Media Thread 2020/21

Status
Not open for further replies.
give it to gordon said:
www.thesun.co.uk

Footie pundit suspended by the BBC for describing players' scuffle as 'handbags'

A FOOTBALL pundit has been suspended by the BBC — for describing a scuffle between two players as “handbags”. Steve “Tommo” Thompson was relieved of his duties for using the familiar matchday phras…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk

Looks like you cant use the term 'handbags' now on the bbc ! What is the world coming to.
Yet the same bbc are happy for people like Dan Roan to spout lies about City or say comments just after a helicopter crash , but say 'handbags' when talking about a scuffle on the pitch, that's really bad.
Click to expand...
Racist reporting is ok for the well respected broadcaster,
But old adjectives are no long to be spoken by the snowflakes generation.
It's not fit for purpose,anyone getting upset by that saying needs to get a life,or just fking die.fking sad fkers.
 
kippax4ever said:
Racist reporting is ok for the well respected broadcaster,
But old adjectives are no long to be spoken by the snowflakes generation.
It's not fit for purpose,anyone getting upset by that saying needs to get a life,or just fking die.fking sad fkers.
Click to expand...

The bbc shouldn't be run on the the licence fee it's about time it was a stand alone broadcast like everyone else.

The standards have dropped so much now its criminal its funded by a licence fee.

It does make some good programs but it sports coverage is terrible along with its news both local, national and international
 
It makes me laugh when the commentator apologises in case you heard any bad language. Heavens above its a football match.
 
asahartford1 said:
I would have decked him personally.

But as he asked a question and did not formally accuse him, would a lawsuit against Harris have been successful ?, or are you suggesting other means of retribution, a sniper has been suggested.
Click to expand...

give it to gordon said:
The bbc shouldn't be run on the the licence fee it's about time it was a stand alone broadcast like everyone else.

The standards have dropped so much now its criminal its funded by a licence fee.

It does make some good programs but it sports coverage is terrible along with its news both local, national and international
Click to expand...
It will never happen.seeing all the tossers who have ran it,lord this lord that, & what's that title about,Director Fking General,
Why would you have 2 channels off news,ie 6-9 in the morning whilst tap you remote and hey presto bbc new 24/7..
Not sure if they still waste taxpayers money as in the past,but I very rarely watch it & certainly haven't paid the fee for years,
The reporting across the board is substantial very poor,but then you get some remarkable peice's,mostly docs,as in Mosul,
Theres no balance snowflakes v c.nts who been there years who wont change.
We hear the same soundbites every time
BBC for the 21 century for all.BS
 
asahartford1 said:
I would have decked him personally.

But as he asked a question and did not formally accuse him, would a lawsuit against Harris have been successful ?, or are you suggesting other means of retribution, a sniper has been suggested.
Click to expand...
Harris was wide open to any legal action for defamation and in my view City would have won any case. Introducing defamatory information in the form of a question makes no difference. The allegation was broadcast on TV and re-published on websites.
The media have some legal protection from information they mention during any press conference known as Qualified Privilege but to use this defence they would have to show they had been fair, balanced, and accurate in their coverage and Harris has done none of this. If we had sued him he would have to prove what he alleged is true. He made it worse by repeating it online after the conference.
For example if a journalist randomly asked someone at a public press conference: "What's your reaction to being called a paedophile," they would be open to an action for defamation and they would require strong evidence to support their allegation in any subsequent civil action.
To accuse Pep of being a criminal (tax evasion) is almost as bad as it gets for a public figure. What Harris did was reckless and unprofessional and would have cost him his job in many media organisations.
I have no idea whey City let this one lie or why Hariss's employers, the AP agency, did not take action against him.
 
Last edited:
Mid Wales blue said:
RHIAC!
Harris, could write rave reviews of City for the rest of his sorry life, and would still be hated for that one question.
He not only questioned the integrity of Pep, but that of our club and owner, for that to be asked at all in a press conference, never mind it being just after completing an historic domestic season, following on from the 100 point total the year before.
How the FA, or the Premier League, didn’t take action against him begs belief, surely they should have banned him from all future association press conferences.

anyway, I shake my head in disgust and leave it there!
Click to expand...
Like you say RHIAC a proper one n all.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Harris was wide open to any legal action for defamation and in my view City would have won any case. Introducing defamatory information in the form of a question makes no difference. The allegation was broadcast on TV and re-published on websites.
The media have some legal protection from information they mention during any press conference known as Qualified Privilege but to use this defence they would have to show they had been fair, balanced, and accurate in their coverage and Harris has done none of this. If we had sued him he would have to prove what he alleged is true. He made it worse by repeating it online after the conference.
For example if a journalist randomly asked someone at a public press conference: "What's your reaction to being called a paedophile," they would be open to an action for defamation and they would require strong evidence to support their allegation in any subsequent civil action.
To accuse Pep of being a criminal (tax evasion) is almost as bad as it gets for a public figure. What Harris did was reckless and unprofessional and would have cost him his job in many media organisations.
I have no idea whey City let this one lie or why Hariss's employers, the AP agency, did not take action against him.
Click to expand...
Great reply.
I think the employers are a major part of the issue. The individual journalists are under direction, or at least encouraged, and are pulling the strings.
In your considered opinion why do the club not take a more severe approach in terms of litigation.
 
oldius said:
Watching Football focus and it really is surprising how little some ex-footballers understand about the game, yet are given a platform to speak.
Click to expand...
100%. I went to school for a few years as a kid, but it doesn’t make me an expert on learning. I used to work in a chippy, but it’s doesn’t mean I can give expert advice on the workings of a fish & chip shop, etc.

I’d much rather here managers/ex-managers or coaches speak than players. It still doesn’t guarantee insight, but makes the probability at tad higher I reckon.
 
asahartford1 said:
Most listening to football focus(You excluded) will have little knowledge of football either-)
Click to expand...
But they will know how much fhe BBC love to feature rags and dippers. Not to mention the time devoted to Maradona.

And now some old biddy from Essex talking shit about how she has coped without United.
Walkies , Mabel. Even though its pissing down.
 
asahartford1 said:
Great reply.
I think the employers are a major part of the issue. The individual journalists are under direction, or at least encouraged, and are pulling the strings.
In your considered opinion why do the club not take a more severe approach in terms of litigation.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why City have not been more proactive in their media management. I don't think they should be suing people all the time. That's always a poor strategy because it sucks the life out your own organisation and is just too time consuming. But there are times when you have to hit back and a few selected legal actions would have a huge impact on the behaviour of other media groups.
I can only assume that City take a very global view of things and don't want CFG to get dragged into lots of local disputes. The bigger picture is there is a huge worldwide information war going on between the rulers of Qatar and Abu Dhabi. The last thing Sheikh Mansour wants is to be dragged into that.
The Rob Harris situation is a strange one. He works for a respected news agency AP which has a commercial requirement to be politically impartial. It is a trusted brand with a good reputation (unlike the UK tabloids which are not credible these days).
And yet Rob Harris seems happy to appear on Qatari propaganda outlet Al Jazeera TV and he has been overtly political in his coverage of City on social media. At the same time he has made defamatory allegations about our manager which have not been backed up by any evidence.
Sometimes not taking action can lead people to believe that we may actually have something to hide. (I don't believe this to be the case but it provides fuel for our enemies)
 
Turn on the TV to immediately hear Matt Critchley explaining it's the worst start to a season for 12 years for City....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top