A free, fearless and
impartial media is one of the pillars on which any society
 | |
| Due diligence: Two Scottish sports hacks discuss standards and ethics |
In various corners
of the world, journalists have been pressurised, intimidated, sacked,
arrested, imprisoned, tortured and even killed for their
determination to get to and report the truth.
It is through
journalism that presidents have been held to account, crimes
revealed, spying exposed and more. And so we should be careful to do
nothing to support the suppression of truth or the journalistic
freedoms on which a just and transparent society depends.
And yet, that sacred
implied contract of society defending a free press is based on a
number of clauses. The journalism cannot always be fearless, it is
rarely free in the truest sense but it must always strive towards
such impartiality as is possible, allowing for – but guarding
against – unconscious biases.
It must never, ever
stray from seeking to uphold those ideals and when it does so –
stray from the seeking, rather than attaining these ideals – it
loses its claim on our protection. It becomes something weak,
spreading error, misinformation and even disinformation. It becomes
something anathema to all journalists everywhere; a thin cloak of
journalistic privilege over a body of PR or even propaganda.
When that happens,
the rules change fundamentally. The so-called journalists and the
publications they represent distort their core mission for reasons
that are not always clear – fear, self-interest, blackmail,
bribery, intimidation – and they become something not only unworthy
of privilege, but demanding to be challenged.
And this is
pertinent now, perhaps more than ever. It is indicative of the
absurdity surrounding one part of Scottish society that such issues
are being bandied about over the subject of football.
Once, Scotland might
have been said to have excelled at the journalistic game, far more so
than the one of beauty in which we invest so much of our time, money
and emotional energy.
In recent decades,
however, Scottish sports journalism has rarely sought to set the bar
as high as a Fosberry Flop. We can be in danger of presuming that we
have too much and too perfect knowledge of motivations – that is
largely irrelevant.
What matters is the
evidence of the output and, while it is problematic to talk of
“empirical evidence” in something that doesn’t lend itself to
statistically-rigorous analysis, we can take another approach.
If we were to
evaluate the output of the Scottish media in terms of positive or
negative media coverage, what conclusions would we draw?
We needn’t and
shouldn’t seek PR spin from the media. That invariably obscures
truth, which followers of a once-famous club know can, in the most
extreme circumstances, prove fatal.
Is the coverage
negative? Overwhelmingly, yes, which is remarkable, given that this
seems to be the case in promising, as well as challenging, times.
This raises issues, to which we will return.
However, there is a
third question: in a scenario in which a competitor saw itself as
being in a polarised market, despite there being other legitimate
(and longer-established) players, would that competitor be likely to
think that their PR budget had been well-spent, both in promoting
their brand and denigrating the brand of their rivals?
The answer to that
would also seem to be an unequivocal yes.
On the subject of
Celtic receiving negative coverage in times of success, we could
conclude that the club’s public relations strategy or
implementation is flawed – it certainly has been in the past.
On the other hand,
we might equally ask if what masquerades as objective media coverage
in this country is, in effect, PR for our would-be rivals. And, if we
conclude that the answer to that is “yes”, that doesn’t simply
validate action consistent with challenging a hostile PR machine –
it positively demands it.
Imagine a scenario
far removed from football. Coca-Cola and Pepsi see their competition
as a zero-sum game – what’s good for Coke is bad for Pepsi and
vice-versa. There are other brands out there but the media focuses on
the big two, no matter what. (As if you didn’t know, the world’s
third-best-selling brand is RC Cola – in red & blue packaging
but unlikely to be sold at at least one Scottish football ground).
Let’s say Pepsi
have gone through really bad times (they haven’t – it’s just
pretend) and the company is really worried about where it goes from
here. Their results are bad, their innovations are damp squibs, Pepsi
drinkers constantly disgrace themselves in public.
On the other hand,
Coke is flying high: buoyant on the market, great new products and a
feelgood factor surrounding it because people just like it.
If the trade press
constantly banged the drum for Pepsi, against all evidence, and ran
bad news stories against Coke every time things got really serious,
would you expect the Coca-Cola Company to just shrug awkwardly and
say: “There’s nothing we can do”?
To continue the
analogy, it’s like Coke going strong where a company that thinks
it’s Pepsi – but is in fact, not RC Cola, not even Strike Cola,
but Solripe, whose branding has been bought by The Sticky Sugar King
NewCola Company – is getting all the good press, while chunks are
being taken out of Coke, to the detriment of the brand.
Without trying to
speak for Coke, Pepsi or Celtic, the point is that, regardless of
what Celtic do on or off the park, the media coverage seems to
diminish the good, exaggerate the bad and run smears on the club when
our over-inflated “rivals” are in the darkest of places.
And at that point,
it is more than legitimate to question the press privileges given to
certain publications and simply say: “The ba’s on the slates!”
Many Celtic fans
baulk at the idea of “media bans”, with a quite admirable
appreciation of the principles espoused at the beginning of this
article. We should laud and respect them.
However, while the
principles of media freedom are eternal, the prevailing conditions
and practicalities of the modern age are radically changed.
Firstly, let’s not
forget that this is football – the entertainment business as surely
as the popular music industry. (Look, straighten that face – you
get awful live concerts, too!)
We are not talking
about central government, institutions substantially funded by the
public purse or matters of pressing social concern.
We’re talking
about football. It means a lot to us, is important in its own way,
but is not intrinsically relevant to democracy or larger
quality-of-life issues.
If that seems to be
trivialising the issue, it is the same logic used by sports desks and
sports hacks, allowing them to concoct and print unadulterated
garbage, with the defence of: “Lighten up, it’s only a game!”
But, by the same
token, those who absolve themselves of professional standards also
lose the right to claim the status of loosely-defined “colleagues”
who actually do journalistic work. To fail to recognise that is to
stand behind the scribes who reported the World War II bomber found
on the moon or exposed Freddie Starr’s taste for hamsters.
Secondly, what is
offered by football clubs – much like the music industry – is
privileged access, based on the “legitimacy” of the media outlet.
When people in
important positions at Celtic agree to the odd interview with the
independent websites, most of us appreciate it. When the club offers
regular exceptional privileges to fan sites, it often provokes
suspicion.
Why? Because
privileged access is not a right – the clue is in the name. It is a
recognition of a certain journalistic standing as well as standards,
also known as “legitimacy”. And, while it is not something to be
traded as currency, neither should it be given out unthinkingly,
because – you know – “people might talk”.
And this leads us to
a third point – the protocols surrounding a “free press” –
originally meaning printed media – were established when there were
few means through which the general public could glean information as
to the events and decisions which intimately affected their lives.
They were never
designed to defend the right of idiots to represent the interests of
their favourite football clubs, to the detriment of competitors.
There should be no
suggestion of Celtic trying to pressurise journalists into writing
whatsoever they choose, as long as it remains within the realms of
truth, legality and basic journalistic standards.
And decades of
experience have told us that they will write anything about Celtic
without fear, which may not be the case when reporting on others who
demand favour.
But the club does
not have to extend media privileges to those who eschew the
principles of journalism, any more than it has to give every blogger
a press pass to eat sandwiches and free tickets to the game.
In the 24-7,
multimedia, social-media age, no one can stop people reporting on the
matches, if they buy a ticket or watch it on TV (which some hacks do)
or reporting the outcome of press conferences, which are often
streamed, anyway.
You’ll find a
dozen Celtic fan sites doing the same.
They, too, are
informing the public, equally deserving or undeserving of privilege.
So there is no need
to talk of “bans” or attacking press freedoms, if privileges are
withdrawn from those who do not feel bound by professional standards
and values, instead leveraging those principles in order to damage
our club.
Celtic must protect
Celtic, with or without those “legitimate” journalists who seem
hell-bent on damaging us. Cut them off, without fear or favour.
If they’re hacked
off, sobeit. What’s the worst they can do – relentlessly and
unfairly criticise us?
That would be awful.
--
