Why the Guardian rejected an advert about Scottish football
|
Version 0 of 1. Ok, enough already! I started to receive tweets two days ago that made no sense to me. Eventually, a couple of helpful emailers sent me links. Only then did I realise that they were complaining about the Guardian having refused to publish an advert. The crowd-funded ad, created by a group Celtic shareholders linked to a website, Celtic Quick News (CQN), raised questions about the governance of Scottish football. It concerns a situation that has little resonance outside Scotland and, arguably, outside Glasgow, about Rangers Football Club having gone into administration in 2012 followed by its re-emergence as a reconstituted entity. The nub of the shareholders’ allegation is that rules were broken by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) in order to allow the “new” Rangers to obtain a Uefa licence to play in European Champions League. To be honest, the background is much more complicated. A fuller account can be found on a site called the offshore game. But I hope my short version provides just enough context to deal with the complaint about the advert. Firstly, I need to deal with claims that the Guardian agreed to run it and then refused to do so at the last minute. My understanding is that the advert was indeed booked in, but that the copy had not been seen at the time. It was in French, the ad having previously been published in a Swiss newspaper. Once it was translated into English, the usual procedure for dealing with all ads kicked in. The content was reviewed in the normal way and it was decided, on balance, that it did not comply with the Guardian’s advertising terms and conditions. I believe legal advice was also sought. A Guardian News & Media (GNM) spokesperson said: “All adverts submitted for publication are considered on a case-by-case basis to assess suitability for publication according to our advertising terms and conditions. The Guardian reserves the right to reject adverts at our discretion. Either the acceptance or refusal of advertising does not in any way reflect our editorial position.” I cannot see how this raises issues of press freedom because it was a purely commercial matter. It does not compromise the the paper’s commitment to impartial sports reporting because there is a strict boundary between decisions made by the advertising department and those taken as part of the editorial process. PS: Personally, I might have reached a different decision, but that’s totally beside the point. GNM’s ad department has rules and it applied them. |