Jump to content

The Terrible Journalism & Tom English Thread


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Ric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Ric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Ric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AJF said:

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

Well, given that one their employees is not being allowed to do his job because he was banned by Rangers for writing the truth, you can kinda see why people would say that Rangers have banned the BBC. Even if you don’t agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Ric said:

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.

 

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last page has been an interesting psychological insight. 

 

Edit - Ooft such comments have left me the victim of a red dot drive by by the man who's been humiliated over the last page or so. Definitely completely normal behaviour. 

Edited by Albus Bulbasaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Well, given that one their employees is not being allowed to do his job because he was banned by Rangers for writing the truth, you can kinda see why people would say that Rangers have banned the BBC. Even if you don’t agree.

Again, I'd need to respectfully disagree.

The BBC absolutely have the option to send someone in McLaughlin's place. The fact they choose not to and boycott Ibrox instead does not mean that the BBC themselves are banned.

I'm not giving an opinion on whether they are right or wrong in doing so, I'm simply stating that it's a fact they have the option to send someone other than McLaughlin to Ibrox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AJF said:

Again, I'd need to respectfully disagree.

The BBC absolutely have the option to send someone in McLaughlin's place. The fact they choose not to and boycott Ibrox instead does not mean that the BBC themselves are banned.

I'm not giving an opinion on whether they are right or wrong in doing so, I'm simply stating that it's a fact they have the option to send someone other than McLaughlin to Ibrox.

Yeah, but given the obvious fact that they’re backing their employee, you can see why people may come to the conclusion that Rangers have banned the BBC from Ibrox. Even if you don’t agree that they actually have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not they're banned from or just boycotting Ibrox, you'd still hope the BBC would have a bit more self-respect and not routinely put out such fawning, craven coverage of The Rangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Yeah, but given the obvious fact that they’re backing their employee, you can see why people may come to the conclusion that Rangers have banned the BBC from Ibrox. Even if you don’t agree that they actually have.

Sorry, yes, I'd see why some will believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...