The media question about Aberdeen “splitting the Glasgow teams” is dishonesty at its finest.

I love it when the media knowingly reports something in a way that suggests one thing, whilst everyone knows it means something entirely different.

When Chris Sutton appeared on a podcast the other day and said there was a good chance Aberdeen could “split the Glasgow two,” we all knew exactly what he was implying. Yet, certain elements of the media pretended something else was being said.

What Sutton meant by “splitting the Glasgow two” is that Aberdeen could finish second and, by extension, the Ibrox club would finish third. This irritates me.

It’s because of the very question they’ve posed: “Can Aberdeen split the Glasgow two?” rather than asking outright if they can finish second.

Let’s be honest here: the moment you start to look at it with any depth, it falls apart as absurd. The very phrase “splitting the Glasgow two” is ridiculous. If you’re looking at it realistically, you’re presupposing that there’s a chance, no matter how remote, of Celtic finishing third.

Do you know how much of a chance I’d give that? Zero.

Not a single person in the punditry world or any fan who has watched Scottish football in the last 20 years would even entertain that possibility for a second. The phrase is disingenuous nonsense because of that simple fact.

I’m in the language business, same as the mainstream media, so I know what words mean, and we all know how words are used today to disguise meaning. It’s especially prevalent during election years—just look at the language games played in the UK election or the upcoming American one. Everywhere you turn, words are used to hide their actual meaning.

One of my favourite comedians, the late, great George Carlin, tackled this brilliantly. He often talked about how language evolves over time to smooth over the rough edges of reality, making things sound far nicer than they actually are.

In one of his most memorable monologues — I’m including it below —he addresses this concept head-on in what might be the finest takedown of linguistic manipulation I’ve ever heard. It’s called the “shell shock” monologue, and every person interested in how language is used to disguise meaning should watch it. He nails it.

Carlin traces the evolution of the term “shell-shock” from World War I, as it gradually softened into terms like “battle fatigue,” “operational exhaustion,” and finally, “post-traumatic stress disorder.” He does this in under three minutes.

The kind of trickery Carlin was talking about is exactly what the media does all the time. It’s the same with their use of words like “investment” or how they use the term “relegation” to obscure the truth and actually spread outright lies.

It drives me mad the way they talk about “splitting the Glasgow two” when what they really mean is the Ibrox club finishing third. They frame it this way and then warn both clubs of this possibility, as if Celtic fans should be lying awake at night in terror that we might end up on the wrong side of this scenario.

Well, let me tell you something: I’ve been warned, and I won’t lose a wink of sleep over it. That possibility is about as likely as me being elected Pope. What’s wrong with just saying, “Aberdeen could finish second, pushing the Ibrox club into third”?

Do they think saying it out loud makes it more likely to happen, or that by not saying it, it becomes impossible? Or is dressing it up in a ridiculous euphemism supposed to soften the blow if it does come to pass?

Don’t kid yourself, that’s part of it. They already know what the headline will be if Aberdeen finishes second. And here’s where I’ll use language I wouldn’t normally use, but I guarantee the media will: the headline will scream, “Aberdeen split the Old Firm!”

As if this is a plague on both our houses. It’s dire stuff this.

It’ll talk about Aberdeen having a brilliant season, deserving all the credit and applause. But that will conveniently distract from the real question: how did the club with the second biggest wage bill and the second most expensive squad finish third? It’s easy to see what this language manipulation is about. They’ve set it up to cushion the blow if Clement’s team ends up in that spot.

Now, I’m not blaming Chris Sutton for this. But if I had been in his seat and asked that question, I would have challenged the premise. I’d have asked, “Are you asking me if Aberdeen can finish ahead of the club across the city?” Because the answer to that is yes, and I’d have left no room for anyone to twist my words later.

Every time we hear this ridiculous phrase, we should challenge it. Everyone knows what the real question is, and more importantly, perhaps, everyone knows exactly what the implications are depending on how it’s eventually answered.