Piegate!

There were actually two of these fairly recently in Scotland.

The first of these was Frank McAveety turning up late for parliament because he was tucking into a plate of pie, beans and roast potatoes.

This one is, um, "excellent." It seems that, some time in 2004 (I could check back...but I don't want to risk internal bleeding), Frank McAveety was late for something in the Scottish parliament because he couldn't drag his lardy arse away from his lunch. This one is almost the archetype of a "-gate" story.

Story involving a non-entity? Check.
A real "who the hell cares" moment? Check.
Under-employed and semi-skilled journalists trying to make a really dull story seem like it's about to bring down the government and cause a crisis of confidence in western democracy? Check!

I really don't get this...I strongly suspect that part (although, clearly not all) of the reasons that professional journalism is suffering is because everything is packaged in such ridiculous terms. Reducing the level of public discourse to such half-witted cliches serves no-one and enrages me. I thought that these were people that were employed because they had some sort of facility for language and enough skill that they could produce copy that isn't littered with tired journalistic tropes.

The second "piegate" story might be slightly more important, but it's still a shameful piece of idiocy.

It's a sorta cash for access story. The SNP were offering lucky bidders the opportunity to tuck into lunch at Holyrood with Alex Salmond. Why anybody in their right mind would want to do so is pretty much beyond me anyway. The story itself does have some merit, given that it's against the rules for MSPs to use the facilities in this way.

However (wait...for...it!) Piegate?

Come on: first it's been done before (see above) and, second, I can't see any mention of pies in the story at all (maybe that's all they feed MSPs?). Treat us like adults please, journalists! I'm pretty sure that anybody interested enough would have sufficient intellectual capabilities to cope with writing that goes beyond such weak rhetoric!

Boozegate

Like many other Scotland fan on a cold March evening, I was in the pub watching the football. Holland against Scotland in Amsterdam. I wasn’t expecting a great victory over the mighty Dutch, I expected them to clog us good. And they did. 3-0. Still, when your defence had more holes in it than Edam cheese, that scoreline was unsurprising.

And like other people that night, I was also drinking until the very late hours and staggered home at some hour between 3 and 4. Which was around about the same time that the Scotland team arrived back from Amsterdam. I assume they flew back on a plane and not flying high on some ‘Dutch cigars’.

Upon arriving at the lovely Cameron House Hotel on the banks of Loch Lomond, their boss, George Burley, had allowed the players a drink in the bar after the defeat. Why not, eh? They might be professional athletes but they are also Scottish. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d ordered in a ‘munchie box’ too.


Heart-attack in a box.

So they stayed up drinking. Until 11 in the morning. Where other hotel guests had come down for breakfast saw them. However, there were only two players, Scotland captain Barry Ferguson and goalkeeper Alan McGregor, left at that time as five others, Scott Brown, Alan Hutton, Steven Whittaker, Steven Fletcher and Gary Teale , had dispersed at various times. It was said that Brown only left twenty minutes before Ferguson and McGregor went to bed.

And yet, only two of them were punished for their antics; Ferguson and McGregor.

Which meant the media had to come up with a suitable headline for this drinking session. And they did.

“Boozegate”

Perhaps they could have said “Lash Lomond” but no, they had to go with the “-gate” suffix.

Burley wanted to send both Ferguson and McGregor packing from the squad, which would play Iceland in Glasgow on Wednesday. But could he single out two players when there were really seven players that took it too far? He couldn’t send two home and leave five… and he couldn’t send home all seven… he didn’t want to quit so he did the next best thing and drop Ferguson to the bench. McGregor was going to be there anyway as Craig Gordon was the first-choice goalkeeper.

What happened on the bench was disgraceful. Sure, Ferguson and McGregor were being vilified by the media, but to sit there and make hand gestures at the journalists/photographers was stupid and childish.


"Honest, i've got an itchy face, miss."

Ultimately, as a result of “Boozegate” Ferguson and McGregor were banned by the SFA from ever playing for Scotland again, stripped of his captaincy at Rangers and then sold onto Birmingham City. Burley’s credibility was crumbling faster than his reputation and results against Norway, Japan and Wales were unacceptable and he was sacked seven months later.

Craig Levein has now come in and wants to recall the pair. Ferguson, now enjoying a new lease of life at the heart of an over-performing Birmingham side, has said that he’s not sure whether he wants to come back to play for Scotland. Part of this is family reasons as they still live in Scotland while he plays in the midlands.

However, from a footballing perspective, the Tartan Army could be short-sighted in their belief that Ferguson brings nothing to the team and could boo him if he ever came back. In the same way that Gary McAllister was jeered by a home crowd in a qualifying match against the Czech Republic in 1999. Why was he jeered? He missed a penalty against England three years previously. He would never pull on a Scotland shirt again as a result of the abuse received.

McAllister then went on to play for Liverpool at the age of 35. Two years later, and free from playing for Scotland, he was man of the match as he won the UEFA Cup, the FA Cup, the League Cup, Charity Shield and the UEFA Super Cup.

Ferguson is only 31. Scotland does not have an abundance of talent. If Ferguson wants to come back, it is only to help the Scottish side qualify for a major tournament, something Scotland hasn’t managed since 1998. He doesn’t need to put up with any abuse from the Tartan Army. Scotland take on the Czech Republic in Glasgow on the 3rd of March next month, if Ferguson plays and there is more ‘Barry bashing’ at the game, we may find out if another Scottish footballer’s career comes to a sad end against the Czechs.

~Stripes

"Climategate"

Not to pick on Sky news, they aren't the only ones guilty of this, but here's our first -gate story.

Sky's "climategate" story.

You'll probably recently have become aware of the scandal involving the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia.

To recap, it's a story about some scientists emails being hacked and leaked which, according to the sceptics, "prove" that everything about the idea that there is man-made climate change is an enormous conspiracy.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the importance of this story is being blown out of proportion anyway (can't think why), but quickly it started being described as "climategate."

So...a straightforward one to start with: basically a non-story given far too much credence because lazy journalists think that adding "-gate" to the end of a word related to the story makes them masters of style and fearless investigative journalists.

Over the coming weeks, with the help of a popular search engine, we shall fearlessly be hunting down ever more ridiculous examples of the use of "-gate."

Coming soon: "boozegate."

Greetings!

The Watergate scandal, as I'm sure you're aware if you're reading this, was a high point for investigative journalism. Woodward and Bernstein's investigation into the break-in at the Democratic national headquarters in the Watergate hotel led to the end of Richard Nixon's presidency and the arrest and conviction of several of his administration officials.

The Watergate scandal, clearly, was a big deal. The investigation by the Washington Post, New York Times and others, demonstrated what quality journalism could achieve: these reporters were playing their part in the democratic process.

This blog isn't about Watergate. It's about the irritating habit that journalists (though they are by no means the only people guilty of this) have of describing every trifling scandal with the suffix "-gate." Why do they do this? The reason that we call it "Watergate" was because the break-in happened at the Watergate hotel!

We are therefore, going to post any irritating stories that we come across that resort to this most hideous of cliches.

Thanks for reading...hope you enjoy it!