I THINK, perhaps, I know better than most people, how times are changing in the media. My daughters and grand-weans keep telling me I should be on Facebook, or twittering (although I sometimes think they are being cheeky at that point) - but certainly, not least from the manner in which circulations are falling and web traffic is rising - the job aint what it was when I were nowt burra lad.
In fact, as is so-often said when I bump into other aged hacks in various licenced establishments: "Thank fuck I'm not starting out in journalism today".
Of course, the young simply ignore the: "Do something else", advice from those of us who have been there, got the t-shirt, exaggerated the expenses; the numbers entering 'Media Studies' courses seem to rise each year, while the effectiveness of such courses is apparently diminishing at an ever-more-rapid rate.
Speaking as someone who got bye on pure talent for writing and a brass neck, I believe in the dictum that the best type of journalistic training is: "On the job", I am all too ready to believe those more-senior journalists than I who say that media studies courses aren't worth a hill of beans.
But, regardless of this, a lot of the trouble today is - so-many of our traditional news outlets are being run by the bean counters. Real, dyed-in-the-wool journalists are thin on the ground these days, and getting thinner. That said, some of the decisions being made by newsroom managers leave me shaking my head in wonder.
Too much of the content of a 21st century newspaper comes from two or three large agencies: PA, AP, Reuters, AFP; in fact, it is easier to find a story in the two national Scottish "broadsheets" about the Chacago Blackhawks than about the Braehead Clan; LA Lakers get more column centimetres than Edinburgh Kings; Kelburne Hockey Club - one of the genuine success stories of Scottish sport get barely a mention in either the Herald or The Scotsman - why, because it's easier to cut and paste PA or Reuters copy from the feeds than to dig-up local stories.
Now, one would think that rugby, as the second winter sport in Scotland - you might almost say the second sport, would be above all this, but no.
I will tell you this boy - the worst day for coverage of Scottish rugby was the day Glen Stirling sold Glasgow News Agency. Now the late Glen and I have previous - a lot of previous. About 50-years ago he took me out of a line-out whilst I was in mid-air. I got up and flattened him. We fought for the next 30 years.
Glen was never a great writer, but, he knew his patch and he covered and got into the papers, lots of rugby stories which today, never see the light of day. Of course, back then, rugby was amateur, we didn't have the full-time professional sides, but we had top sides - Hawick, Melrose, Gala, Kelso, Jedforest, Langholm and Selkirk in the Borders; Edinburgh Accies, Watsonians, Heriot's, Edinburgh Wanderers, Boroughmuir in the capital; Glasgow Accies, Glasgow High School FP, West of Scotland, Jordanhill, Hillhead High School FP and Ayr in the West; Dunfermline, Howe of Fife, Dundee HSFP, Aberdeen Grammar School FP and Gordonians in the North and Midlands - and below them we had a thriving District rugby scene.
We had the senior and junior district sides; the spring and autumn Sevens circuits were alive in each District, not just in the Borders. In Glasgow, the annual Knock-Out Cup and County Cup campaigns meant Glen Stirling, Bill McMurtrie and the rest of us were out two or three nightes per week in March and April - and all this got into the Herald and Scotsman.
These days, if it aint Edinburgh or Warriors news, forget it. The Herald doesn't even do individual match reports on RBS Premier One any more, it takes a round-up - from a journalist who sits at home and collates it, rarely being seen at games. To be fair, The Scotsman group still takes match reports for Scotland on Sunday and The Scotsman, while Bill Lothian continues to harvest the minutia of Edinburgh club rugby to great effect.
Such are the constraints placed on journalism today, by the bean counters - very few local papers send a man out to cover club games, they rely on someone at the club providing a report. At a time when the game needs all the coverage it gets, it is being let-down by the media, who are, by letting them down, letting themselves down.
Whether in the old-fashioned paper format, or on-line through dedicated websites, sport still sells but rugby as a whole isn't selling itself very well.
This morning I was looking for a report on last night's Scotland Club XV v Scotland Under-20s game at Murrayfield. I finally found it on the SRU's own website - it wasn't a very good one. I now know the score was 19-3 for the Club XV, hardly unexpected. I know their pack minced the Under-20s, including one push-over try: not exactly big news or unexpected. But, what the work experience kid from the SRU's media department didn't tell me was - who scored the tries, when and what the teams and replacements were.
If the SRU cannot sell its own sport properly, where are we going? Mind you, the SRU does employ as one of its spin doctors, a young man who took grave exception to me pointing-out that in 50-plus years in rugby I have yet to see any captain of any rugby team wearing an arm-band, so, that in writing that Al Kellock was taking-over "the arm band" from Mike Blair, he was making himself look ridiculous and demonstrating his lack of basic knowledge.
Mind you, some clubs don't help themselves. It isn't very funny when someone from a newspaper or news agency telephones your club-house to ascertain the result of a game, for some half-pissed half-wit in the bar to come up with the first two numbers that entered his tiny head. But, it happens.
We need to sell Scottish rugby better than we are. That said, wins for Glasgow and Edinburgh this weekend just might turn the tide and give us a right good boost going into the Six Nations - get in there boys.