Tom, not sure exactly what happened last night - we seemed to be conversing in a civil manner when you inexplicably cut me off mid chat.
You tweeted the following: I'm sure there are things all journos would like to write re Rangers' problems, but burden of PROOF is rightly very high. Bloggers different
I then questioned why journos had not chosen to do more 'opinion' pieces or why it was OK for the Scottish football media to print rubbish such as the coffins at Celtic Park http://t.co/w07d4kF7 or get away with the drivel regarding succulent lamb http://t.co/oV7aEvxL or super-casinos http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4264114.stm
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but the point I was attempting to make is that the Scottish sports media have for years been happy to run stories without any proof if it suits them. I suggested that in the case of the Ibrox financial debacle, some 'journos' have chosen just to look the other way.
Your discussion on Twitter tonight with @celticrumours does you great credit in that unlike most journos, you are happy to use and converse using 'new media' outlets and are open-minded enough to admit you were wrong regarding Darrel King being the first to run the EBT story.
This demonstrates that contrary to what some say, online blogs do have a place in sports and investigative journalism in Scotland. Sites like CelticUnderground, RangersTaxCase, the @Pmacgiollabhain blog and CelticQuick News have been pushing this story for close on two years now without fear of litigation. The reason they do this is because they dont need to write 'cosy' stories that wont impact readership numbers. They dont need to stay 'on message' when writing about a certain club and its finances for fear of losing access if they dare to stray 'off message' (see the BBC for recent proof of this).
My point is not the fact that the story has always been there. My point is that for the greater part, the Scottish sports press have chosen to ignore it.
You tweeted that @JoeClark64 Bloggers get something wrong and nobody remembers. Journalists get something wrong and nobody forgets. Lawyers chiefly
The accessibility of historical blogger info on the internet proves that this assertion is wrong. The fact that @celticrumours was swiftly able to put you right on the Darrel King claim demonstrates this. Bloggers operate under the same set of laws as journalists. Where they differ is that they aren't answerable to any editorial policy. As far as I am aware, nobody from CelticUnderground, CQN, RangersTaxCase or even Phil McG have been taken to task by these lawyers you refer to when writing about Rangers financial 'oversight'. If these 'new media' types have the belief, the strength of mind and tenacity to print the truth without fear of prosecution, why has it not been the same for the elder statesmen of our fourth estate?
I hope this helps explain the point I so crudely failed to put across earlier within the constraints of 140 characters. It was never my intention to come across as crass or derisory earlier this evening. I follow you on Twitter because what you tweet interests me. Nothing more than that. I choose not to read the Scotsman for a multitude of reasons, one of which I explained to you earlier.
And just a final point. If you took offense at the suggestion that one or more of your colleagues has lied, might I suggest you google Mr Keevins 'stories' about Artur Jorge becoming the new manager, or Mark Viduka moving to Bayern Munich (he saw the contract, dont you know!!) or even his piece on Shunsuke Nakamura moving to Bologna which left the Italian clubs president 'astounded of forehead'?
It seems that the burden of PROOF hasnt always been necessary after all......