Old Firm and the media: one finger forward, three fingers back

Twenty two men kicking a ball about a field continues to dominate headlines around Scotland. Today a summit will be convened by First Minister Alex Salmond to discuss the ongoing fallout from last Wednesday's Old Firm game.

So what does today's summit hope to achieve and what practical actions might it recommend? Moreso than that what might other aspects of society (i.e. the media) that have an impact but won't be discussed today be prepared to do?

Trouble and disorder surrounding Old Firm games is of course not new and has a long history. The ban on alcohol at football grounds goes back to a riot at the 1980 Scottish Cup Final and even this was not the first instance.

Concerns are not restricted to the football grounds themselves; the real reason there has been such a reaction to last week's game is worries about the effects it has on wider society. For instance the police claim domestic violence increases after these games.

We should also be careful not to take a hyperbolic approach to such matters. The head of the Scottish Police Federation's claims that it's not safe for anyone to walk down any Glasgow street after such an Old Firm game, which is a patent exaggeration.

The main possibilities which could realistically happen today relate primarily to alcohol and television coverage. Thus a suggestion is to close pubs before and after the game or to stop the games being televised.

To achieve this the government and police would have to be prepared to take on the alcohol lobby and it's unclear they will be prepared to do so. As much as anything else would the public tolerate this, whether or not they are actually interested in football?

The government would also have to contend with media and non-Old Firm football opposition. Stopping these games being televised would be massively unpopular with companies such as ESPN or Sky but would also see a big reduction in the amount these companies pay to cover Scottish football.

It's an interesting aside that there has been little comment from non-Old Firm teams about issues of the past week, including from some chairmen not normally known for their reticence. Is this because they realise the financial penalties such actions could have for them too?

Another idea, but this time linked to timing, is to move the games from the weekends (where people have longer drinking times) to midweek (where they have less time because of work). This sounds all very well in practice but ignores the fact the game in focus took place on a Wednesday.

The ultimate reasons for these problems have been discussed many times but it's debatable how genuinely understood they are. Many will cite religion, nationalism or other factors but, particularly in the case of religion, such factors have seen a declining influence in society in recent years.

In some regards the actions of many at Old Firm games reflects Jim Sillars '90 minute patriots' comment about nationalism in Scotland except in this case it's more '90 minute bigots', with people who would never act in a certain way outside a football stadium doing so for the game's duration.

The real trouble occurs when people - usually who don't attend games - don't realise the football finishes at full time and so carry on disorder in their homes or wider communities. And it's these people that are the great conundrum in this debate because in most cases it surely isn't religion fueling this.

So what is it then and what can realistically be done? The points above will certainly be discussed and may have some merit but there is one element missing; the role of the media throughout the whole process and particularly in the run-up to such games.

The airwaves and news pages have been full these past few days with commentators and journalists quick to condemn all involved in Wednesday's problems. They have not been slow to point fingers but as the old adage goes each time you point one finger, three are facing back at you.

If the media persist (for purely commercial reasons) in ramping up the excitement and fervour in advance of Old Firm games using sensationalist headlines and language then they can hardly absent themselves from any responsibility from negative outcomes.

So what about this for a suggestion for all those people that suggest 'something must be done'? Limit the coverage from now on. Don't mention (unless in passing) Old Firm games until two days before and even then limit it to one page and factual points e.g. who's likely to play, etc.

Similarly with after game coverage. Instead of banner headlines and prolonged outrage and some refereeing decision or otherwise contentious matter limit coverage solely to a match report and that's it.

And yet who really sees this happening? The same people that profess revulsion towards the Old Firm appear to forget this when their readership or listening figures come into it, which does then make their faux outrage much harder to tolerate.

Trouble at football is not limited to Scotland, anyone who watched the Liverpool-Man United game at the weekend would testify to that. And nor is violence after games the sole preserve of Scotland either; witness what happens at some Italian games for instance.

None of this means that we should do nothing about genuine concerns and legitimate which have been raised; in that regard today's summit could be interesting. The fact is that expectations have been raised and so the police and government surely cannot have no outcomes from the day.

But away from this it would be worth seeing how the media are prepared to play their part. A week on Sunday the Old Firm meet in a cup final; the manner in which the media cover and build up this event will say much about what they are prepared to do in all of this.