Media Discussion - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes there bigger fan bases but our shirt sales and memberships have seen colossal growth in the last couple of years. We are always going to get plenty of negativity because we win more trophies than the competition. If anything, I think the coverage this season has been much more balanced. Maybe that’s because we aren’t leading the Prem.

Hardly anybody in the media takes on the cult of Liverpool FC. We just have to deal with it.
 
Bluethemaway said:
I was wondering what sort of lack of effort the bbc would put into our achievements of the last calendar year, and yes no mention of winning the Premier League three times in a row either.

Jealous sad twats !
Click to expand...
Remember when we weren't a good team until 3 in a row, change that 3 CL's in a row now.
 
hammocity said:
At Christmas dinner my elderly Grandma said to my mum, “ this turkey is bloody lovely Anne, did you cook it in the microphone oven?”

My Grandma also watched cartoons in her later years and when the Coyote dropped to his death off a mountain she’d say “bloody hell, I bet that hurt”.

Two pint bottles of Guinness Original and a large Whisky every night and lived until around mid 80’s, born 1900, two World Wars, what a generation!
Click to expand...
I visited her while she was home cooking pies. I sarcastically said are those pies edible her reply was. No there cheese and onion. RIP mum xxx
 
Hoghead said:
I found this article in the Mirror quite amusing if not somewhat true!

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
They say we’ll be cleared because of our ‘legal team’ (wank expression) exploiting ‘loopholes’ (another wank expression in the circumstances).

It’s astonishing (or rather should be) that none of these articles (or certainly none that I’ve seen) ever contemplate or posit that we may possibly be cleared simply because there is no meaningful evidence, despite the fact there isn’t any whatsoever in public circulation. None. Unless you count the doctored Der Spiegel emails, which speak for themselves.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one.

I actually haven’t seen a single article that has questioned that, which means that the whole of the MSM appears to accept the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

You think one journalist might have even raised it as an ancillary point at the very least.

Incredible really.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
They say we’ll be cleared because of our ‘legal team’ (wank expression) exploiting ‘loopholes’ (another wank expression in the circumstances).

It’s astonishing (or rather should be) that none of these articles (or certainly none that I’ve seen) ever contemplate or posit that we may possibly be cleared simply because there is no meaningful evidence, despite the fact there isn’t any whatsoever in public circulation. None. Unless you count the doctored Der Spiegel emails, which speak for themselves.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one.

I actually haven’t seen a single article that has questioned that, which means that the whole of the MSM appears to accept the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

You think one journalist might have even raised it as an ancillary point at the very least.

Incredible really.
Click to expand...

As you say not fucking 1 has gone out there on their own to say I think they could be innocent & absolutely no report of doctored emails.

You’d think maybe 1 arse licking journalist would say it to try & get an exclusive after the case.
 
Franny 1234 said:
Don't know about your mate but when it comes to mixed metaphors my mum was the queen of them.
Click to expand...
Mine was the same , hi mum how's your day been ? Ive been busier than a one-armed clown making balloon animals at a kid’s party , I've got more problems than a maths book at the moment , you're as sharp as cue ball her particular favourites
 
cheekybids said:
As you say not fucking 1 has gone out there on their own to say I think they could be innocent & absolutely no report of doctored emails.

You’d think maybe 1 arse licking journalist would say it to try & get an exclusive after the case.
Click to expand...
Sam Lee would have done if he had any balls and wasn’t a sinfully thick ****.

What’s he got to lose except face with his cohort?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
They say we’ll be cleared because of our ‘legal team’ (wank expression) exploiting ‘loopholes’ (another wank expression in the circumstances).

It’s astonishing (or rather should be) that none of these articles (or certainly none that I’ve seen) ever contemplate or posit that we may possibly be cleared simply because there is no meaningful evidence, despite the fact there isn’t any whatsoever in public circulation. None. Unless you count the doctored Der Spiegel emails, which speak for themselves.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one.

I actually haven’t seen a single article that has questioned that, which means that the whole of the MSM appears to accept the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

You think one journalist might have even raised it as an ancillary point at the very least.

Incredible really.
Click to expand...
You'd think even just from a faux outrage/click bait perspective that someone would have taken a contrary approach
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
They say we’ll be cleared because of our ‘legal team’ (wank expression) exploiting ‘loopholes’ (another wank expression in the circumstances).

It’s astonishing (or rather should be) that none of these articles (or certainly none that I’ve seen) ever contemplate or posit that we may possibly be cleared simply because there is no meaningful evidence, despite the fact there isn’t any whatsoever in public circulation. None. Unless you count the doctored Der Spiegel emails, which speak for themselves.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one.

I actually haven’t seen a single article that has questioned that, which means that the whole of the MSM appears to accept the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

You think one journalist might have even raised it as an ancillary point at the very least.

Incredible really.
Click to expand...

What that tells me is that there is not a single journalist who is interested in the merits of the charges against us.

Perhaps some journalists do not understand the issues involved in the charges. Perhaps others are not interested in whether we are actually guilty or not. Perhaps both. We all knew that there were some journalists whose output was driven solely by clicks. These are the hacks who would not write a story that was unlikely to drive clicks but had journalistic merit.

I didn’t realise that was all of them. Every single one of them.
 
Chris in London said:
What that tells me is that there is not a single journalist who is interested in the merits of the charges against us.

Perhaps some journalists do not understand the issues involved in the charges. Perhaps others are not interested in whether we are actually guilty or not. Perhaps both. We all knew that there were some journalists whose output was driven solely by clicks. These are the hacks who would not write a story that was unlikely to drive clicks but had journalistic merit.

I didn’t realise that was all of them. Every single one of them.
Click to expand...
It’s that desperate need to find us guilty.

We all love to see our supposed challengers struggling, it’s no different here. The media keep it simple. United/liverpool/arse make up a huge subscription base. So why report a balanced piece on city? That particular tribal fan is not interested.

Instead they want to read about how we have cheated and what possible outcomes is expected…relegation and title stripping.

It’s no wonder the outrage hit nuclear heights once CAS cleared the club. If you only want to believe one version and the media only go so far as to confirm said version then mass hysteria is the result.

Let them keep their version of events while their owners continue to fleece them. In the real world based on no evidence and on the high threshold needed to prove guilt city are not in danger.
 
The more I think about it the more bizarre it is.

I get where the clicks and the revenue lie, and the imperative for a story, but even so, given there is literally no evidence in the public domain, and thereby no leaks of any such evidence, that no journalist has chanced their arm even to raise it as a point (which has to be valid in the circumstances) is mental.

It can’t be because the whole of the profession knows something we don’t - that suggestion doesn’t withstand any logical scrutiny.

It’s not even that someone needs to paint themselves into a corner. Simply questioning it does not amount to a defence of City, but rather subjecting the process to a level of scrutiny commensurate with the public interest.

No journalist need nail their colours to the mast for fear of it being career ending or even damaging - they simply need to substantively raise the evidential basis for these charges at this stage given there is currently none in circulation - especially given the passage of so much time.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
They say we’ll be cleared because of our ‘legal team’ (wank expression) exploiting ‘loopholes’ (another wank expression in the circumstances).

It’s astonishing (or rather should be) that none of these articles (or certainly none that I’ve seen) ever contemplate or posit that we may possibly be cleared simply because there is no meaningful evidence, despite the fact there isn’t any whatsoever in public circulation. None. Unless you count the doctored Der Spiegel emails, which speak for themselves.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one.

I actually haven’t seen a single article that has questioned that, which means that the whole of the MSM appears to accept the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

You think one journalist might have even raised it as an ancillary point at the very least.

Incredible really.
Click to expand...
Why would they, when regurgitating the same crap makes them easy clickbait. Releasing it after we've had all 5 trophies on the pitch has generated more.
 
wolviedinho said:
It’s that desperate need to find us guilty.

We all love to see our supposed challengers struggling, it’s no different here. The media keep it simple. United/liverpool/arse make up a huge subscription base. So why report a balanced piece on city? That particular tribal fan is not interested.

Instead they want to read about how we have cheated and what possible outcomes is expected…relegation and title stripping.

It’s no wonder the outrage hit nuclear heights once CAS cleared the club. If you only want to believe one version and the media only go so far as to confirm said version then mass hysteria is the result.

Let them keep their version of events while their owners continue to fleece them. In the real world based on no evidence and on the high threshold needed to prove guilt city are not in danger.
Click to expand...
And that is why the pen is mightier than the sword.
 
Probably Off Topic but relevant in the discussion about journalism so bare with me. John Pilger's death was announced yesterday, an incredible heavyweight of the profession, he publicised the Khmer Rouge's genocide in Cambodia and was very critical of the us in Vietnam. He presented documentaries on ITV back when people gave a shit about public service broadcasting.

I'll leave you with a Pilger quote, it's diametrically opposite where churnalism is now:

"Journalism is nothing if it's not about humanity - it has to be about people's lives."
 
Can anyone explain to me how the fuck is Clinton Morrison a pundit?

Just watching Soccer Special now and he can hardly get his words out and when he finally does it's just gibberish.

Mind you he's sat next to Paul Merson and Jamie Mackie who are almost as both as bad.

Merson "there's nuffink in this match"

Presenter - "Who scored Paul?"

Merson "The striker lad whose name I can't pronounce"

And Mackie sounds like a high pitched Danny Dyer

Honestly my 10 year lad can speak more eloquently than those 3
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top