We consider their findings to be wildly exaggerated and an offensive
caricature of our 200,000 unique monthly users. The vast and
overwhelming majority of our users are a credit to the club.
Three researchers at Strathclyde University have published what we
consider
to be a very slipshod report into ‘online sectarianism.’
Follow Follow finds it very difficult to take their conclusions or
methodology of research very seriously. In particular we suspect that
their
definitions of sectarianism and conclusions have been influenced by the
wishes of their funders - Nil By Mouth.
Long before the report was published one NBM employee stated “Hopefully
with
the research in place we will be able to address this ongoing problem.”
In other words, they expected the report they were paying for would
provide
them with the “evidence” and conclusions they had predetermined
beforehand.
There were, supposedly, three objectives of this research:-
"- to compile a list of online forums and services which might contain
this
type of sectarianism.
- to recognise sectarianism on suspect forums and services, to
ascertain who
is contributing the sectarian element, who is consuming it and who (if
anyone) is combating it and try to determine the effects of these
groups on
each other.
-to determine what potential control mechanisms exist for online
sectarianism and to investigate their application on particular
representative examples of online sectarianism discovered in the
research."
The researchers found the time and money to attend academic conferences
in
Lisbon and Zurich in March 2004 and March 2005 to present papers on
"Towards
a Robust Methodology for the Investigation of ‘Old Firm’ Sectarianism
Online." and “Old wine in new bottles: Scottish sectarianism and online
communities.”
Yet despite this seeming abundance of money and penchant for travel, the
“researchers” never actually bothered to contact Follow Follow,
ComeOnTheHoops or FootyMad - not by email, not by phone, not by letter,
not in person.
Despite having the ability to travel to Zurich and Lisbon to discuss
their
methodology, their research practice never saw them make the 10 minute
journey from Strathclyde University to my front door!
How they can claim to have addressed one of their three terms of
reference
“to determine what potential control mechanisms exist” without actually
asking is beyond me. Perhaps the answers we would have given would not
have
suited them?
The facts appear to point towards one inescapable conclusion, they
decided
not to contact FF, COTH or FM as to do so would have forced them to deal
with reality, to deal with real life and the reality of trying to cope
with
massive footballing communities. I can’t help but conclude they had
their
“findings” in mind before they cobbled together their report.
A FLAWED METHODOLOGY
The researchers based their findings on an analysis of a mere five days
worth of posts. Their definition of sectarianism is fuzzy, for instance,
they branded a non-football topic about regimental band uniforms as
sectarian.
Yet, despite casting their nets so wide their own findings don’t
support the
view that Old Firm fans are irredeemably sectarian. For instance, in
tables
analysing sectarian posts and posters it’s obvious that most posters in
such
threads are opposing sectarianism; that most posters post only once in
order
to register disagreement with sectarian opinions; and that most
sectarianism” is posted by a tiny number of repeat offenders who get
banned.
Indeed, their own research shows that most sectarianism is expressed by
fans
banned from their own club’s messageboard who then spam the opposition.
In
short, real bigotry is a minority occupation of individuals outcast by
the
vast majority of fans of the club they purport to support and not a
widespread problem.
REALITY AND CYBERSPACE
Despite the best efforts of certain people to talk it up, Scotland is
not
and never has been, certainly since the late 1700s, a sectarian
battleground
in the way that Ireland has been.
Most communities are mixed, many marriages are mixed, discrimination in
employment towards the minority exists only in the heads of the
tragically
paranoid, and bigotry is not a major social force. Reality and the
Census
figures tell us that.
TALKING UP THE LOONIES
By a mixture of extreme focus and the use of arbitrary description it
is of
course possible to sensationalise and exaggerate the extent of
“sectarianism.”
In the season 2003-2004 Followfollow.com banned 2,031 usernames. Many of
those are repeat offenders, many are fans of other clubs.
We regularly get 200,000+ unique users per month on the site.
Troublemakers
are few and far between and any really serious offenders can easily be
dealt
with by the police using the powers they already have.
If a visitor to our site is offended by a post then they can, by the
pressing of a red triangle beside every post, report it to us
anonymously.
Very, very few feel the need or choose to do so.
FollowFollow.com is very representative of Rangers fans as a whole,
numerous
alternatives are a mouse click and a nanosecond away, yet the five next
biggest Rangers sites combined have less than six percent of our
traffic.
REPORT CONCLUSIONS
The researchers contend that there are four main avenues open to the
clubs
to ‘deal with’ unofficial sites.
1. Ignore them.
2. Try to close them down.
3. Provide a member of staff to monitor and respond to posts on the
sites on
the clubs behalf
4. Clubs could ‘license’ sites as being ‘sectarian-free’
FOLLOW FOLLOW VIEW ON THE CONCLUSIONS
1. Clubs have tried to ignore fans for years!
2. Possible in a few cases - however, the Internet being what it is,
alternatives will spring up overnight and be hosted in or via countries
which would make policing of any kind impossible.
3. Such a club rep could easily turn into an ‘Aunt Sally’, take plenty
of
abuse and when no remedial actions are taken they would be discredited
when
fans addressed serious issues.
4. Considering the time and effort admins and FootyMad take to control
the
boards it’s difficult to see what more anyone can do without destroying
debate altogether and “Disneyfying” football even further.
Some clubs have a healthy relationship with their fan sites, hibs.net
being
a case in point, but the Old Firm have a tragic record of simply
wanting to
snuff out dissent.
UEFA, FIFA, the SFA and the Scottish Football League all have a far more
mature and reasoned attitude to fans sites based upon the scale of the
sites
and the quality of the journalism than the SPL clubs do. They recognise
that
the non-traditional football media is massive and can’t be ignored.
THE FUTURE
There is no magic bullet solution to the problem of fans behaviour,
either
on the field or the internet. It is a never-ending struggle. However, it
should be recognised that sensationalising the actions of a tiny
(statistically insignificant) group of troublemakers both insults the
majority of fans and misrepresents reality.
Should any post really overstep the bounds then anyone can make a
complaint
to the police who have more than enough powers already to deal with
Behaviour that merits it.
Five seasons of experience has taught FollowFollow.com much about how to
deal with vast amounts of traffic. What works best is a strong sense of
community - a vibrant, open and committed community isolates the
nutters -
those who try too hard to appear militant or threatening are isolated
and
ejected - the common sense of the collective fan body means that Ibrox
is
probably the safest and most orderly ground in Europe with arrests
running
at about one per game and that is reflected on our messageboard and no
amount of twisting the facts or rigging the polls can change that.
We live in the real world - a footballing world where passion is the
ruling
emotion. Anyone who objects to a posting on our site can complain about
it
and that post will be examined on it’s merits - we have banned numerous
persons who have tried to disrupt the site or who have peddled
unpleasant
views but we are not going to deprive the vast and overwhelming
majority of
users of a decent arena for debate by turning it into a Disneyfied
playground.
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE REPORT FROM:-
http://www.cis.strath.ac.uk/research/publications/index.php
Click on the “Download PDF” button in the paragraph which starts "TESO:
The Extent of Sectarianism Online."