Media persecution of Raheem Sterling

tolmie's hairdoo said:
To be fair Dom, Lawton is a quite brilliant sports news reporter, as his pieces on Team Sky have exposed.

There's a difference between a scapegoat and being accused of racism, and IMO there is no racist undertone to the 'runner' as it is called, in terms of a first edition.

Sterling has had his issues and hasn't helped himself at times (I actually squarely blame Liverpool fans for most of that), but I see it here as nothing more than lazy journalism- most reporters are already prepared for matches with a couple of potential lines, certainly makes the job easier when on deadline and a game can change in a dying second (even some of it written in advance)

It was reported the day before that it would by 999 days without a Sterling goal for England, so it's an easy one to have in the can on the laptop, should it be easy to top and tail it.

A lot of confirmation bias is now going on with regards Raheem, it has seeped into the public conscious and unites tribal footballing loyalties and becomes topical enough for lazy media narratives.

I used to see the bad in everything Richard Edgehill did in a City shirt - I never looked at his race - it was me convincing myself that he was shit at everything.

On a slightly different tangent, the public get what they deserve. They have created the driving down of journalistic standards across the world, based on nothing more than laziness created through a dependence on the internet.

The media are giving them what they want because of the commercial reality to exist.
Click to expand...

I don't know how good a reporter Lawton is but he made a fool of himself last night. He had prepared a piece in advance for the first edition (mostly written before extra time) and was incapable of finding a better angle than the lazy anti-Sterling one. Like a lot of the press and fans he seems incapable of reading a game of football. Sterling performed well last night and made a difference to the team playing in what is not his usual position for City. He was nowhere near as good as Maguire or Trippier but much better than Ali and Lingard (who worked hard with little success). The much-derided Ashley Young was also superb. If Lawton can't understand the way England were set up by Southgate and the context of the game then he has no credibility. Either that or he is just another sheep in the press pack who bows to peer group pressure and can't think for himself.
I agree with your point about journalistic standards but would add that one of the reasons the tabloids are struggling is they have lost touch with their core audience.
 
Mike D said:
I beg to differ with you on the brilliant.

But the DM has always been renown for its racist undertones always has always will. Barely a day goes by that this vile little rag isn't stirring up some shit on migrants that they can dig up. That's what it is all about keeping those right white middle class happy.

Raheem is a an easy target and the son of an immigrant, black, a Labour supporter and someone who is earning a lot of money boom! So he is always going to get it at every opportunity from the DM.
Click to expand...

So you admit your judgement on my opinion of him as a brilliant journalist is actually clouded purely by your own political bias?

Matt Lawton has been named sports news reporter of the year something like three or four years on the bounce. Same newspaper Martin Samuel also works for, another brilliant writer.

Lawton has exposed the likes of Bradley Wiggins - perhaps he should stick to that than match reporting!
 
Tom_mcfc said:
If you didn't see him give the ball away then I can only wish that one day I am ad blinkered and deluded as yourself to fail to see any wrongs in his game. I want him to play well. I didn't come on here even criticising him. I said he played ok and went in on that disgraceful article about him. It then annoys me when people try and make out he had a better game than he did, he was alright, nothing more and nothing less and certainly not our worst performer.

People are comparing his two absolute sitters he missed with a snap shot just inside the area from Vardy, if that isn't clutching at straws then what is. I have heard every weird and wonderful excuse for when Sterling misses a chance yet they want to hammer a different player if they miss. That seems pretty fair doesn't it.



Main threat is pretty cute too, considering his contribution is one assist against the mighty Panama. Goals and assists are used like there's no tomorrow when discussing City, when it is England they are disregarded and you only have to run without the ball and look dangerous. Some logic. It's not his fault he fucked up when Lingard was put in, this is the hypocrisy this thread screams. Now when Sterling messes up when he is put through it is the balls spins fault, the passers fault, anyone but Sterlings fault. That one line sums up everyones blinkered views in here when watching England. Sterling misses and his movement was great to get there to begin with, Lingard misses and he messes up.
Click to expand...
I've said he gave the ball away, I've even told you how many times it happened. I've also shown that of all the players that started, only Walker and Stones gave it away less (2 players playing in positions where they're expected to make the safe pass).

You've singled Sterling out for giving the ball away when 8 starters were far guiltier in that regard, that's your negative prejudice toward the lad kicking in.

You don't see it when others give the ball away because you have no interest.

You're constantly waiting for Sterling to make any kind of mistake to make you feel validated in your opinion.

That's confirmation bias pure and simple.
 
aguero93:20 said:
I've said he gave the ball away, I've even told you how many times it happened. I've also shown that of all the players that started, only Walker and Stones gave it away less (2 players playing in positions where they're expected to make the safe pass).

You've singled Sterling out for giving the ball away when 8 starters were far guiltier in that regard, that's your negative prejudice toward the lad kicking in.

You don't see it when others give the ball away because you have no interest.

You're constantly waiting for Sterling to make any kind of mistake to make you feel validated in your opinion.

That's confirmation bias pure and simple.
Click to expand...

It is the Sterling thread ffs of course I have singled him out, everyone keeps ignoring how I don't think he was our worst player. Bias is not being able to read what I am putting and focusing on the negative stuff. If you think he played better than ok then I hope you don't complain next season if that is his level of performance.
 
Tom_mcfc said:
If you didn't see him give the ball away then I can only wish that one day I am ad blinkered and deluded as yourself to fail to see any wrongs in his game. I want him to play well. I didn't come on here even criticising him. I said he played ok and went in on that disgraceful article about him. It then annoys me when people try and make out he had a better game than he did, he was alright, nothing more and nothing less and certainly not our worst performer.

People are comparing his two absolute sitters he missed with a snap shot just inside the area from Vardy, if that isn't clutching at straws then what is. I have heard every weird and wonderful excuse for when Sterling misses a chance yet they want to hammer a different player if they miss. That seems pretty fair doesn't it.



Main threat is pretty cute too, considering his contribution is one assist against the mighty Panama. Goals and assists are used like there's no tomorrow when discussing City, when it is England they are disregarded and you only have to run without the ball and look dangerous. Some logic. It's not his fault he fucked up when Lingard was put in, this is the hypocrisy this thread screams. Now when Sterling messes up when he is put through it is the balls spins fault, the passers fault, anyone but Sterlings fault. That one line sums up everyones blinkered views in here when watching England. Sterling misses and his movement was great to get there to begin with, Lingard misses and he messes up.
Click to expand...

No they aren't.

Still waiting btw.
 
Tom_mcfc said:
It is the Sterling thread ffs of course I have singled him out, everyone keeps ignoring how I don't think he was our worst player. Bias is not being able to read what I am putting and focusing on the negative stuff. If you think he played better than ok then I hope you don't complain next season if that is his level of performance.
Click to expand...
8 players gave the ball away more often and you focused on Sterling doing it as a negative. That's bias. If you can't see it then you're either completely blinkered or on the wum.
 
Tom_mcfc said:
It is the Sterling thread ffs of course I have singled him out, everyone keeps ignoring how I don't think he was our worst player. Bias is not being able to read what I am putting and focusing on the negative stuff. If you think he played better than ok then I hope you don't complain next season if that is his level of performance.
Click to expand...
Also, it's the Sterling thread. The one you live on, you barely post anywhere else on the forum, just on this thread to slag him off. You're obsessed.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I don't know how good a reporter Lawton is but he made a fool of himself last night. He had prepared a piece in advance for the first edition (mostly written before extra time) and was incapable of finding a better angle than the lazy anti-Sterling one. Like a lot of the press and fans he seems incapable of reading a game of football. Sterling performed well last night and made a difference to the team playing in what is not his usual position for City. He was nowhere near as good as Maguire or Trippier but much better than Ali and Lingard (who worked hard with little success). The much-derided Ashley Young was also superb. If Lawton can't understand the way England were set up by Southgate and the context of the game then he has no credibility. Either that or he is just another sheep in the press pack who bows to peer group pressure and can't think for himself.
I agree with your point about journalistic standards but would add that one of the reasons the tabloids are struggling is they have lost touch with their core audience.
Click to expand...

Agree with most of that. Don't think they have lost touch with their core audience through lesser standards, however - those standards have simply been lowered to meet with a generation who have no concept of anything before the internet.

That core audience has either died or, like most things in this life now, they don't need to get off their arses in the first instance to achieve a similar outcome, whether it be buying clothes or ordering food online. Society seems to prefer a condensed version of everything to make life easier.

As I suggested in a previous post, sometimes society gets what it wants. They want Corrie and Eastenders, they get it, never mind what a disgusting waste of time it must be.

A generation of obese kids, McDonalds and the supermarkets tailor to suit, we still have a choice in terms of the parents but for the sake of an easy life...

Those same people could go to the newsagent and buy a newspaper which might provide a more in-depth article, but why, when they can read it in 200 words on the same click bait site via their mobile?

Shortcuts - whether it be in journalism or life.
 
're Matt Lawton (Sports Journalist).

It really is a sad tactic to defend himself with the "balanced article" argument when the Headline is so negative and inflammatory.

I actually think the Newspaper is in danger of receiving a different response to their attack on Sterling than they expect, especially if England continue in the tournament.
 
asahartford1 said:
're Matt Lawton (Sports Journalist).

It really is a sad tactic to defend himself with the "balanced atrticle" argument when the Headline is so negative and inflammatory.

I actually think the Newspaper is in danger of receiving a different response to their attack on Sterling than they expect, especially if England continue in the tournament.
Click to expand...

He won't have had any input on the headline. Lazy sub.
 
To me one of the big things this WC has shown is how out of sync the press pack are with the England fan base

Not necesarilly their articles but the way they’ve behaved on twitter around the teamsheet leak, and Sterling issues etc have been really eye opening

They may do good investigative pieces every now and then but they seem like complete self important bellends
 
aguero93:20 said:
Whoscored are calling you - the unbiased company that make a living from accurately compiling match data.
Click to expand...

It's getting interesting that. He'll be telling you soon that 'whoscored' are all blue moon tinted spec wearers. Facts simply don't back up his predetermined ramblings.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
So you admit your judgement on my opinion of him as a brilliant journalist is actually clouded purely by your own political bias?

Matt Lawton has been named sports news reporter of the year something like three or four years on the bounce. Same newspaper Martin Samuel also works for, another brilliant writer.

Lawton has exposed the likes of Bradley Wiggins - perhaps he should stick to that than match reporting!
Click to expand...

It goes down to opinion personally I am a fan of Henry Winter
 
aguero93:20 said:
Also, it's the Sterling thread. The one you live on, you barely post anywhere else on the forum, just on this thread to slag him off. You're obsessed.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, he's prominent on the United thread oddly defending De Gea...
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
He won't have had any input on the headline. Lazy sub.
Click to expand...

Yes but we have been reading " Lazy sub" concerning Sterling especially in this Newspaper for a few years now. This is why we feel it necessary to have this thread.

I will take your word for it that he is a superb journalist, but I believe he knew exactly what his sentiment was with this article.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
So you admit your judgement on my opinion of him as a brilliant journalist is actually clouded purely by your own political bias?

Matt Lawton has been named sports news reporter of the year something like three or four years on the bounce. Same newspaper Martin Samuel also works for, another brilliant writer.

Lawton has exposed the likes of Bradley Wiggins - perhaps he should stick to that than match reporting!
Click to expand...
Is it fair to say that any paper will skew its views to suit its subscription base ?
If so then pre written stories will surely have that bias. I understand financial constraints and perhaps headlines being changed or even written by editorial staff.
In short, even if certain journos are fantastic at their job I wonder how many will be allowed to write a fair well balanced report ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top