Glasgow Rangers do not have the best relationship with some of the press, as has been evident over the last few months.
Many ‘Gers supporters have regularly been dismayed by the coverage of their team, with the likes of Keith Jackson and Graham Spiers coming under plenty of criticism for their views, whilst Club 1872 were even forced to lodge an IPSO complaint – which they won – against an inaccurate Daily Record article.
[freshpress-quiz id=”304907″]
There has now been another issue, this time with an article from The Glasgow Times written by Catriona Stewart. In the article, she insinuates that the racist abuse directed at Alfredo Morelos last week came from the ‘Gers fans themselves, whilst she also criticised the club’s response to the matter.
[freshpress-poll id=”306258″]
That piece has now been amended, but it seems that many of the ‘Gers supporters are still angry with how the article was originally worded – one fan even called the outlet “biased, partial clowns”. They have taken to Twitter to share their thoughts and you can see some of the best comments from the social media platform below:
Disgrace that it had to be told. Dreadful reporting. https://t.co/sO8Ki42Bn8
— Heart & Hand Podcast (@ibroxrocks) July 21, 2020
they will continue to push the boundaries as far as they can, and they will never stop, it’s pretty much irreversible
— Chris Park (@parkovanbasten) July 21, 2020
Suspect the author knew what she was doing! Outrageous and proof fan media is the way forward rather than these biased, partial clowns.
— MaryleboneBluenose (@MaryleboneB) July 21, 2020
Surely it time the club sue these media outlets when the produce lies like these
— Queen & Country🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 (@Cook36thud) July 21, 2020
Still implies that Rangers fans are abusing our own players because of skin colour. That’s not acceptable pic.twitter.com/edU09KpXH4
— G (@g_trader_) July 21, 2020
Sales are all the editors care about. The truth a long way second. https://t.co/eLCur8fjdu
— Alan Calder (@golfcalder) July 21, 2020
‘Gers fans, are you content with the amendment to the article or is that an inadequate response? Let us know what you think by commenting below!






