If some of our hacks are dancing to the Ibrox tune on Clement, that’s not journalism.

For a few days now, stories have been circulating on Celtic fan media about an alleged sit-down meeting between sections of the mainstream press and the Ibrox hierarchy, or whatever remains of it.

This story appears to have first appeared on Phil Mac Giolla Bhain’s site, and it certainly raises eyebrows.

Now, let me make one thing clear from the start.

The story may or may not be accurate. There are always risks with a source; maybe they’ve let him down this time. Maybe the wires got crossed somewhere along the line, and a meeting did take place but not in the manner described in the piece. I’ll give you a clearer picture of what I mean by that further along.

But there seems to be, at least on the surface, a remarkable coincidence here.

The alleged meeting reportedly happened last Sunday night, and in the past five days or so the media’s tone has noticeably softened regarding Clement.

You might say it’s down to their League Cup semi-final win or the draw on Thursday night, but those two events haven’t exactly swayed the majority of the Ibrox fans. They still think Clement is a bust. They’re still waiting for the disaster which makes him remaining in post virtually impossible.

They fear it’s pencilled in for Hampden in mid-December. I suspect they are right.

Let’s be clear: nobody in the press is singing Clement’s praises, but they’re no longer calling for his head either. That conversation seems to be at least temporarily shelved. So, if Phil’s piece is based on faulty information or a misinterpreted source, it’s an astonishing coincidence that the media coverage has shifted so dramatically.

When I say the source may have misunderstood the nature of the meeting, here’s what I mean. Let’s assume the meeting did indeed happen; it’s plausible that a group of hacks were called in for an off-the-record chat with the hierarchy.

Perhaps the message wasn’t, “Don’t criticise the manager,” but rather, “The board’s sticking with him, and anything to the contrary will only make you look foolish.” There’s a big difference between conveying a board decision and outright censorship.

Phil’s piece, however, implies something a bit more heavy-handed. It suggests that they were instructed to tone down the criticism, which is a far cry from merely sharing information about the club’s intentions. In one scenario, they’re offering information; in the other, the club is dictating editorial direction—a vastly different situation.

As a writer, I can’t say I find either scenario particularly palatable.

Even in the “softer” case, where the club tells journalists the manager isn’t going anywhere and that stories suggesting otherwise will make them look silly, that’s still misleading. We all know if Clement’s results don’t improve, there will come a point where the club will be forced to act. And like it or not, it’s the media’s job to report the full picture, which includes the simmering dissatisfaction in the stands. If the same scenario were playing out at Celtic, the press would be hammering on it daily, and fairly so, as long as it wasn’t gratuitous.

That’s the role of the press—to report the reality as it is.

So, let’s say they lose to Hearts tomorrow, Aberdeen wins today, and Celtic also takes three points. Suddenly, they’re 12 points adrift from the top two and barely holding onto third by goal difference. If that’s the situation, as they go into the international break, everyone knows the pressure behind the scenes will be on intense. He would be on the brink.

The fans’ anger would reach a boiling point if they don’t get a result tomorrow, and there’s no pretending it’s “business as usual” in those circumstances.

A behind-the-scenes meeting between the hacks and the Ibrox hierarchy wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.

Brendan Rodgers has held off-the-record meetings with select journalists before; it’s just part of the media landscape. But those meetings were about explaining his views, not issuing marching orders. He sought to clarify things and build relationships, not manipulate coverage.

What’s being suggested here sounds more like a call to the headmaster’s office—a demand that journalists “get in line.” Whether it’s about conveying a message or making a demand, there’s an undeniable air of intimidation about this sort of meeting.

Imagine being summoned to a sit-down where you’re told, “You’ve got this wrong. If you’re going to write that he’s on the brink of being sacked, you’ll look stupid.”

That in itself is a veiled threat. And it begs an obvious question, and it’s one every hack should have been asking: if that’s the club’s stance, why not simply make it public?

And we know the answer; it’s not what the fans want to hear. But it’s not the media’s job to control the information flow; it’s their job to get information out there.

Any attempt like this to control the press, however subtle, veers dangerously close to turning them into a PR arm of the club. Whether it’s to shield the club from criticism or spin a narrative, this is not the media’s job. In fact, either scenario would ask journalists to abandon their role entirely.

Yet in the aftermath of the League Cup semi-final, the constant buzz around sacking him vanished almost overnight. After the Europa League draw, you’d think the club was on a high, that the manager had stumbled upon some magic formula, or that he was suddenly a tactical genius. Some tabloids even leapt on praise from Greece, trying to paint Clement as a mastermind based on one game.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence. Maybe the Greek media genuinely thought he had a great night and certain hacks here thought that was worth a headline. Or perhaps they’ve been ‘gotten to,’ nudged in the direction of a more flattering narrative.

If I were in their position and had been called to such a meeting, told to temper my analysis for the sake of the club’s image, I’d wonder just how big the problems are. If they’re feeling the need to pressure journalists, what else are they hiding? What else is so bad that they’re trying to conceal it through media spin?

There are already rumours swirling that the club’s financial situation is dire, that this year’s debt might even surpass the staggering numbers from last season which they’ve only recently published. If that’s the case, perhaps they genuinely can’t afford to sack Clement, pay off his backroom team, and fund a successor’s transfer budget. If that’s the reality, then it’s plausible they’re trying to control the media narrative to buy time and contain the damage.

It’s no secret that credible, truly independent journalists are in short supply in Scotland. And it wouldn’t shock me if some of the others have tacitly agreed to go along with the club’s line. In many cases, they’ve shown an open willingness to toe that line if it aligns with their own biases.

But let’s make this clear: no credible journalist should be willing to go along with such a scheme. The media’s job isn’t to sanitise the situation for the club. If journalists have been nudged into backing off Clement to help the club avoid uncomfortable questions, then they’ve abdicated their responsibility.

And to be honest, when you start telling journalists to sit down, shut up, and not do their jobs, it’s an indication of deeper issues, not to mention a shift in the power dynamics which any broadcaster or writer would find unacceptable. If they are going to that extreme, they are hiding more. You only feel the need to control the message when you’re terrified of what’s going to happen if the truth gets out.

But serious journalists, and the outlets they work for, should be doubling down on their efforts to cover every bit of this story. If they’re backing off from it, whether intimidated or feeling some twisted sense of duty and loyalty which conflicts with their true responsibilities, they should be thoroughly ashamed. They are no longer fit to call themselves journalists.