Broxburn Jambo Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I am now of the opinion, to prove that we are not anti media, we should invite the Sports Editors In the written press and head of Sports at BBC Scotland and STV to come out and explain their position and anti HMFC bias. And to give their justification for the stance they have taken on Hearts as against clubs who also have some of the same issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Doubt if you'd get any media people to openly admit to having an agenda against Hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Loblaw Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I thought we said we were only blanking the media until Sergio's hearing on 3 November? I'm assuming we've decided to just keep running with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Except Today Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 nah keep the media ban i say. why would we want any monkeys putting slander on a story that is meaningless hearts should continue to update its website, twitter & Facebook pages accordingly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 get all the true info you need from heartsfc. com and all the pess from KB so that's about all covered not forgetting the stuff you get down the pub/club that does me fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut The Crap Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 With no one but star-struck 20-year-old journalism students to hold them to account, the media ban makes life very easy for the club and its employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad-Stupid Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I don't take it personally. As the biggest club outside the OF, it makes us a natural target to fill up the column inches and deflect away any of Ranger's and Celtic's problems. The Sun and the Record would be daft to piss of it's demographic and the Scotsman panders to Hibs as they're the only folk dim enough to buy and read it's publication. At the end of the day, the papers are in business to make money, personally i'll still be sticking to the Guardian and the Observer for my daily reads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartsfc_fan Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I don't take it personally. As the biggest club outside the OF, it makes us a natural target to fill up the column inches and deflect away any of Ranger's and Celtic's problems. The Sun and the Record would be daft to piss of it's demographic and the Scotsman panders to Hibs as they're the only folk dim enough to buy and read it's publication. At the end of the day, the papers are in business to make money, personally i'll still be sticking to the Guardian and the Observer for my daily reads. Fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I am now of the opinion, to prove that we are not anti media, we should invite the Sports Editors In the written press and head of Sports at BBC Scotland and STV to come out and explain their position and anti HMFC bias. And to give their justification for the stance they have taken on Hearts as against clubs who also have some of the same issues. I agree with the theory, but in practice I don't think anyone in the media would ever admit to having done anything wrong, far less admit to some the lies and bias we've seen lately. Editors are meant to stop that sort of thing being published / reported (in theory!) so we'd be asking them to admit that they couldn't control their reporters, or do their job properly. Even these turkeys wouldn't voluntarily vote for Christmas. I do still think it would be worth trying to get this group of Editors to meet with Hearts, but on a confidential basis, so there could be a more open (honest?) dialog at the meeting to help clear the air. Hearts should then lift their embargo on the media, but also take a leaf out of Sir Alex Ferguson's book. If a reporter / columnist / correspondent steps out of line, one warning (yellow card) then they're out (red card) and banned from Tynecastle & Riccarton. Trying to ban The Sun (for example) doesn't necessarily achieve the desired result, as they're a far bigger business than Hearts, so we cannot really hurt them. Banning an individual journalist, means the paper send someone else to cover Hearts story, but the original journalist does get "hurt" by missing out on the story, and by pissing off their editor. I'm not naive enough to think this would solve everything overnight, but it would be a start. It would still allow Hearts to "punish" the more extreme / ridiculous examples of shit stirring and muck raking, while "protecting" the more responsible journalists. It's a form of censorship, which does make me uncomfortable, but the excesses and horrendously bad / poor journalism we've been subjected to lately cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I agree with the theory, but in practice I don't think anyone in the media would ever admit to having done anything wrong, far less admit to some the lies and bias we've seen lately. Editors are meant to stop that sort of thing being published / reported (in theory!) so we'd be asking them to admit that they couldn't control their reporters, or do their job properly. Even these turkeys wouldn't voluntarily vote for Christmas. I do still think it would be worth trying to get this group of Editors to meet with Hearts, but on a confidential basis, so there could be a more open (honest?) dialog at the meeting to help clear the air. Hearts should then lift their embargo on the media, but also take a leaf out of Sir Alex Ferguson's book. If a reporter / columnist / correspondent steps out of line, one warning (yellow card) then they're out (red card) and banned from Tynecastle & Riccarton. Trying to ban The Sun (for example) doesn't necessarily achieve the desired result, as they're a far bigger business than Hearts, so we cannot really hurt them. Banning an individual journalist, means the paper send someone else to cover Hearts story, but the original journalist does get "hurt" by missing out on the story, and by pissing off their editor. I'm not naive enough to think this would solve everything overnight, but it would be a start. It would still allow Hearts to "punish" the more extreme / ridiculous examples of shit stirring and muck raking, while "protecting" the more responsible journalists. It's a form of censorship, which does make me uncomfortable, but the excesses and horrendously bad / poor journalism we've been subjected to lately cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. Like a lot of others in our culture, the media take the freedoms that have been won through the sacrifice of others for granted and abuse them. The freedom of the press exists so that no one can forced through fear or favour to print what is the "party line" or, be afraid to print the truth. Of course, the media can take sides, they always have - some of the satirical stuff in the old broadsheets was heavy stuff as well - but, across the whole spectrum of the media, the only time there was totally one-sided propaganda was during war-time. There have always been left and right papers for politics and other key issues in our society (well almost) are usually covered. A couple of points. I'm not sure if Farmer's "Eye of the Tiger" has been headlined and mocked, because that is exactly what would have happened if Romanov had said it. Despite potentially creating the biggest financial failure in Scottish (British) football, David Murray.despite he's no longer in "power" and has sold to a very shady businessman (he was the only game in town - where have we heard that before, but apparently here is acceptable) - despite all this, very little has been thrown his way by those who benefited from his largesse while he was running the Trogs. While some on here (not the hobo infiltrators, of course) are vehement against Romanov because they are concerned about the club, the vehemence of the media, some of whom really are not fit for purpose at all (Chic Young is a prime example) is inexcusable in a free press who are "supposed" to be journalists and report the facts. They abuse that freedom no less than New International have recently. They create stories! They change the timelines to suit their agenda! They lie! You can knock Romanov and the state of Hearts just now but, the state of the media (not to mention the OF dominated football in this country) is in a worse state! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_jambo Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Hmmm, maybe NI are on the charm offensive with us now....! Dare I say it, a very nice article about HMFC. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/scotlandfeatures/3925435/Hearts-were-first-team-of-heroes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 The Hearts website will publish everything a Hearts fan needs to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Hmmm, maybe NI are on the charm offensive with us now....! Dare I say it, a very nice article about HMFC. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/scotlandfeatures/3925435/Hearts-were-first-team-of-heroes.html Mr Walker's got himself a bit muddled about the memorials, and fails to mention how the team came to be pipped at the post - but that's maybe splitting hairs. All in all, a positive Hearts story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I am now of the opinion, to prove that we are not anti media, we should invite the Sports Editors In the written press and head of Sports at BBC Scotland and STV to come out and explain their position and anti HMFC bias. And to give their justification for the stance they have taken on Hearts as against clubs who also have some of the same issues. I agree that a clear-the-air meeting would be beneficial but it needs to come from Vlad. If he was not so hostile to the media, they wouldn't portray him and the club in such a bad light. Personally I don't believe there is any anti-hearts overall feeling, just a couple of Journos who simply don't like us. For a reporter, it is far more effective to put out a negative story about any club for impact (generating sales/viewers etc) than to let everyone know all's well. That's why the Scum have continued to report negative stuff about the club, because even some Jambos (daft ones) will pick up a paper emblazoned with: TYNECASTLE TURMOIL to find out what's supposedly happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I am now of the opinion, to prove that we are not anti media, we should invite the Sports Editors In the written press and head of Sports at BBC Scotland and STV to come out and explain their position and anti HMFC bias. And to give their justification for the stance they have taken on Hearts as against clubs who also have some of the same issues. I don't think it is bias. I do think Vlad/HMFC is an easy target (and a safe target from the media perspective) for the usual sensationalist drivel that emanates from the red tops masquerading as 'journalism'. In saying that , I'm not defending Vlad or any of the ludicrous things he has done over the years which have damaged the club considerably. However he started a fight he can't win and he has been paying the price for it ever since. I don't see any bias but I see an opportunity for the media to sensationalise and dramatise events at HMFC that would help them sell copy safe in the knowledge that if Vlad ever responds it will be in such a mannner it can/will be used to sell even more copy. Nobody outside of Edinburgh is interested in HMFC but I daresay those in the provinces would buy the usual trash when ludicrous headlines are created to draw attention to Vlad & HMFC. I'd much rather the club (not Vlad) issue a statement which identifies the culprits who are specifically printing misleading articles (or simply lying) rather than issue a blanket ban - which the cynics amongst see as very conveniently timed given the wages issues at the club. By all means single out the guilty and take them to task but a blanket ban does more harm and no good IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Hmmm, maybe NI are on the charm offensive with us now....! Dare I say it, a very nice article about HMFC. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/scotlandfeatures/3925435/Hearts-were-first-team-of-heroes.html agreed, interestingly it wasn't written by a sports reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahgrassyshoes Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I agree that a clear-the-air meeting would be beneficial but it needs to come from Vlad. If he was not so hostile to the media, they wouldn't portray him and the club in such a bad light. Personally I don't believe there is any anti-hearts overall feeling, just a couple of Journos who simply don't like us. For a reporter, it is far more effective to put out a negative story about any club for impact (generating sales/viewers etc) than to let everyone know all's well. That's why the Scum have continued to report negative stuff about the club, because even some Jambos (daft ones) will pick up a paper emblazoned with: TYNECASTLE TURMOIL to find out what's supposedly happening. Did he not have a bunch of them over to Lithuania when he first came on the scene and they ripped the pish out of him for having to audacity to serve him local cuisines like beetroot soup and generally mocking him as a bit of a backwards man in a backwards country kind of thing? Or is that just one of those things that's been said enough and is now gospel? Or have i just completely made it up?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I agree with the theory, but in practice I don't think anyone in the media would ever admit to having done anything wrong, far less admit to some the lies and bias we've seen lately. Editors are meant to stop that sort of thing being published / reported (in theory!) so we'd be asking them to admit that they couldn't control their reporters, or do their job properly. Even these turkeys wouldn't voluntarily vote for Christmas. I do still think it would be worth trying to get this group of Editors to meet with Hearts, but on a confidential basis, so there could be a more open (honest?) dialog at the meeting to help clear the air. Hearts should then lift their embargo on the media, but also take a leaf out of Sir Alex Ferguson's book. If a reporter / columnist / correspondent steps out of line, one warning (yellow card) then they're out (red card) and banned from Tynecastle & Riccarton. Trying to ban The Sun (for example) doesn't necessarily achieve the desired result, as they're a far bigger business than Hearts, so we cannot really hurt them. Banning an individual journalist, means the paper send someone else to cover Hearts story, but the original journalist does get "hurt" by missing out on the story, and by pissing off their editor. I'm not naive enough to think this would solve everything overnight, but it would be a start. It would still allow Hearts to "punish" the more extreme / ridiculous examples of shit stirring and muck raking, while "protecting" the more responsible journalists. It's a form of censorship, which does make me uncomfortable, but the excesses and horrendously bad / poor journalism we've been subjected to lately cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. Only one drawback, in a lot of the bullcrap stories about Hearts the likes of the Hibsman don't even publish the name of who wrote the 'article' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Would not change a thing inviting the editors to a meeting , Journalism these days is in the main about opinions based on sensationalism, the negative and shock chasing the lowest common denominator,Vlads not going to change that . Real reporting apart from avery good few is rare these days . Its far easier for the news to say something is bad rather than good and in the editors mind more rewarding . With the world of blogs and social groups Journalism in the sense of main stream is aslow dying trade hense the need for journos to drop all morals and place the shock as more important than the facts . We see how far the murdoch empire has gone to find the negative story ,virtually stalking people from stars,politicians and dead girls families . The media is a trade that really needs to have a hard look at itself (as in a way does football ) both are likely to arrogant to do so . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It's honestly a top idea. Clearing the air on both sides could be really beneficial. Dont see why not myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.