One of The Record’s resident clowns is not too subtly undermining our display on Wednesday.

I’ve often said I’m in the business of language, of communication. I work with words, and anyone in this line of work understands how important words are. Twisting words, distorting their meaning to suit a particular agenda, is simply wrong.

Once again, I’m here to talk about Andy Newport at The Daily Record and his endless talent for twisting words. This time, he’s done it with our German winger, Nicolas Kühn.

The headline of Newport’s latest piece reads: “Nicolas Kühn says Celtic executed Dortmund lesson in Bergamo but names 2 areas they must do better to take next step.”

Now, when you read that, it sounds like Kühn is offering his own critique on where Celtic need improvement, right? The implication, however subtle, is that Kühn is critiquing the manager’s approach. And that’s the issue here; it’s the impression Newport wants to create, though I’ll concede he may not have written the headline himself.

But here’s the problem: the article itself backs that up. Kühn never says Celtic need to be better in specific areas or that he has concerns about the team’s approach. Yet Newport’s second paragraph tries to reinforce that misleading headline, implying that Kühn is making strategic suggestions. But in truth, Kühn says nothing of the sort.

In his article, Newport writes: “(The) Celtic winger reckons if his side are to have the last laugh in the Champions League, they need to find a way to do more than simply survive against the best. Brendan Rodgers went from one extreme to the other against Atalanta, with the wide-open display that cost them a mauling in Dortmund replaced by a stubborn show of resistance as they held out for a vital point in Italy.”

Before we get to the main point, let’s break that down. But you need to understand context, and the context of that headline is clearly implied in that paragraph.

First, describing our performance in Bergamo as a “stubborn show of resistance” is misleading. It was a disciplined, controlled display, not a full-on defensive one. Rodgers didn’t take us from “one extreme to another.” He adapted his tactics, playing with a more compact shape. At no point did we park the bus and sit back for 90 minutes, as some in the media are suggesting. Those watching the game would have seen that.

Secondly, we did a lot more than “simply survive.” We weren’t clinging on by our fingernails. We had our own chances, forcing their keeper into saves. Newport’s choice of words, implying we were hanging on for dear life, is utter rubbish. It misrepresents the way we played, and it’s a blatant distortion to suggest we barely scraped through.

Finally, and most importantly, Nicolas Kühn didn’t say any of this. In fact, Kühn didn’t even comment on the team’s tactics or suggest how they should change. Here’s what Kühn actually said:

“There was a lot of defensive work, but I think we did well. After Dortmund, we had to do much better, and we showed we learned the lesson. I think it was just a good game for us. The coach also said it after the game. The only thing we have to learn now is to be calm with the ball and maybe create more chances. I think the possibility was there. Hopefully in the next game we will do better.”

Let’s be clear here: Kühn is simply echoing what the manager has been saying since Dortmund; in fact this is the manager’s mantra in all of our European games. It also acknowledges that he had the same message for the team after the game. Kuhn is not offering his own tactical analysis or critiquing how the team should approach future matches.

All he’s doing is reporting what Rodgers himself said in the post-match press conference, and it’s stuff he’s been saying for a while. The boss knows where we can improve. This isn’t some revelation from a player going rogue; it is Rodgers’ own words being reiterated by Kühn.

So, what is Newport trying to accomplish here? It’s hard to say, but what’s clear is that there’s an agenda among some journalists to deny Rodgers the credit he deserves.

Some, like Jackson and English, are trying to take credit themselves, suggesting it’s their criticisms that prompted the manager’s tactical shift. As if Brendan Rodgers, one of the most experienced managers in the league, doesn’t know how to adapt his own strategies and needs their help. Then there are those, like Newport, painting our performance as a desperate, backs-to-the-wall affair, which anyone watching the game knows it was not.

This is about language and intention.

People like Newport understand the power of words—they know exactly what they’re doing. By subtly twisting words, they’re not only taking credit away from the manager but also trying to suggest some minor rift between him and the players, as if there’s a difference in opinion on how the team should approach these games.

And that’s where they shouldn’t get away with it.

Words matter. Twisting them to serve a particular narrative is dishonest, especially when the goal seems to be sewing discontent and denying credit where it’s due. The truth is, Rodgers’ tactics in Bergamo were sound, the team was well-prepared, and Kühn’s comments were no more than an affirmation of what the manager had already told them. On top of that, he’s entirely misrepresenting the way we played.

These people have not one ounce of shame.