Old Firm Media Coverage

Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum.

New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join The Arab League!

If you're already a member please log in:

Pages:
1
2
3
4

Old Firm Media Coverage
Tweet Topic Started: Sep 18 2011, 10:39 AM (2,370 Views)
The Eggman	Sep 19 2011, 09:19 AM Post #16
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	So the Rangers fans don't hate Lennon or HMRC?



reekie	Sep 19 2011, 09:28 AM Post #17
lum raker Posts: 3,201 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: September 16, 2010	Daily Record The Daily Record has a history of condemning intolerance in all forms. Ha-ha-ha-ha! Seriously, what?! From the paper who spearheaded Brian Souter's 'Keep the Clause[28]' campaign. Do me a favour. Edited by reekie, Sep 19 2011, 09:30 AM.



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 19 2011, 09:34 AM Post #18
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 19 2011, 09:19 AM So the Rangers fans don't hate Lennon or HMRC? Whether all Ranger fans hate Lennon, HMRC or their own miserable existence is both debatable and beside the point. Where else is it acceptable for a newspaper to present an individual, or even a group, as hated? If you want double points, how about combining that with that individual about to place himself amongst 50,000 of those who apparently hate him. You don't even have to take into account that Lennon has been the victim of several unprovoked attacks throughout his time in Scotland.



The Eggman	Sep 19 2011, 09:43 AM Post #19
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 09:34 AM Where else is it acceptable for a newspaper to present an individual, or even a group, as hated? If you want double points, how about combining that with that individual about to place himself amongst 50,000 of those who apparently hate him. You don't even have to take into account that Lennon has been the victim of several unprovoked attacks throughout his time in Scotland. I didn't read the article, but if it's explaining the background to why there's hatred of Lennon at Ibrox (and not excusing it), then isn't it just stating the situation? If Celtic were in this tax bother, mightn't the headline be 'Who's more hated at Celtic Park; McCoist or the taxman?' Is the problem that you think the headline (and maybe story) are inciting violence?



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 19 2011, 09:53 AM Post #20
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 19 2011, 09:43 AM whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 09:34 AM Where else is it acceptable for a newspaper to present an individual, or even a group, as hated? If you want double points, how about combining that with that individual about to place himself amongst 50,000 of those who apparently hate him. You don't even have to take into account that Lennon has been the victim of several unprovoked attacks throughout his time in Scotland. I didn't read the article, but if it's explaining the background to why there's hatred of Lennon at Ibrox (and not excusing it), then isn't it just stating the situation? If Celtic were in this tax bother, mightn't the headline be 'Who's more hated at Celtic Park; McCoist or the taxman?' Is the problem that you think the headline (and maybe story) are inciting violence? F*uck's sake man.



The Eggman	Sep 19 2011, 09:57 AM Post #21
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 09:53 AM The Eggman Sep 19 2011, 09:43 AM whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 09:34 AM Where else is it acceptable for a newspaper to present an individual, or even a group, as hated? If you want double points, how about combining that with that individual about to place himself amongst 50,000 of those who apparently hate him. You don't even have to take into account that Lennon has been the victim of several unprovoked attacks throughout his time in Scotland. I didn't read the article, but if it's explaining the background to why there's hatred of Lennon at Ibrox (and not excusing it), then isn't it just stating the situation? If Celtic were in this tax bother, mightn't the headline be 'Who's more hated at Celtic Park; McCoist or the taxman?' Is the problem that you think the headline (and maybe story) are inciting violence? F*uck's sake man. Seriously, what? I care so little about those two bitchy little groups that I can't begin to be up in arms about their pathetic little tribalism.



Naebody	Sep 19 2011, 10:03 AM Post #22
Twat Posts: 5,210 Group: Members Member #20 Joined: September 13, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 09:34 AM Where else is it acceptable for a newspaper to present an individual, or even a group, as hated? A Google News search for "we hate" indicates that it's okay to state a hatred for Ugandans, Mexicans, Uruguay, the euro, Facebook, advertising, Monday, students, the New York Yankees, human resources, Sarah Palin, Floyd Mayweather, the West, change, navy blue, the Emmys, plastic, air, terrorists, new kick-off rules in the NFL, bearers of bad news, unclaimed lottery prizes and fit women in white dresses. That's the results from this morning's press only.



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 19 2011, 10:06 AM Post #23
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Sep 19 2011, 10:03 AM whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 09:34 AM Where else is it acceptable for a newspaper to present an individual, or even a group, as hated? A Google News search for "we hate" indicates that it's okay to state a hatred for Ugandans, Mexicans, Uruguay, the euro, Facebook, advertising, Monday, students, the New York Yankees, human resources, Sarah Palin, Floyd Mayweather, the West, change, navy blue, the Emmys, plastic, air, terrorists, new kick-off rules in the NFL, bearers of bad news, unclaimed lottery prizes and fit women in white dresses. That's the results from this morning's press only. Don't be daft.



Conan the Destroyer	Sep 19 2011, 10:39 AM Post #24
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	What's up with Uruguay? Those death squads in the 70s and a few dozen leg breaking tackles aside.



The Eggman	Sep 19 2011, 11:04 AM Post #25
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 09:34 AM Where else is it acceptable for a newspaper to present an individual, or even a group, as hated? Seems to happen against the English quite a lot in the Scottish media.



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 19 2011, 11:15 AM Post #26
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	The Eggman Sep 19 2011, 11:04 AM whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 09:34 AM Where else is it acceptable for a newspaper to present an individual, or even a group, as hated? Seems to happen against the English quite a lot in the Scottish media. Really?



Conan the Destroyer	Sep 19 2011, 11:24 AM Post #27
I prefer it when we're pish Posts: 3,265 Group: Members Member #6 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 08:32 AM The DR have now apologised. Quote: "As part of the build up to yesterday's Old Firm match the Daily record used a headline in Saturday's paper which contained the word 'hated'. "This has caused dismay and anger and it was wrong "We apologise for any offence this may have caused Neil Lennon and his family and also supporters. "The Daily Record has a history of condemning intolerance in all forms. "Our headline was a misjudgement and it was not intended to stoke up feelings ahead of yesterday's match." Hey, where's the apology for the taxman? He's only doing a job you know, and Glasgow Rangers still have to pay tax like the rest of us, even if they are "The People".



Naebody	Sep 19 2011, 11:34 AM Post #28
Twat Posts: 5,210 Group: Members Member #20 Joined: September 13, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 10:06 AM Don't be daft. Why daft? Why? I. Don't. Understand. What would've been acceptable? "Who's the biggest villain at Ibrox?" (It is, after all, just pantomime hatred.) Or "who gets least love at Ibrox?" (That conjures up some rather unpleasant images.) "Hate" doesn't strike me as a proscribed word, and it's certainly not used that way in the daily churn of reportage. It's perhaps #3 on the list of offensive words in our self-loathing songbook classic, "We fcking hate Dundee, we fcking hate Dundee, we fcking hate Dundee, we fcking hate Dundee." I don't see any persuasive reason to hate hate for hate's sake. The Record says its mere mention of hate will "stoke up feelings" .... Sorry, but what? Feelings in whom? Who in their right mind is going to read the word "hate" and feel galvanised by it? No sane person, surely, so we're really only talking about reasonless halfwits. And I'm sorry, but if we're supposed to mute the press in a way that can't inflame the already aflame, the forces of reason have lost the war.



whatsthatonyourback	Sep 19 2011, 12:05 PM Post #29
Waldo Jeffers Posts: 4,443 Group: Members Member #3 Joined: September 10, 2010	Naebody Sep 19 2011, 11:34 AM whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 10:06 AM Don't be daft. Why daft? Why? I. Don't. Understand. What would've been acceptable? "Who's the biggest villain at Ibrox?" (It is, after all, just pantomime hatred.) Or "who gets least love at Ibrox?" (That conjures up some rather unpleasant images.) "Hate" doesn't strike me as a proscribed word, and it's certainly not used that way in the daily churn of reportage. It's perhaps #3 on the list of offensive words in our self-loathing songbook classic, "We fcking hate Dundee, we fcking hate Dundee, we fcking hate Dundee, we fcking hate Dundee." I don't see any persuasive reason to hate hate for hate's sake. The Record says its mere mention of hate will "stoke up feelings" .... Sorry, but what? Feelings in whom? Who in their right mind is going to read the word "hate" and feel galvanised by it? No sane person, surely, so we're really only talking about reasonless halfwits. And I'm sorry, but if we're supposed to mute the press in a way that can't inflame the already aflame, the forces of reason have lost the war. Who said anything about muting the press? Assuming they have stayed on the right side of law on incitement to hatred, the DR have every right to produce such pish, and everyone else has the right to complain about it. Comparing the verbal outpourings of drunk fans (a chant, I irrelevantly add, I never sing myself) to a published headline in a newspaper, and comparing whatever Google picks up on the internet in one day, irrespective of context, is like expecting the same level of grammar in texts, the TLS and Aramaic. i.e. daft. Don't be that. How about "Who do the British hate more? Blacks or Asians?". Is that an OK headline in a tabloid newspaper?



The Eggman	Sep 19 2011, 12:12 PM Post #30
Tommy McLean Posts: 2,119 Group: Members Member #5 Joined: September 10, 2010	whatsthatonyourback Sep 19 2011, 12:05 PM How about "Who do the British hate more? Blacks or Asians?". Is that an OK headline in a tabloid newspaper? How about "Who do the BNP hate more? Blacks or Asians?" That headline to me would be criticising the BNP. Not the subjects of the hatred.

Our users say it best: "A great way to make a forums for free and it is very reliable as well. Thank you Zetaboards." Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4