THE SEASON SCOTTISH FOOTBALL’S MEDIA LOST THE PLOT
WHEN THE NARRATIVE MATTERED MORE THAN THE FACTS
In more than forty years of supporting Celtic, I cannot remember a season quite like this one.
Not because of what happened on the pitch.
Celtic won the league over the course of a full campaign. Thirty-eight matches. Thousands of minutes. Countless moments of pressure. The table delivered its verdict.
Celtic were champions.
Yet instead of celebrating one of the most dramatic title victories in recent memory, supporters found themselves watching an extraordinary campaign of outrage, speculation and accusation that often appeared to place narrative ahead of evidence.
What should have been a story about football became a story about everything except football.
And the deeper the season went, the more difficult it became to ignore the pattern.
THE MISSING MINUTE THAT NEVER WAS
No story better symbolised the problem than Keith Jackson’s infamous “missing minute” narrative.
For weeks, questions were asked.
Suspicions were raised.
Conspiracy theories flourished.
The implication was obvious: something wasn’t right.
Yet when the officials’ audio emerged, the central premise collapsed.
The match had been completed.
The referee had concluded proceedings.
There was no abandoned fixture. No hidden scandal. No smoking gun.
The question Celtic supporters are entitled to ask is simple:
Where was the same level of coverage when the narrative fell apart?
The allegation generated headlines.
The clarification generated far less interest.
That imbalance has become a recurring theme.
CORRUPTION CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE
Then came Ally McCoist’s intervention on TalkSPORT.
Rather than presenting evidence, McCoist referenced concerns allegedly raised to him during a phone conversation and used those comments to introduce the possibility of corruption into the wider debate.
Corruption is among the most serious allegations that can be made in sport.
Such claims demand evidence.
They demand facts.
They demand scrutiny.
They cannot simply be introduced through hearsay and left hanging in the public domain.
Once accusations of corruption enter a conversation, reputations are affected whether evidence exists or not.
That is why public figures have a responsibility to be careful with their words.
The question remains:
What evidence existed to justify introducing corruption into the discussion?
To date, supporters are still waiting for an answer.
THE ASSAULT NARRATIVE
The reaction to Celtic’s title celebrations represented perhaps the most remarkable media frenzy of the entire season.
Tony Bloom spoke of assaults.
Pat Nevin stated he believed he had seen Hearts players being punched.
Andy Halliday spoke emotionally about Hearts players having family members watching events unfold.
Hearts themselves released statements that many supporters felt implied serious incidents had occurred.
The problem is that evidence never appeared to match the certainty of the accusations.
Police Scotland later confirmed there had been no reports of assaults involving Hearts players.
Hearts midfielder Cammy Devlin subsequently stated publicly that no Hearts players had been injured.
Those facts matter.
Because when allegations dominate headlines, the absence of evidence deserves equal prominence.
Instead, many Celtic supporters were left feeling that the accusations received saturation coverage while the clarifications arrived quietly afterwards.
That is not a healthy way for any media environment to operate.
KRIS BOYD AND THE QUESTION OF CONSISTENCY
Consistency is everything in football analysis.
That is why many supporters were frustrated by Kris Boyd’s reaction to Celtic’s late penalty against Motherwell.
Only a week earlier, following several contentious decisions that went against Celtic against Hibernian, supporters had been told to trust officials and trust VAR.
Then a major decision went Celtic’s way.
Suddenly the tone changed.
The officials became the story.
The process became the story.
The outrage became the story.
Supporters are entitled to ask why trust in officials appears stronger when decisions disadvantage Celtic than when they benefit Celtic.
The standard should be universal.
Either referees deserve trust or they do not.
The standard cannot change depending on who benefits.
THE PHANTOM KNIFE STORY
Perhaps no incident better illustrates the dangers of rushing to judgement than the so-called knife incident at Tannadice.
The allegation was explosive.
A Celtic supporter had allegedly threatened officials with a knife.
The coverage was extensive.
The outrage was immediate.
Yet when the facts emerged, the story looked very different.
Reports later indicated that what had been interpreted as a knife was in fact a high-visibility jacket.
A hugely serious allegation that generated enormous publicity simply did not stand up to scrutiny.
Again the same question emerged:
Why do accusations receive front-page treatment while corrections struggle to attract the same attention?
THE TAINTED TITLE CAMPAIGN
Jim White’s discussion of “tainted titles” became another example of how quickly football debate drifted into hyperbole.
A league title is earned across an entire season.
It is earned through performances, results, consistency and resilience.
The suggestion that a championship can somehow become “tainted” because of post-match events ignores the reality that the football had already been played.
The title had already been won.
The achievement had already been earned.
Yet instead of discussing Celtic’s football, sections of the media seemed determined to discuss everything else.
WHERE WAS THE BALANCE?
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect for supporters was the apparent lack of balance.
Many of the loudest voices driving criticism shared similar football backgrounds and similar perspectives.
That does not invalidate their opinions.
But it inevitably raises questions.
When the same names repeatedly dominate discussion, supporters naturally begin asking whether alternative viewpoints are receiving equal representation.
The perception of bias becomes almost inevitable.
Fair or unfair, that perception now exists among a significant section of the Celtic support.
Ignoring it will not make it disappear.
MARK GUIDI STOOD APART
One notable exception throughout much of the season was Mark Guidi.
While others often appeared eager to speculate, Guidi generally remained focused on verification, evidence and reporting rather than sensationalism.
That should not be exceptional.
That should be the standard.
Good journalism is not about confirming what audiences want to hear.
It is about establishing what can actually be proven.
WHERE WAS CELTIC?
The other uncomfortable question concerns Celtic themselves.
Why were supporters left to fight these battles alone?
As allegations mounted, fans found themselves defending the club’s reputation across social media, radio phone-ins and online forums.
The club’s response often appeared muted.
Many supporters expected stronger communication.
Many expected the board to challenge claims they believed were inaccurate or unsupported.
Instead, silence frequently filled the vacuum.
And in modern media, vacuums rarely remain empty for long.
Others rush in to fill them.
ACCOUNTABILITY MUST RETURN
The wider issue extends far beyond Celtic.
This is about standards.
It is about evidence.
It is about accountability.
Who is held accountable when serious allegations prove unsupported?
Who explains why accusations receive banner headlines while corrections receive a fraction of the attention?
Who examines the role of pundits and broadcasters when public perception is shaped by speculation rather than proof?
These are not questions that should concern only Celtic supporters.
They should concern anyone who cares about fairness, journalism and credibility.
HOW CELTIC SUPPORTERS FIGHT BACK
The answer is not outrage.
The answer is evidence.
Challenge claims with facts.
Demand sources.
Demand consistency.
Support journalists who prioritise verification over sensationalism.
Call out inaccuracies respectfully but relentlessly.
Refuse to allow narratives to become accepted truth simply because they are repeated often enough.
Most importantly, continue documenting examples of double standards whenever they arise.
Because transparency is the strongest defence against misinformation.
THE BIAS DEBATE IS NOT GOING AWAY
For decades, many Celtic supporters have believed that sections of Scotland’s football media apply different standards to their club.
This season did little to change that perception.
If anything, it strengthened it.
The solution is not tribal warfare.
The solution is better journalism.
More evidence.
More accountability.
More balance.
And a willingness from broadcasters, newspapers and pundits to admit when they get things wrong.
Until that happens, many supporters will continue to feel that when Celtic succeed, some commentators spend more time searching for controversy than acknowledging achievement.
The league table cannot be spun.
The title cannot be debated away.
The champions were decided on the pitch.
Everything else was noise.
And what a lot of noise there was.
