Earlier this year, Rangerstaxcase.com explained the meaning of ‘Succulent Lamb’. It was a phrase – referring to the art of journalists who accept what they are told (right or wrong) in return for privileged information – that became a well known euphemism for ‘bad journalism’.
Unfortunately, the death of Rangers FC has not changed the ‘bad journalism’ prevalent in the Scottish red top media.
The ‘code of practice’ for journalists states:
…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.
The highlight in bold above is my emphasis. Let us now apply this to a story which was published earlier this week, about the poor Falkirk Tannoy Announcer who was ‘suspended’ by Falkirk. His crime? Reading out the half time score as ‘The Sevco Franchise v East Stirling’
Let’s look at one example of the Succulent Lamb journalists in action:
FALKIRK have suspended their stadium announcer for referring to the newco Rangers as “The Sevco Franchise”. Fans of club reacted angrily to the comment, made during Saturday’s game against Raith Rovers. Dave McIntosh used the term to poke fun at Rangers’ financial troubles after they were liquidated. Falkirk have ordered him not to return until an internal investigation has been carried out.
Now, a reader of TSFM decided to do what all journalists should do… research. How, by simply asking Falkirk why he was suspended. Thanks to ‘Senior’, here is the email (all names removed to protect privacy):
Not only are the MSM failing to report the facts, they are failing to “seek truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.” Surely the real story is why does a SFA member club feel the need to protect the safety of an employee from the actions of another member club. Isn’t that the question that the MSM should be asking?
And why are credible threats from one new member to another older member being tolerated, without charge, by the very organization tasked with protecting OUR game. Another in a long line of questions that the SFA need to be asked.