As a Matter of Fact . . .

Last updated : 09 October 2010 By Number Eight.

In the nineteen-sixties the Scottish football public would impatiently count down to ten past four every Saturday afternoon. That was when the BBC provided commentary on the last half-hour of one of the day's games, and punters didn't know what fixture would be broadcast until the announcer said . . .

"And now over to Ibrox Stadium for commentary on the last half-hour of the match between Rangers and Dundee".

At that point we'd get the latest score in the game, but there were no updates or mentions of other fixtures on the Saturday afternoon card. Even when the commentary match was finished, the full time results wouldn't be announced on radio until around five o'clock.

At twenty to five, it was time to put on Grandstand to catch the results on the teleprinter. This was exciting television, and frustrating too because only some of the results were provided. After five minutes or so, David Coleman would cut from the teleprinter and go to the "full classified check", but this was preceded by horse racing results which took a good five minutes to trawl through, and for those of us who were anxious to know how our favourite team had fared, it felt like an hour.

Immediately after the results, viewers in Scotland enjoyed a short local programme which gave details and match reports of our own domestic games. This was welcomed because Scottish football never rated a mention on BBC Grandstand. Updates would be given on English matches but Scotland barely existed for the London-based BBC. Even if Rangers were playing Celtic in front of the biggest attendance in the UK, Grandstand wouldn't give a score update on the match. This used to irritate me and I frequently complained to my dad that the BBC should have been called the EBC because Scottish football was largely ignored - until a chilling Berwick afternoon in the winter of 1967.

That was when Grandstand announced that the mighty Rangers were losing 1-0 to lowly Berwick Rangers. This was a first for Grandstand and it paved the way for sporadic mentions of Scottish football thereafter. Up until then, Scottish football fans, who contributed the same money as our English neighbours towards the BBC, had not been adequately catered for by the national broadcaster's flagship sports programme.

It's clear then that were flaws in the sporting media even in that golden age, however In one area, the ways of the old days surpassed contemporary football reporting. There was a concern with facts and professionalism rather than the tainted opinion and sub-standard journalism which we tolerate today. Football fans didn't have to endure the kind of partisan coverage that Radio Clyde has become renowned for, and of course BBC Radio Scotland has followed Clyde into the mire.

Being the biggest club in Scotland, Rangers brings out the worst in those reporters who are weighed down by their own parochialism and sectarianism. If Rangers score a winning goal in injury time, it's controversial, but if Scotland does exactly the same, it's not an issue worth debating.

If a Rangers player has an involvement with an opposition player bordering on the illegal, it is subjected to meticulous examination, but if a Rangers player is brutally fouled and seriously injured, it may not even be shown in the televised highlights.

If a referee gives a decision to Rangers which leads to a goal, it often becomes a contentious ruling, but if Rangers concede a goal after a dubious decision by an official, the incident will quickly be forgotten about or glossed over - and the negative media influence towards Rangers doesn't just concern itself with incidents on the the field of play.

Technology has provided opportunities for broadcasters to convey their own bitter feelings without it being held against them. It's not difficult to select a hateful anti-Rangers e-mail from a member of the public to convey thoughts which a broadcaster agrees with, but would never dare to articulate under his own name.

Writing on the Follow Follow forum, I have occasionally irked other users by giving fulsome praise to Celtic for becoming European Champions in 1967, but as their triumph was thoroughly merited, to say otherwise would be dishonest and petty. If a Rangers supporter can write honestly and fairly about Celtic, why can't professional journalists in 2010 write and speak about events surrounding Rangers with honesty and professional detachment?

Are professional standards lower or is the Scottish sporting media infested with commentators who are more interested in furthering their own agendas than conveying truthful accounts to their readers and listeners?

From a Rangers perspective, the Scottish sporting media is perceived to be an openly partisan integrity-free zone; a dumbed-down world of gossip-mongers masquerading as journalists, a pompous gaggle of self-righteous blowhards and rogues, a professional body once vibrant and worthy: now decaying and rotten.

It needn't be like this. If journalists raised the bar and embraced integrity and proper journalistic standards, newspapers and radio stations might be worth paying attention to once again, but if partisan drivel continues to emanate from the Scottish sporting press and media, it won't be missed when it finally and deservedly disappears.