It was a catchy-one liner to lead into his article for the Daily Record yesterday, but in using the following words, Hugh Keevins lacked self-awareness without a hint of irony, as the Rangers press access debate rumbles on.
“If I was able to gather enough money together to buy access to a Rangers press conference I would have one question for Steven Gerrard as the new league season prepares to start next weekend.”
“But I wouldn’t want to cut into the grandchildren’s inheritance or use the State pension for a purpose for which it was not intended.”
Even if Keevins had access to the bank vault, it probably still wouldn’t be enough to gain him access to the Ibrox press room, by virtue of his employer and it’s content/commentary over recent times – that is just one aspect of the overall issue.
As of this season, Rangers has decided to implement a new strategy in terms of its media relations and access to press conferences, Steven Gerrard and the players. It has been said that sums ranging from £10k to £25k have been requested in return for exclusive access behind the scenes. A press-box vantage point alone, to pen a match report and analyse, may not necessarily be part of the new arrangements.
Vital Rangers understands that the club feels the existing model is somewhat outdated, that the club is getting little in return for what it provides and that a significant amount of the manager’s time over the course of the season isn’t being utilised to the greatest extent.
As a result, the leadership at Ibrox have decided to restrict press access with the introduction of media partnership packages.
To an extent, these have already been in place prior to this current season, with the likes of Go Radio already signing up to bespoke packages, last season.
Sky Sports are obviously TV rights holders for the league, as per paid-for contractual agreement.
Evolution
In this day and age of powerful official club social media reach and engagement, as well as burgeoning fan media, the model and role of the traditional press has been, and continues to be, threatened.
What the internet and self publishing has done is to ‘democratise’ the media landscape and to end the monopoly of the ‘red tops’.
On the downside, it also gives anyone a voice – often without accountability or responsibility, as well as the cloak of anonymity and its potential harmful impact on others.
Gone are the days when you had to buy a paper or switch on Teletext to find out what is happening at your club.
Within this changing landscape, the newspapers have had to evolve and adapt – much of this has been in the form of their online presence and need for advertising revenue and page views.
Unfortunately, this is often a race to the bottom with clicks and numbers all that matters, resulting in clickbait and nonsense to fill the columns.
Much of the media has a toxic reputation amongst the Rangers support, but in amongst the bad, there is supportive coverage at different times when it matters, for example in solidarity with Glen Kamara last season after the racism incident against Slavia Prague and also a few years ago when the club was held captive by nefarious individuals and spivs, before Dave King’s consortium assumed control. At this time, the press played a vital role.
Discourse
A rather large elephant in the room is the current political climate in Scotland with the country almost split down the middle on the constitutional question, which obviously manifests itself in the media.
Rangers mere presence as a beacon and visual representation of Scottish Unionism, not to mention its significant ‘soft power’ is an unwanted and undesireable force in the eyes and actions of many in positions of authority in Scotland, particularly the SNP administration.
The division and distortion of political discourse was all too evident around the week of Rangers fans title celebrations in May, the very same week of a large public gathering in Kenmure Street to prevent a Home Office detention of two Indian nationals and also a pro-Palestine solidarity demo at George Square, on the same weekend.
A largely vitriolic and aggressive approach was taken across the board by the Scottish mainstream press, with almost no space given to an alternate perspective on Rangers fans actions. Of course, a small minority indulged in totally unacceptable behaviour, but nuance didn’t stand a chance.
Despite Covid fears and warning against mass gatherings, it was seemingly ok for a large public protest, abetted by Scottish politicians, at Kenmure Street and the media coverage reflected this. The same for the support for Palestine on the Sunday, proving that depending on the flag being waved and the motive, nuance and support can be afforded by those who control the narrative and agenda.
There was even the absurd vilification of the diverse, Rangers first team sqaud supposedly singing anti-Catholic chants at their in-house title party, based on a fake TikTok video which was given top billing on BBC’s Scotland’s flagship news programme – the retraction and truth was not given the same privilege.
Honesty
Now back to Keevins and the press – today, Magnus Linklater penned an article for the Times Scottish edition berating Rangers decision to charge for ‘press access’ and the folly of such a move, against a free press, etc.
One of the points raised by the author was that newspapers are different to TV, to provide insight and to inform readers as to where a club stands and what is going on.
The article was placed behind the Times paywall, exposing a counterproductive flaw in the argument, overall.
In defending their position and interests, the mainstream media across the board in Scotland really need to genuinely assess their own impact on this decision at Ibrox, their diversity, range of opinions, veracity and stance in their coverage toward Rangers FC and the fans.
If they were honest, they have been found wanting and to evidence this, just look to the Herald and Times group’s decision to launch paid-for content aimed at Rangers and Celtic fans, with two parallel products, on a joint project.
This abandonment of clicks and gossip, for informed opinion, stats and real journalism, with the inclusion of fan media is a very telling admission.
For what it’s worth, this writer does not generally support the stance taken by the club as it points toward a ‘controlling’ of the media and distancing dissenting voices, as well as gatekeeping.
An existing and effective media relations process has been in place with various individuals and titles deemed persona non grata, so surely a continuation of sorts could have been a better approach with the long-term, in mind.
This is stated with sincere gratitude of fan-media access that was granted to VitalRangers last season and in the aim of continuing to contribute toward a reputable pro-Rangers viewpoint, firmly independent but staunchly and unapologetically in defence of the club’s best interests.
Seemingly, few mainstream titles desire to sign up to such an uncharted initiative that ‘pre-paid access’ entails and it will only benefit existing pay-wall providers in order to boost their own offerings.
One senior Scottish journalist told VR that the change in direction wasn’t totally unexpected but they didn’t expect much uptake as it would only create a domino effect of other clubs doing the same.
On the flip side, the club has for some time been lobbying and in dialogue with newsroom editors, yet the hostile narrative has still not moved much. It appears this is what gives.
If other outlets are to join the likes of the BBC’s Chris McLaughlin on the Edmiston Drive roundabout, they will still write what they want to and similar themes will continue.
This whole debate is far from just big, bad Rangers getting above their station as the mainstream has intimated, but similarly the club will, in due course, need to consider its responsibility to the wider fanbase, a free press, transparency and effective communication.
There is room for improvement on all fronts.