So you might think that when a newspaper gets first sniff of a story relating to an event that is to be the subject of a parliamentary debate that day, that they could be relied on to "big it up" - to shout it from the rooftops.
It is curious, then, that Tuesday, 8 March saw just such a story appearing in a paper but delivered in such a low-key manner as to almost send it flying below the Scottish football radar. In fact, if it wasn't for Celtic cyberspace, you might have missed it altogether. Other papers have yet to run with it, presumably because they can't establish the facts.
With the "shame game" still vexing pundits and politicians alike, days after the Chief Executive of the SFA had cited specific instances of unacceptable behaviour from Rangers players El Hadj Diouf and Madjid Bougherra, and with Celtic and Rangers set to discuss the events at Holyrood, The Herald almost apologetically whispered that they "understood" the players were in the clear with the SFA.
The Herald had information that no other paper seemed to have and yet chose to devote a mere 162 words to relaying the potentially explosive news that the abuse of the referee and inflammatory behaviour referred to by the SFA's Stewart Regan was considered a closed case with referee Calum Murray "reporting 'no additional misconduct' in his paperwork, the referee, at least, is content that both players were dealt with sufficiently at the time".
Equally intriguing is the name of the reporter, Martin McMillan. You may have read Martin's name on many a low-key match report and minor story. What a scoop for a reporter whose work is otherwise mundane. But you won't see McMillan on TV or hear him on radio.
Why? Because he doesn't exist. The name Martin McMillan is what is known as a house byline, a name of convenience added to stories, usually supplied by outside agencies or taken straight off the wires (streamed agency reports), to make it appear to readers that actual reporters are delivering news. It is a common practice in the industry and almost every title has them.
But if a news agency had such an exclusive, you would be reading about it first on the back page of one of the better-paying tabloids such as the Sun or the Daily Record. So we can rule them out as a source.
That leads us to speculate as to why the paper might deliver such a story without inviting full attention to it. Any journalist on the sports desk would want to put their name to that particular scoop, claiming the kudos for their investigative work.
Of course, it could be that the story is couched in such ambiguous terms, using terms like "Herald Sport understands" because they can't "stand the story up" - in layman's terms, verify it. But printing a story that just might be true doesn't sound like the approach of the Herald.
Could there be another reason? Could they be sacrificing the splash to protect the source who had presumably delivered the details of the referee's report in breach of his or her contract at the SFA?
Who could possibly be in the inner sanctum of the SFA with a strong connection to the Herald Sports desk?
 |
