I have to say, the Scottish football media never ceases to amaze me.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder whether some of our journalists watch the same football matches as the rest of us, or whether they simply prefer to inhabit a little fantasy world where today’s heroes become tomorrow’s disappointments and every result requires an entirely new footballing philosophy.

Because goodness me, the way Hearts have been discussed in recent weeks has been extraordinary. For weeks and weeks, we were treated to an endless procession of articles, opinions and declarations about just how good Hearts were.

They were the magnificent challengers, the formidable force, the team ready to take Scottish football by storm. You would almost have thought a new European superpower had emerged somewhere between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

And then came Celtic. The Boys in green and white delivered a magnificent performance, routed Hearts and reminded everyone at Paradise that there is an important difference between talking about being a great team and actually demonstrating it on the pitch.

Suddenly, however, the tune has changed. Now we are hearing that perhaps Hearts are not quite as good as everybody had been telling us. Oh, really? Who would have thought it?

My problem is not with acknowledging Hearts’ weaknesses, nor do I expect journalists to praise a team regardless of its performance.

My objection is to the sheer ridiculousness of the narrative.

One minute Hearts are being elevated to extraordinary heights. The next, after Celtic give them a proper footballing lesson, we are apparently expected to reconsider the entire assessment. Make up your minds, gentlemen.

For obvious reasons, I am particularly fond of consistency.

Words have meanings, arguments require evidence and conclusions should follow logically from the facts presented. It is not exactly revolutionary, although recent events have left me wondering whether I ought to add it to the Scottish football media’s curriculum.

If Hearts were genuinely as magnificent as we had been led to believe, one defeat should not suddenly transform them into an ordinary team. Equally, if Celtic beat them convincingly, perhaps the simplest explanation is that Celtic were simply better on the day. I know, what an outrageous suggestion.

Perhaps somebody should inform our football journalists that a team can lose because its opponents played exceptionally well rather than because the losing side was secretly rubbish all along.

Football is not a fairy tale in which every team must be assigned a permanent character. Hearts are not invincible heroes when they win, just as they do not become hopeless impostors when Celtic beat them. There is a middle ground, and it is called reality. I strongly recommend certain journalists pay it a visit.

What irritates me most is the way Celtic’s achievements so often become secondary to whatever happens to be the latest media obsession. For weeks, the conversation revolved around Hearts, their ambitions, their strengths and their potential. Fair enough. A team performing well deserves recognition.

But Celtic deserve the same honest assessment, particularly when the champions produce a performance which demonstrates their quality so emphatically. Instead, we watched the hype surrounding Hearts grow and grow, almost as though Celtic were merely supporting actors in somebody else’s footballing drama.

Then the whistle blows, the match is played, and the Bhoys in green and white remind everyone who they are.

Rather than simply acknowledging that Celtic delivered the goods, some of the discussion immediately becomes an attempt to diminish Hearts retrospectively. Apparently, if Celtic win convincingly, the easiest explanation is to downgrade the opposition.

But why should we accept that?

Celtic’s performance deserves to be examined on its own merits. The intensity, the movement, the attacking intent and the ability to impose themselves on Hearts from the beginning deserve recognition.

If Hearts struggled to cope, that is part of the story. It is not an excuse to pretend the result somehow tells us less about Celtic.

I genuinely wonder whether some members of the Scottish football media understand the difference between analysis and reaction. Analysis means considering tactics, performances, strengths, weaknesses and context. It also means having the courage to admit when your previous assessment may have been too generous or simply wrong.

Reaction is much easier. Watch a team win, declare them brilliant. Watch them lose, declare them dreadful. Repeat next weekend.

Congratulations. You have discovered football journalism without the inconvenience of actually analysing football.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that Hearts may have been overpraised, and there is nothing wrong with changing your opinion when new evidence emerges. Intellectual honesty demands it.

But there is a difference between thoughtfully revising a judgement and simply following whichever mood happens to be blowing through Scottish football that morning.

One is analysis. The other is footballing weather forecasting: sunny when your favourites win, thunderstorms when they lose, and absolutely no responsibility for yesterday’s prediction.

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting Hearts are a bad team, nor am I claiming that one Celtic victory settles every question about the remainder of the season. Football does not work like that, and sensible commentary should not work like that either.

What I am saying is that the Scottish media needs to stop confusing hype with evidence. Hearts can be a good side without being elevated into something extraordinary, and Celtic can deliver a magnificent performance without the opposition immediately being dismissed as overrated rubbish. Both things can be true at the same time.

It really is not complicated.

The Boys in green and white deserve credit for what they produced. They took on a team which had been talked up relentlessly and showed what Celtic are capable of when they play with conviction, intensity and attacking intent.

That should be the story.

Not a sudden scramble to explain why Hearts were never that good after all, nor another dramatic U-turn designed to make yesterday’s headlines look slightly less embarrassing.

My advice to the Scottish football media is simple: watch the football, examine the evidence and think before you write. Perhaps resist the temptation to crown a team champions of the universe before they have actually achieved anything remotely resembling it.

As for Celtic, let the media chatter away. Let the pundits rearrange their narratives until they are blue in the face. The scoreboard has already delivered its verdict.

And if parts of the Scottish football press are struggling to understand it, perhaps a wee remedial lesson in logic, consistency and the difference between opinion and evidence would not go amiss. I would be delighted to mark their homework.

Although, judging by some of the nonsense we have been reading, I suspect quite a few of them would be heading straight for detention.

Choose The CelticBlog as a ‘Preferred Source’ on Google News for quick access to the news you value.