The thorny Celtic relationships characterised by mutual suspicion and disdain - Kevin McKenna

We’ll leave aside, for now, the fact that these two groups of journalists themselves often exhibit tribal behaviours: they hunt as a pack to bring down a pre-agreed target; they gather for weeks afterwards to devour what’s left of the victim’s reputation and they retreat quickly into a defensive formation whenever they come under attack.

In the political realm, this was very evident in the run-up to the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. As the Yes movement gathered pace and began to nibble at the Unionists’ large pre-campaign lead it seemed that someone on the No side flicked a switch and altered the narrative. Not only would independence be bad for Scotland, but its adherents were also displaying psychotic behaviours. They were nasty and beastly and causing division all across the nation.

It seemed that a force of UN peace-keepers would be required to keep order. Entire families were at war with themselves and might need professional counselling to heal the hurts caused by ‘nationalism’. It was all nonsense, of course. Following the referendum, the UK Electoral Commission declared that it had provided a gold standard of democratic engagement. Several factors, I think, caused some right-wing journalists and politicians to advance this fiction. Part of it was defensive in nature. For the first time it became clear that much of the writing and commentary in the political blogosphere was of a higher standard than some of that produced in some old and venerable newspaper titles. And the political elites – right and left – always become a bit fidgety when large crowds of ordinary people decide to gather in pursuit of a single, over-arching goal. This is how revolutions start and we can’t be having any of that. Amongst the elites who have – until recently – held sway in how football is governed and reported a similar crisis of control can be observed. This was most obviously apparent in the mass popular uprising by football supporters across the world against the proposed European Super League. Before the advent of social media this would not have happened and these proposals would have come to fruition relatively unscathed.

READ MORE: Celtic not only scratched seven-year Easter Road itch, they truly ignited the Premiership title race - Tony Haggerty

In Scotland, the people who are paid to write about football and those who administer the game have also begun to feel the heat that comes with closer scrutiny. Before the rise of the bloggers and podcasters and the wild, untamed landscape of Twitter there was no forum for ordinary supporters to make their views heard. The clubs were run on a model reminiscent of the feudal system that underpinned medieval society.

Along with the SFA and the Scottish League they practised a form of political patronage, or soft power. There was nothing that couldn’t be sorted out with a wee invitation to partake of sausage rolls and vol-au-vents in the boardroom or a free trip overseas with the official party. The historic relationship between Celtic fans in particular and the people who run Scottish football and who decide how the game is reported in the press has been a thorny one. It’s been characterised by mutual suspicion and disdain.

A long-held shibboleth, preserved lovingly across multi-generations of Celtic supporters, holds that the Irish have been egregiously under-represented in the administration of the game and in the ranks of football reporters. Whenever this has been voiced it’s immediately dismissed as evidence of paranoia.

Yet, for much of the 20th century, it must have been so. It’s now accepted by academics, social scientists and politicians that the Irish in Scotland encountered widespread discrimination in policing; in the courts and in the jobs market. It would be absurd to think that while this was all proceeding in every sector of Scottish life that somehow it wasn’t also happening in how the country’s most popular game was governed and adjudicated. The men who filled the top positions were chosen from among those trades and professions which drew the line at employing Irish Catholics.

Nor was this abnormal. In all countries where a large immigrant contingent begins to move amongst the indigenous population there has always been tension. This leads to protectionist instincts becoming apparent in the host citizenry. In developed countries, over a period of time, these gradually recede and a measure of acceptance and mutual cooperation emerges. In Scotland, though we’re probably still working through this process, it’s much better than it was.

Yet, some old misgivings and qualms persist in how Celtic fans perceive my brother and sister journalists in the football press. I’ve come to know most of them in a long career and worked alongside many. Yet, I’m still given to my own primeval suspicions when reading weekend match reports. “Was this bloke even at the game?” “How did Callum McGregor only get 6/10?” “Why does Stevie Gerrard not get the same scrutiny as Neil Lennon or Ange Postecoglu?”

Last week one of Scotland’s top football writers, a man whom I respect greatly, reported Celtic’s 2-0 victory against a very well-organised St Johnstone side in terms more appropriate for a funeral. I’ve never seen such a comfortable victory portrayed like this; as something ugly and ill-deserved. Yet, I can also point to other reports of his which have been generous to Celtic. I can also report with some certainty that amongst the football-writing fraternity Celtic supporters are more than proportionately represented. Amongst the sports editors there is no pro-Rangers bias. I know almost all of them.

Sometimes we hark back to a golden age of newspapers when all publications held themselves to a lofty standard of truth and unimpeachable integrity in which facts and purity of purpose were held to be sacred. The problem with this is that such an age never existed. The pattern of newspaper ownership in the UK has remained stubbornly untouched over two centuries: it’s the exclusive preserve of a billionaire, Tory-supporting old boys club.

READ MORE: The Celtic numbers that show Ange Postecoglou's philosophy is taking root

These men don’t spend millions acquiring and maintaining titles just to report the facts as they are. They expect their prejudices and financial interests to be reflected in the pages that they literally own. They are not obliged to be fair and impartial. Yet nor are any of us obliged to buy these papers. And with the rise of some very high-quality content in the blogosphere there are other options. And it’s not as if we supporters aren’t rattling with our own deep-rooted prejudices and preferences.

I suspect there are other reasons why there’s a perception that Celtic and their interests are sometimes viewed more harshly than those of our greatest rivals. Much of it comes down to the wielding of influence and the power of persuasion.

You can say what you like about the present custodians of Rangers but they don’t half stand up for their club’s interests. They have dug deep into their personal fortunes to keep their club steady, a practice virtually alien to generations of Celtic directors, apart from Fergus McCann.

Nor are they slow in aggressively pursuing their club’s agenda with every ounce of leverage at their disposal. It’s how political parties seek to obtain an edge in how their agendas are reported in the media. It might often be unpleasant and occasionally odious, but this is politics and there are high stakes. Much of the same applies in football.

I’m not sure that Celtic’s current custodians, under the patronage of our billionaire, absentee overlord, possess the same zeal in pursuing our club’s interests. Nor have they seemed more aloof from the everyday concerns of the fans.