Steve Diggle Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 SteelmenOnline - judge, jury, lynch mob, keepers of the moral high ground and owners of several pots, kettles and glass houses and more importantly experts on all they survey since 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Keevins is at the other end of the spectrum as far as experience goes and is more responsible (!) for what he writes. What's more, he repeats much of it on Clyde 1, where he has more control over what goes out under his name, and where it is straight from the horse's arse's mouth Aye, I know that really. I was just been flippant. And I'm certainly not sticking up for Keevins! My point really was that all journalists that sensationalise stories for their own gain should be treated with the same contempt, whether they're one of us or not. In fact, it could even be argued that one of our own doing this should be treated with more contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yabba's Turd Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Motherwell don't pay Scott's mortgage/dealer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkySuperSub Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I can't atually see what is unfair by what is written to be honest. As disappointing and upsetting as it is to us all as 'Well fans that this inexcusable event happened, it did actually happen. If it was two guys in their 20's accused of attacking someone in their 20's or 30's, chances are nothing would ever have been mentioned...you could say it's typical media sensationalism, with the greatest respect to the victim involved. I also take the point that the good stuff happened as well, and hasn't been reported and fully understand why this is disappointing insomuch that it counters the negative story, but at the end of the day, it could also be argued that these are two entirely seperate stories. I'm not trying to defend Scott here, I don't know the guy from Adam to be honest and I have no knowledge of how the media industry works either, just saying things as I see them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev IM Jolly Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 SteelmenOnline - judge, jury, lynch mob, keepers of the moral high ground and owners of several pots, kettles and glass houses and more importantly experts on all they survey since 2008 I can appreciate the sentiments of your recent posts Steve, I've often posted similar things myself on here in seasons gone by, but I'd say you're better to take this place with a very large pinch of salt rather than try to move too far to the view that no one should pass comment on anything ever unless they're the world's number one established authority on the blackness of kettles. Otherwise, there'd be nae point in ever having a forum for public discussion and the world would be a rather boring place. Regardless of how completely misplaced and unjust a lot of the garbage can be, I suppose we must accept that a forum like this needs speculation and debate and often what keeps it interesting to visit is the people who go too far with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tassinari Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Maybe it's just Scott's level of reporting. The man who brought us Bucky Cheescake or something similar. He seems reliant on knocking the area in which he grew up in. But we all have to make a living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky79 Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I can't atually see what is unfair by what is written to be honest. As disappointing and upsetting as it is to us all as 'Well fans that this inexcusable event happened, it did actually happen. If it was two guys in their 20's accused of attacking someone in their 20's or 30's, chances are nothing would ever have been mentioned...you could say it's typical media sensationalism, with the greatest respect to the victim involved. I also take the point that the good stuff happened as well, and hasn't been reported and fully understand why this is disappointing insomuch that it counters the negative story, but at the end of the day, it could also be argued that these are two entirely seperate stories. I'm not trying to defend Scott here, I don't know the guy from Adam to be honest and I have no knowledge of how the media industry works either, just saying things as I see them. Sad truth is that is indeed essentially factually accurate, least far as I can tell from what heard tell of the incident. And very likely if it wasn't Scott it would have been someone else reporting it. Think a lot of people hold the view that they wouldn't have put their name to it at the least, myself included, but none of us are in Scott's position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Disappointed that this unsavoury event reached national level, extremely disappointed if its a fellow dosser that is responsible for such coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishyWell Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 OK, so for the sake of discussion, say something unfair was printed about you in a column by Darryl Broadfoot in the Herald - Who would you hold a grudge against? It seems to me that, by your logic, nobody can ever be held personally accountable for anything damaging that's put in print. If he originated the story, stood by the 'unfair' fact to his bosses and vouched to his bosses that it was true and his words were not changed, then I suppose it could be argued that he was personally responsible. But it is a fact that most, if not all, stories in a paper are a collective effort by the time they go throught the reporter/news editor/copy sub/back-bench subs/chief sub and sometimes editor levels, so it would be difficult, or wrong, to hold one person personally accountable. If someone sues over a story, how often do you hear of the reporter being sued? It is the newspaper as a whole - if any individual is involved, it will be the editor. The reporter may be called as a witness, but that's as far as it goes. As far as saying something 'unfair' is concerned, unfortunately that is not a ground for complaint - it has to be wrong. Even then, I once had something completely wrong written about me in the Guardian and took legal advice, and was told not to bother, as it was a game for only the rich. Even if I won, it would prove too costly. The lawyer pointed out that he had once been described by a paper as "the fat lawyer" - it was unfair, as it had no relevance to the story, but was true, so there was nothing he could do about it. If I didn't know how it worked, I may hold a personal grudge against Darryl Broadfoot for something in a story that bore his byline, but I am well aware that, once a reporter has written something and passed it on, his influence ends and what appears in the paper is usually changed to some extent and, in some cases, can bear no resemblance whatsoever to what he wrote in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jk2205 Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 The story didnt really need to be 'nationalised' and its poor show on those involved (especially the d*cks that carried out the attack in the first place) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geedub Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Just goes to show that all journalists are scum. Imagine selling out your own team for a shitty newspaper report like this. What a fucking wanker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 OK, so for the sake of discussion, say something unfair was printed about you in a column by Darryl Broadfoot in the Herald - Who would you hold a grudge against? it's not unfair. two bams battered an old guy, stories like that always make the tabloids. the sun had a two page spread yesterday about a scrap between two 14 year lassies. the victim also co-opereated with the story so he is obviously quite happy to see it published, surely it's got more to do with him than the sensibilities of some motherwell fans. and as far praising us for behaving well, why should they? just because we didn't stoop to the level of the old scum on their travels doesn't mean we should get a pat on the head. we were down there bevvying and pertying not building an orphanage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Irish Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'm struggling to see a problem here, it is an interesting story, is in the public domain (largely because loads of people using this forum put it there, some of the same people criticising Scott?) and it highlights how sympathetically the club responded and its zero tolerance attitude to thuggery. Wise words from WishyWell too, as a matter of course stuff appearing in the Sun gets re-written top to bottom. Despite that, the reporter appears to have done a good job, all factually accurate. No one has the right to expect anything more than that so less of the moralising please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev IM Jolly Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 less of the moralising please. If folk are against the story on a moral principle then it's up to them to say so, as it's also 'factually correct'. Can't have it both ways! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studos Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 (especially the d*cks that carried out the attack in the first place) Says it all really. Had these yobs sat on their arses instead of acting like arses there's no story for journos to report on nor give them the chance to drag the good name of our club through the myre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Stall Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Is it written into the course when you're studying journalism at Uni that loyalty counts for feck all and that you have to sell your soul to the devil? 99% of the 'Well fans behaved in the correct manner, the club conducted themselves as well as they could have done, yet the nation will view us as a bunch of thugs. I know that a minority can often tarnish the reputation of the majority, but it's a bit of a kick in the teeth when it's one of our own who lets the world know. Disappointed in you, Scott. Aside from the editorial aspect which others have mentioned, the guys got a job to do. Why should anyone cover up the facts, we'r not revisionists like Celtic or Rangers. Fact of the matter is that some aspects of our support are scum bags, just like any other club. Pretending it didnt happen or sweeping it under the carpet would do no good what so ever. At least this way, any future trouble makers will see the assailants life bans from Fir Park and hopefully take it as a warning. Did the reporter mis report anything? No. Basically he did his job and arseholes on a forum being judgemental over someone legitimatley earning a crust is just pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Irish Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 If folk are against the story on a moral principle then it's up to them to say so, as it's also 'factually correct'. Can't have it both ways! Fine, let me try and put it another way It's actually a test of the credentials of a good journalist that they report bad news about something they are engaged with. If they can't do that, they are not cut out for journalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I couldn't care less what Sun readers think about anything, and if this story means a few less people buy that rag in the future, then well done to Scott for writing the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev IM Jolly Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 It's actually a test of the credentials of a good journalist that they report bad news about something they are engaged with. If they can't do that, they are not cut out for journalism. Fine point, well made! But that's another issue and nothing to do with whether or not people are allowed to say they are morally opposed to something. For what it's worth I wouldn't be hanging the guy as he seems likes reasonably decent sort, but as I said I personally wouldn't have ran with it as I couldn't comfortably live with the conflict of interest (if he indeed did) but then I wouldn't be in the journalism game anyway for similar reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Irish Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 It is yea... Coulda done without the national coverage on it but these things happen I suppose! Main thing is Jim is on the mend and the club have tried to look after him! 'Flow Flaks versus hacks - the eternal struggle! Seriously though, it is true the victim here has had plenty of support up to now, but it's conceivable that his story being more widely publicised in the press will mean he will get a lot more from his fellow fans and the wider community. Perhaps he deserves that? Just as the people responsible for his attack do not deserve to have their wrongdoing brushed under the carpet by some no-publicity blackout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Will 'Sydney Devine' report on this story ? If so, what route will he go down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 it's not unfair. two bams battered an old guy, stories like that always make the tabloids. the sun had a two page spread yesterday about a scrap between two 14 year lassies. the victim also co-opereated with the story so he is obviously quite happy to see it published, surely it's got more to do with him than the sensibilities of some motherwell fans. and as far praising us for behaving well, why should they? just because we didn't stoop to the level of the old scum on their travels doesn't mean we should get a pat on the head. we were down there bevvying and pertying not building an orphanage. The story is unfair - not on the two bams - they deserve everything they get. It's on unfair as it was written as 'Two Motherwell fans batterred an old guy', Again, not an innaccurate description of what happened, but it does tarnish the reputation of the rest of us. Had the story either cited the great behaviour of the rest of the fans, or singled out the two individuals, then I would have no complaint. To be honest, I don't really have any complaint that it's in the Sun - it was a newsworthy incident as someone said - I'm just disappointed that it was a 'Well fan who chose to paint us in such a bad light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 How many people complain that Old Firm loving journalists don't write enough about the despicable behaviour of their fans? Bit of hypocrisy here, in my opinion. Can't believe people are so outraged at what's been written. One of our most loyal supporters has been viciously assaulted, and we're supposed to sweep it under the carpet and keep it hush-hush?! The only guilty party in this whole sorry fiasco are the two scum who initiated the assault. He reported the truth, which is pretty uncommon it appears. He reported that the club have shown care and condolence for one of their most loyal supporters. Exactly what problem has Scott caused here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnymfc Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Does anyone know who these thugs are? Its a disgrace two idiots attack an old guy. If it was my grandpa i'd be furious, even tho it isnt im still peeved! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Yes he said the people who did it were banned for life, but not a lot else positive about the Motherwell support including those who helped the man at the time. The article in the Wishaw Press was in my view more balanced. However, it doesn't take away from the fact it shouldn't have happened to start with. Yes I'm sure this could have been edited by someone else before publication and yes it could have been picked up by the nationals no matter what. However, as has already been found, it is very difficult to separate your working life from being on here if your working life may involve Motherwell. I'm sure the person who wrote it will have his reply on here anyway. It does paint us in a bad light but lets not forget that it was 2 idiots out of a well behaved support. Just a shame that certain Scottish newspapers love writing negative things about Motherwell and we've handed them this story on a plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.