric]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

Right, so when I said it was the correct principled position, but as a point of fact it is correct to say the bbc are not banned from ibrox, you totally agree. Good stuff. 

Why did you bother writing that comment, it's clear I don't agree yet for some reason you think I do.

 

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, AJF said:

@Dons_1988has covered it for me already. As he mentions, the BBC themselves are not banned. Rangers have confirmed in the past that the BBC as an organisation are welcome, it's only Chris McLaughlin that isn't. The BBC have also confirmed that they will continue to boycott Ibrox - no mention of them being banned.

Whether you agree with the reasoning behind it or not, Rangers reserve the right to ban whoever they see fit from Ibrox, regardless of their occupation. This is not Rangers determining who the BBC can employ, it's simply a case of one of their employee's is not welcome at Ibrox.

It's akin to Sir Alex Ferguson refusing to do interviews with the BBC for the best part of a decade because he didn't like the way he portrayed his son. Nobody was kicking up a fuss over that.

Actually people did kick up a fuss over that. It was embarrassing for Ferguson and made himself look like an arsehole. 

Small fry compared to rangers though, who have started this over a journalist factually reporting that a few morons got arrested. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Dons_1988

[AJF]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

Actually people did kick up a fuss over that. It was embarrassing for Ferguson and made himself look like an arsehole. 

Small dry compared to rangers though, who have started this over a journalist factually reporting that a few morons got arrested. 

Fair enough, I don't recall it being a big thing.

Your second point I tried to cover already by saying whether you agree with the reasons behind McLaughlin's ban or not, the fact of the matter is the BBC themselves are not banned. I think it harms our image to carry on a feud that, as you allude to, is pretty tin-pot.

[Ric]

Just now, AJF said:

@Dons_1988has covered it for me already. As he mentions, the BBC themselves are not banned. Rangers have confirmed in the past that the BBC as an organisation are welcome, it's only Chris McLaughlin that isn't. The BBC have also confirmed that they will continue to boycott Ibrox - no mention of them being banned.

If the BBC are not banned, can they send anyone they wish to report from Ibrox? Because if not, then that is a ban.

Rangers have absolutely no remit on who the BBC employs, and the person they wish to do that has not broken any rules, regulations or laws.

It is astounding that people seem to think that football clubs have the authority to organise independent companies workflows.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Ric

[AJF]

Just now, Ric said:

If the BBC are now banned, can they send anyone they wish to report from Ibrox? Because if not, then that is a ban.

Rangers have absolutely no remit on who the BBC employs, and the person they wish to do that has not broken any rules, regulations or laws.

It is astounding that people seem to think that football clubs have the authority to organise independent companies workflows.

 

Right, let's make this simple: Are the BBC and Chris McLaughlin the same entity? No.

Have Rangers ever claimed to have, or in any way have had remit on who the BBC employs? No.

Are the BBC welcome at Ibrox? Yes.

Have the BBC confirmed they are boycotting Ibrox? Yes.

In a completely hypothetical situation, if, as an example, a G4S employee assigned as a steward at Ibrox was found to have done something Rangers didn't like and that individual was subsequently banned from the stadium, you believe we would effectively be banning G4S as a business?

[Dons_1988]

12 minutes ago, Ric said:

Why did you bother writing that comment, it's clear I don't agree yet for some reason you think I do.

 

You said it was legally permissible but morally/ethically wrong. 

[Ric]

Just now, AJF said:

Right, let's make this simple: Are the BBC and Chris McLaughlin the same entity?

Yes. For all intents and purposes, they are the one and the same. It appears you think this is a micro issue when it is, in fact, a macro one.

In programming terms, McLaughlin is an encapsulated private data field on the BBC object.

 

[Ric]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

You said it was legally permissible but morally/ethically wrong. 

Yes, legally possible to refuse entry (on literally any grounds they wish).

The issue is you tagged on that I somehow agreed it wasn't a ban, something I clearly don't agree with.

[AJF]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

Yes. For all intents and purposes, they are the one and the same.

I respectfully disagree. For the BBC to be banned from Ibrox, that ban would need to be absolute and extend to all BBC employees, rather than just 1.

The rest of your programming analogy is lost on me.

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

Yes, legally possible to refuse entry (on literally any grounds they wish).

The issue is you tagged on that I somehow agreed it wasn't a ban, something I clearly don't agree with.

It’s not really something to agree with. It’s a point of fact. If the bbc said we’re sending Richard Gordon to cover instead of the guy you don’t like, they’d be allowed to. 

[Ric]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

If the bbc said we’re sending Richard Gordon to cover instead of the guy you don’t like, they’d be allowed to. 

And have the BBC either done or said this? I think you'll find they haven't.

People need to get away from micro-management here. The relationship between Rangers and the BBC is specifically Rangers and the BBC, because McLaughlin was a representative of the BBC. In the same way if someone turns up to fix a problem at your house and they cause problems and or damage, the company that sent them can't just go "yeah, well your problem is with that one worker, not us, their employer".

So, in a similar vein to your question, would McLaughlin be banned from Ibrox if he bought a ticket and walked up like any other punter? Of course he wouldn't because it was in his professional capacity he was banned in, and as such, it was the BBC they were banning, not the person.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Ric

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

And have the BBC either done or said this? I think you'll find they haven't.

People need to get away from micro-management here. The relationship between Rangers and the BBC is specifically Rangers and the BBC, because McLaughlin was a representative of the BBC. In the same way if someone turns up to fix a problem at your house and they cause problems and or damage, the company that sent them can't just go "yeah, well your problem is with that one worker, not us, their employer".

So, in a similar vein to your question, would McLaughlin be banned from Ibrox if he bought a ticket and walked up like any other punter? Of course he wouldn't because it was in his professional capacity he was banned in, and as such, it was the BBC they were banning, not the person.

I won’t be going round in circles on this anymore with you. 

[Ric]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

I won’t be going round in circles on this anymore with you. 

This is not a circular argument.

I have made my point clear, you have failed to counter those points.

It's understandable you wish to step back from this (edit: just for clarity, because it's extremely tedious to discuss Rangers - and the BBC to a lesser extent - not that you are somehow incapable of responding).

Edited March 28, 2022 by Ric

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

It's understandable you wish to step back from this.

We can agree on that, maybe not on why but it’s enough for me.