| 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: |
| Old Firm Media Coverage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 18 2011, 10:39 AM (2,369 Views) | |
| whatsthatonyourback | Sep 19 2011, 12:20 PM Post #31 |
Waldo Jeffers
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
And? |
 |
 
|
| Naebody | Sep 19 2011, 12:21 PM Post #32 |
Twat
|
Of course not. Don't be daft. I'd see no problem, however, with: "Who do the British hate more, Stephen K Amos or Shappi Khorsandi?" I'd imagine that'd be a quite lively debate. For f*ck sake, it's only football. |
|
|
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Sep 19 2011, 12:28 PM Post #33 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
|
When someone has been assaulted several times on the streets of Glasgow, and a paper is taking it as a given that everyone who frequents Ibrox hates him, then I feel it has moved beyond "only football". For me, a headline that takes as a given that everyone at Ibrox hates Lennon, and that the only question is how much they hate him, will be taken as legitimation for further assaults on him by the more mental minority "at Ibrox". You seem to disagree. |
|
|
|
| The Eggman | Sep 19 2011, 12:30 PM Post #34 |
Tommy McLean
|
And so where's the problem? The Daily Record headline wasn't criticising Lennon or the Taxman, nor inciting violence. |
|
|
|
| The Eggman | Sep 19 2011, 12:31 PM Post #35 |
|
Tommy McLean
|
Pish. I guess videogames are to blame for the riots in London as well. Edited by The Eggman, Sep 19 2011, 12:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Sep 19 2011, 12:37 PM Post #36 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
|
Are you aware that Lennon, Ranger fans and the Daily Record are real? |
|
|
|
| The Eggman | Sep 19 2011, 12:42 PM Post #37 |
|
Tommy McLean
|
Sigh. I don't even know what you're supposed to mean by that. The Daily Record has stated a view that Neil Lennon and HMRC are hated by most Rangers fans. This is accurate. This reporting of the situation will not result in some ned reading the paper and saying 'oh aye, I never hated Lennon before, but now I do. I'm going to send him bullets through the post". And the ones that do hate Lennon will probably think 'aye, seems about right; both f*ckers' ahd that's it. The Record didn't say "who should Rangers fans hate more; Lennon or HMRC? We suggest it should be Lennon, because he's a wee ginger Tim. Call this number xxx if you agree, and vent your rage. Maybe then you can go further". |
|
|
|
| Naebody | Sep 19 2011, 12:53 PM Post #38 |
|
Twat
|
No, I agree. The use of the word "hate" in the context of Lennon risks (in a very small way) legitimising the delusions of the mentally deranged. That's unfortunate. But, I reiterate: since when have newspapers been written specifically to pacify the mentally deranged? Let's try reversing the argument. Let's say a man stands before a jury after assaulting Lennon and pleads mitigating circumstances, because his sensitivities were inflamed by seeing this:  Anyone outside Scotland -- and everyone inside as well, if we're honest -- knows from the assortment of visual clues here that we're in the argot of pantomime villains. This is fair enough because football is really just a pantomime, and anyone who believes otherwise is a f*ckwit. I have no time for f*ckwits. To be clear, it's a rubbish headline. It's not witty, pertinent, revealing or insightful. However, neither is it "inflammatory, highly irresponsible and quite simply offensive," as Celtic claimed. It's just a crap joke, the response to which has been absurdly disproportionate to the negligible damage it might hypothetically cause. |
|
|
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Sep 19 2011, 01:22 PM Post #39 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
|
They've no need to pacify anybody, but they do have a duty not to inflame anyone, particularly in the context of someone who has already suffered several unprovoked attacks in public. Whether it is a defence for the mental actions of some wegie nutter is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
| Skeletor | Sep 19 2011, 03:02 PM Post #40 |
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe
|
Shappi. She's a woman, don't you know? She is also Iranian. And oh how the hilarity naturally ensues. But on a side note; did you know that Andi Osho and Stephen K Amos are both black? It's unreal! Edit: I forgot to add, Andi Osho is also a woman. Edited by Skeletor, Sep 19 2011, 03:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
| findus | Sep 19 2011, 03:14 PM Post #41 |
Jerry Kerr
|
Oh, to be a disabled, ginger, black, Muslim, foreign, 65 year old thieving gypsy woman again 
|
|
|
|
| TheDean | Sep 19 2011, 04:01 PM Post #42 |
|
ALLEGEDLY CALICO
|
I'd certainly buy one of those Hector the Inspector masks the 'tic fans were wearing at Skeletor Castle yesterday. Just think if the ET stand could be filled with them at the next game v Hun FC |
|
|
|
| Naebody | Sep 19 2011, 06:52 PM Post #43 |
|
Twat
|
Meaning ..... neutrality? All reporting has to have a PH of 7? Hm. Honestly, I've tried to understand. I've thought about the power of subtle reinforcement of having Lennon's face next to the word "hate" may have on someone already predisposed to violence. But then I look again at the headline, with its jaunty sideways block font and Beano colour scheme, and its illustration paring two big cartoon faces. And it reminds me that the only people who could take encouragement from this (rather than mock outrage) would have to be deeply, deeply broken in the head already.
Well, no. It's really quite relevant. It's all a question of culpability. Can anyone argue with sincerity that the Record's headline might be held culpable for an individual's crime? Your argument, if I understand it, is that the headline might legitimise paranoid delusions. Conversely, I'd suggest that Celtic's statement was much more likely to legitimise paranoid delusions. In fact, simply to have this argument serves to legitimise paranoid delusions. Claiming that innocuous things are dangerous is a cornerstone of paranoia. That's why this whole manufactured scandal is bullshit and should be called as such. We need to stop treating these cuntwhistles as if they have a point. |
|
|
|
| whatsthatonyourback | Sep 19 2011, 07:52 PM Post #44 |
|
Waldo Jeffers
|
pH7 coverage? No. A reasonable, in context, responsible reporting is all I ask. The DR have already acknowledged they got that wrong, albeit with a fair bit of arm twisting. When they take as a given the universal hatred of Lennon at Ibrox, and only see to quantify how much they hate him, comparing him to the cartoon representation of a tax man who threatens Ranger's(sic) existence simultaneously dehumanises him to the level of a cartoon while exaggerating his threat to Ranger. It's nasty propaganda, pure and simple. I refer you to wartime material throughout history. Existing incitement to hatred laws (not applicable in Scotland) do not have a burden of proof so high that a reasonable, fair minded person would have to be rendered incapable of resisting whatever incitement was being expounded, and could produce such evidence of incitement as mitigation in his defence. The paper doesn't have to have broken the law before it is rightly criticised for irresponsible content. And anyway, first you say any effect the DR's headline might have had would have been on the broken minded, and then you reckon they're not culpable if it has that effect. You think they don't know they have a certain broken-mindedness in their readership on the eve of an OF game? Eh No. Who said anything about paranoid delusions? Not me. You've inserted that all by yourself. I fear you are letting your own usual conception of OF fans get in the way on this one. |
|
|
|
| Naebody | Sep 19 2011, 09:20 PM Post #45 |
|
Twat
|
Wait wait wait wait. Let's wind this back. Celtic said the headline was "inflammatory, highly irresponsible and quite simply offensive." It's not though. It's just a crap joke, as stated previously. If any other manager's head had been up there it would've been written off as a crap joke. What makes it "inflammatory, irresponsible and offensive" is that Neil Lennon has previously received death threats. These threats, clearly, were from delusional maniacs. A sane person does not post bullets to the manager of a sports team he doesn't like. That's the behaviour of a mentalist. But Celtic, by taking umbrage, are effectively legitimising this polarised and deeply delusional world view. Think of it this way: I hate Jimmy Calderwood. Detest him. Even now, after all these years, just thinking about his burst-boil face slurring through a post-match interview is making me angry. However, I know I only hate him inside Planet Football, not in the real world. I've not the slightest desire to hurt or threaten Mr Calderwood any more than I'd hurt or threaten Dennis Hopper for being such a shit to Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet. This, I believe, is how rational people think. Football is just not that important. It's a game, not an ideology. But, if you're one of the Glasgows, nothing can be rational. How dare you suggest it's a game. There can be no jokes, no levity, no fun. The animosity between the clubs is so deep and fundamentally held that it can't even be mentioned, for fear of steeling the militant believers into further acts of terrorism. That, in effect, is what Celtic said. Their ban of the Record, and the accompanying statement, was clearly aimed at sending the message: "the media are deliberately provoking thems lot into terrorist acts against we Bhoyses." And, if that's not paranoid delusion, I don't know what is. That's why I say we should be calling the delusion, not pandering to it. They're just football teams, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fantasist. Taking all this bullshit seriously only legitimises and perpetuates their Green-versus-Blue world view, which is the real problem. |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic » |
4:54 PM Jul 13