Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge

Are you lot serious? Someone mischievously titled a photo with the most innofensive epithet I can think of, the BBC inadvertently publish it leading to 130 pages of internet rage.
Then to crown it all and to defend the clubs bruised honour after this egregious slur, a city fan publishes an article on a popular football website which speculates that the fan in question might be suffering from some form of mental illness. It even throws a popular one in there without any knowledge at all about the fans medical history and without any consent from him.
Which is worse, being called Bertie or having your mental health speculated about on a football website?
Embarrassing and ill considered.

Outrage generated in the echo chamber of an internet forum isn't the real world.
You obviously have not understood it then.
 
How is my post count relevant?
Are you a City fan? If you're not (which isn't a problem in itself) then you won't understand the angst that we feel towards the BBC and their overall biased reporting on all things City whilst at the same time enjoying daily reacharounds with those shithouses acrosss the road.
If you are, and you've decided that this subject is serious enough for you to make just your 20th post in 7 years then you're rightly getting called out on it.
 
Are you lot serious? Someone mischievously titled a photo with the most innofensive epithet I can think of, the BBC inadvertently publish it leading to 130 pages of internet rage.
Then to crown it all and to defend the clubs bruised honour after this egregious slur, a city fan publishes an article on a popular football website which speculates that the fan in question might be suffering from some form of mental illness. It even throws a popular one in there without any knowledge at all about the fans medical history and without any consent from him.
Which is worse, being called Bertie or having your mental health speculated about on a football website?
Embarrassing and ill considered.

Outrage generated in the echo chamber of an internet forum isn't the real world.
It's about how MCFC and their supporters are presented in the media. I thought that they had inadvertently published someone else's barb, but it appears it was deliberate. It's just become a touchstone for the wider issue of how MCFC are treated as a whipping boy to create interest for Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal fans etc

It does bother me a little about what the fan himself thinks when he sees this topic. I hope he realises that we are trying to defend him
 
Are you a City fan? If you're not (which isn't a problem in itself) then you won't understand the angst that we feel towards the BBC and their overall biased reporting on all things City whilst at the same time enjoying daily reacharounds with those shithouses acrosss the road.
If you are, and you've decided that this subject is serious enough for you to make just your 20th post in 7 years then you're rightly getting called out on it.

I've been a season ticket holder for 26 years.
We should call out genuine damaging bias and unfairness in reporting. But I think this was a stupid sub editing mistake not some corporate conspiracy and the article published is worse for Pete the badge than the picture title.
I could come on here agreeing with you all like a top blue but that's how we got where we are with this story.
It makes us look like hysterics, we should have taken the piss out of the BBC's incompetence and moved on.
 
It's about how MCFC and their supporters are presented in the media. I thought that they had inadvertently published someone else's barb, but it appears it was deliberate. It's just become a touchstone for the wider issue of how MCFC are treated as a whipping boy to create interest for Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal fans etc

It does bother me a little about what the fan himself thinks when he sees this topic. I hope he realises that we are trying to defend him

The fact that we're hoping that Pete understands that were trying to defend him from the BBC in light of his mental illness that we don't know he has is not a great position to find ourselves in.

As for the bias, I think that our fan base is struggling a bit with the rapid growth of the club. We've gone from everyon'es favourite underdogs to looking like we could run the game in England for a decade. With that comes media shit stirring. For all clubs. Because people read it.
 
The bbc just constructed a page questioning Herreras red card during the Chelsea match. Strangely it's just been deleted as quickly as it appeared. Unbelievable bias towards united in that organisation.

And that shows, like the OP, how out of control they are. It seems anyone can post anything, with out editorial control. It really is an amateur organisation that does not deserve public funding.
 
I've been a season ticket holder for 26 years.
We should call out genuine damaging bias and unfairness in reporting. But I think this was a stupid sub editing mistake not some corporate conspiracy and the article published is worse for Pete the badge than the picture title.
I could come on here agreeing with you all like a top blue but that's how we got where we are with this story.
It makes us look like hysterics, we should have taken the piss out of the BBC's incompetence and moved on.

Absolute bollocks mate!
Nobody is saying it's corporate conspiracy either – you have woefully misunderstood this entire thread!
The caption was entirely intentional, it will have been added (as previously mentioned) by a plastic Rag working there, in full knowledge of what he was doing, and will have no doubt had a good chuckle with his equally plastic Raggy chums! Now, as pretty much everyone on here agrees – the term "Bertie" isn't one any of us are particularly bothered about if a Rag uses it – but this is a national, publicly funded organisation, that is supposed to be impartial – this should have been passed by an editor/studio manager before being made live on the BBC website... as has been mentioned too, you wouldn't see a photo of a United fan with the word "Rag" in the caption.
All that's needed in this case is for them to say "Yep, we fucked up - sorry for any offence caused" and for them to publish an apology online too.
 
I've been a season ticket holder for 26 years.
We should call out genuine damaging bias and unfairness in reporting. But I think this was a stupid sub editing mistake not some corporate conspiracy and the article published is worse for Pete the badge than the picture title.
I could come on here agreeing with you all like a top blue but that's how we got where we are with this story.
It makes us look like hysterics, we should have taken the piss out of the BBC's incompetence and moved on.

The point is that if this was Sky, BT, Paddy Power etc then this would not be an issue, they are privately funded organisations whom are entitled to pick and chose their own editorial slant. However it is the BBC, a publically funded body whom by their own charter are not only meant to report without prejudice but be accountable (look how they've repeatedly argued this point in reletion to articles involving Islamic State for example). In this respect it is evident that they have failed. Now that is fine, where it becomes not fine is by following this up with lies and deflection, this is where they are supposed to prove the accountability part. I don't care as much as some about being called a Bertie, I quite revel in it now that we happen not to have anything to be bitter about, in fact I like it, I even quite like being called oil ****, it is banter. However banter should be fan to fan, with willing and knowing participants and certainly not perpetrated by an organisation who purport to have saint like standards, and absolutely certainly not whilst singling out an elderly and quite beautifully eccentric supporter without his knowledge or agreement. That is the sole reason this thread has rung to 130+ pages of rage. I do concede though, I really hope Pete is ok with all this.
 
Last edited:
Are you lot serious? Someone mischievously titled a photo with the most innofensive epithet I can think of, the BBC inadvertently publish it leading to 130 pages of internet rage.
Then to crown it all and to defend the clubs bruised honour after this egregious slur, a city fan publishes an article on a popular football website which speculates that the fan in question might be suffering from some form of mental illness. It even throws a popular one in there without any knowledge at all about the fans medical history and without any consent from him.
Which is worse, being called Bertie or having your mental health speculated about on a football website?
Embarrassing and ill considered.

Outrage generated in the echo chamber of an internet forum isn't the real world.

I included in the piece a caveat that I had debated long and hard about whether to touch on the possibility of any mental condition so I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint Guy Debord. However I would like to say my side of it.

Earlier in this thread a poster insisted that Pete once informed his child that he suffers from a form of Asperger's. Elsewhere several other posters mention a learning difficulty.

These claims are by no means factual which is why I said they were 'unverified reports'. The reason I included such 'speculation' (and I am certainly not in the habit of speculating to anyone's mental condition, least of all a Blue) is because in this particular instance its possibility IS pertinent to the BBC's mockery of the man. It potentially is part of the story.

That assertion is based entirely on fact and, more so, the most factual source a writer can possibly have - my own personal experiences.

I have run social media pages for a number of different companies ranging from Puma to clothing sites who request that I 'bantz' with fans to boost interaction.

None of these pages would have permitted me to run with this post and it has precisely nothing to do with the use of 'Bertie'.

Apologies if this is indelicate - and this is absolutely no judgement of Pete in any way, shape or form - but with only a photograph to go on of a man dressed entirely in blue, with a plethora of badges, and carrying City paraphernalia the suggestion would be that the man is eccentric or possibly more than eccentric. And all six companies I have worked for would definitely err on the side of caution here and forbid any post that could be construed as mockery.

This is the BBC who did this. The BBC!
 
I exchange the odd tweet with a sports editor at the bbc and ex sports web editor so thought I'd share Toma's excellent article with him. His reply:

I'm well aware. It was poor from us. Unacceptable. Won't happen again. But it wasn't done in spite.

A couple of things. Only the person who did it knows if it was spiteful so not taking his reply as gospel but what is clear is that this has created a bit of a shit storm for them..

And in response to those who are embarrassed by our escalation, it is also clear the BBC know they are in the wrong. Why should anyone be embarrassed apart from them?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.