Media Thread 2020/21

Status
Not open for further replies.
Metalartin said:
Hmmm, I've read some takes on it, that suggests there is one but it was to do with injuries and nothing to do with COVID. Just that they added U23/21 players to the available players after the restart last season. So rather than create a new rule, they just updated an old one, to get the desired effect.

Suppose I should read the PL Handbook myself rather than hoping others will provide the quote.

Edit: Can't find any 14 player rule. So as you said, it was probably a guideline given in a meeting before the season started. The handbook does say the PL board has the authority to postpone any match. So much for all "the rules say this" rants, with many of them being made by journalists, which doesn't help either.

This American broadcaster seems to be putting UK ones to shame, with their take on it(although overcautious is not the right term):

https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2020/12/29/premier-league-covid-break-latest-news/
Click to expand...

That excerpt nails it perfectly.
The rest is fairly secondary to "we decided to take the safest approach".
 
johnevans said:
Whichever situation you can think of (Carney/Leeds, Syed’s or Roan’s or Delaney’s or Conn’s or Harris’s outpourings and so on and so on since 2008), what you have posted applies.. and it does so in spades..

Supporters, especially ourselves, should never plumb the depths of ‘ad hominem’ attacks on (I use the word advisedly) ‘journalists’ for the rubbish that they spout. Leave that to the idiots frequenting Twitter or whatever.

However, the people like Carney, Syed, Roan, Delaney, Conn, Harris and so on and so on need to realise the responsibilities that THEY have to present facts and not ridiculous, transparent, vacuous opinion dressed up as fact and solely designed to garner click-bait.

And so too the industry bodies and owners of the organisations these people work for. They really need to take a hard look at themselves and sort this stuff out before someone gets hurt by some Internet barmpot.

As one of The Smiths’ songs put it, ‘Heavy words are so lightly thrown..’ In other words, think before you conjecture. And definitely think before trying to pass off falsehoods as facts as you have been doing ever since The Sheik took over at City..
Click to expand...

I do think Carney should be considered differently - she is not a journalist, said something on the spur of the moment which was a bit far-fetched and Leeds responded.

The others are paid journalists with years of hackery each, and have the time to avoid insinuation if they so desired (which, fairly obviously, they don't).
 
I think what Carney said was premeditated because when she says it there is a murmur of agreement from behind the camera, who she then looks at and carries on.
My money's on, it was Andy Townsend stood there with his cock out, staring at her.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
We are still waiting for the story from Rob Harris. He asked Pep if he had been paid "off book" ie tax evasion or some sort of FFP dodge by the club. So where is the evidence from Harris? He made a public accusation against Pep at the press conference following us winning the treble (quadruple)
What was his motive to do this at a public press conference? If he was a genuine reporter with a genuine story why would he give that exclusive story to all his rivals at a press conference?
It was designed to humiliate Pep and damage his reputation. Harris is totally unprofessional. A professional would never make a serious allegation like that unless he had the story ready to go. So where is the story?
Harris is an attention-seeking narcissist. The fact that City let this incident go is pathetic in my view. Posing the accusation as a question does not protect him from action. In a civil action the onus would be on Harris to prove his allegations were true. We could have finished his career.
Click to expand...
He also looks like a nonce.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I do think Carney should be considered differently - she is not a journalist, said something on the spur of the moment which was a bit far-fetched and Leeds responded.

The others are paid journalists with years of hackery each, and have the time to avoid insinuation if they so desired (which, fairly obviously, they don't).
Click to expand...
She is an awful commentator/analyst, biased and as full of cliches as any man, so much for a fresh new approach.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I do think Carney should be considered differently - she is not a journalist, said something on the spur of the moment which was a bit far-fetched and Leeds responded.

The others are paid journalists with years of hackery each, and have the time to avoid insinuation if they so desired (which, fairly obviously, they don't).
Click to expand...

She’s paid for her opinion, be prepared & know your facts or maybe she was given the facts, either way they haven’t commented why she was wrong.
 
cheekybids said:
She’s paid for her opinion, be prepared & know your facts or maybe she was given the facts, either way they haven’t commented why she was wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why I didn't say she was exempt from criticism. Just not the same as longstanding journalists.

I've seen a suggestion that she explained her comment, although her explanation was wrong.
 
On the leeds thing I’m really struggling to see the controversy - she stated an opinion which was clearly a bit stupid and wrong - but her right. People responded to her - also their right - and it’s persecution?

journalists publish their opinions into the public view for attention, to garnish attention and opinion. They can’t then cry if they get opinion that opposes theirs back at them

freedom of the press, isn’t it?
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I do think Carney should be considered differently - she is not a journalist, said something on the spur of the moment which was a bit far-fetched and Leeds responded.

The others are paid journalists with years of hackery each, and have the time to avoid insinuation if they so desired (which, fairly obviously, they don't).
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious that the thought hadn't just come into her head so she should have researched the facts and been prepared before the game
mike1923 said:
On the leeds thing I’m really struggling to see the controversy - she stated an opinion which was clearly a bit stupid and wrong - but her right. People responded to her - also their right - and it’s persecution?

journalists publish their opinions into the public view for attention, to garnish attention and opinion. They can’t then cry if they get opinion that opposes theirs back at them

freedom of the press, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
It is their right to form an opinion, but there must be a right of reply, which Leeds did and not by name calling

As for the misogyny, sadly there are always wankers and keyboard warriors on the internet , proven by me
 
dickie davies said:
It's pretty obvious that the thought hadn't just come into her head so she should have researched the facts and been prepared before the game

It is their right to form an opinion, but there must be a right of reply, which Leeds did and not by name calling

As for the misogyny, sadly there are always wankers and keyboard warriors on the internet , proven by me
Click to expand...
I don’t think they name called, just quoted the person who came out with quote and ridiculed it? Once she publicised her own comment into the public forum she is open for an open public forum to comment back. If she doesn’t like having her opinion questioned, she has the option to not pop it into the public stratosphere in the first place
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top