Media discussion - 2025/26

gordondaviesmoustache said:
There is no question he associated with, did not seek to challenge and has not sought to distance himself from a cohort of journalists who openly conspired to question and undermine our achievements in a way that was tendentious, specious, inconsistent and hypocritical. And calculated. This is a group who have conspicuously not engaged in dispassionate critical analysis of the club at any stage, and yet have plainly not applied the same sense of sententious indignation to others clubs with more questionable and opaque finances such as United and Chelsea.

If you cannot see how appearing to be so convivial with those who sought to destroy us, without any apparent subsequent qualification, retraction or contrition is going to inform many City fans’ disposition towards him then it’s not the psychology of City fans that you fail to sufficiently appreciate, but rather human nature.

Especially given one of that cohort wanks off dogs.
Click to expand...

No it's utter bollocks.

"This group are nasty and he didn't adequately to my pleasure publicly slag them off means I think he is morally inferior".

It's fucking madness. He doesn't owe you a passionate defence of all things City, why do YOU think he owes you that? His job is to report stories in or around City, not to take up arms and charge at what City fans believe is the enemy.

All this thread does is complain about client journalism and now you're complaining that somebody isn't engaging in that and is instead actually doing his job.

Becaus if Sam Lee is a **** for not defending City then that means you're actually totally ok with biased journalism which means you have no argument against the Delaneys and Harris'. You can't have this both ways. Either that mob are twats for engaging in partisan journalism or Sam isn't for not engaging in it. Pick one.
 
Damocles said:
No it's utter bollocks.

"This group are nasty and he didn't adequately to my pleasure publicly slag them off means I think he is morally inferior".

It's fucking madness. He doesn't owe you a passionate defence of all things City, why do YOU think he owes you that? His job is to report stories in or around City, not to take up arms and charge at what City fans believe is the enemy.

All this thread does is complain about client journalism and now you're complaining that somebody isn't engaging in that and is instead actually doing his job.

Becaus if Sam Lee is a **** for not defending City then that means you're actually totally ok with biased journalism which means you have no argument against the Delaneys and Harris'. You can't have this both ways. Either that mob are twats for engaging in partisan journalism or Sam isn't for not engaging in it. Pick one.
Click to expand...

Dom at no point did this bloke who had the inside gossip on all things City say “what happens if they are innocent?”

He did the usual of reporting on City through the lens of opposing fans when he will have clearly seen & heard all the evidence which he ignored from blues to toe the party line. The blokes a ****!
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
He’s not very good. But he’s not the only one. How many UK hacks have ever got a face to face interview with Khaldoon for example. But he gives plenty to the foreign business media. The English press pack just recycle quotes from Pep’s press conferences. Plenty of people on this forum have better contacts at City. The New York Times gets more stories from City than the laughable English press.
Click to expand...
Everyone's favourite David Conn did once interview Khaldoon back in the day :)

www.theguardian.com

Abu Dhabi takeover of Manchester City 'no danger to football', insists chairman

Khaldoon al-Mubarak believes investment is only way to break monopoly of Europe's elite clubs
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Damocles said:
No it's utter bollocks.

"This group are nasty and he didn't adequately to my pleasure publicly slag them off means I think he is morally inferior".

It's fucking madness. He doesn't owe you a passionate defence of all things City, why do YOU think he owes you that? His job is to report stories in or around City, not to take up arms and charge at what City fans believe is the enemy.

All this thread does is complain about client journalism and now you're complaining that somebody isn't engaging in that and is instead actually doing his job.

Becaus if Sam Lee is a **** for not defending City then that means you're actually totally ok with biased journalism which means you have no argument against the Delaneys and Harris'. You can't have this both ways. Either that mob are twats for engaging in partisan journalism or Sam isn't for not engaging in it. Pick one.
Click to expand...
I’ll pick what I want thanks, and he’s mates with someone who wanks off dogs.
 
cheekybids said:
Dom at no point did this bloke who had the inside gossip on all things City say “what happens if they are innocent?”

He did the usual of reporting on City through the lens of opposing fans when he will have clearly seen & heard all the evidence which he ignored from blues to toe the party line. The blokes a ****!
Click to expand...

To be fair to @Damocles I get his point that Lee may have been extremely balanced in his reporting about City since I switched off from him. I wouldn't know because I haven't read any of his stuff since the Mahrez incident. But even if he has been, it wouldn't shake my opinion of him. Once a ****, always a **** in my book. Am I being fair or not? Life's too short, I don't really care.
 
halfcenturyup said:
To be fair to @Damocles I get his point that Lee may have been extremely balanced in his reporting about City since I switched off from him. I wouldn't know because I haven't read any of his stuff since the Mahrez incident. But even if he has been, it wouldn't shake my opinion of him. Once a ****, always a **** in my book. Am I being fair or not? Life's too short, I don't really care.
Click to expand...

Mahrez incident was the lowest of the low.
 
Damocles said:
No it's utter bollocks.

"This group are nasty and he didn't adequately to my pleasure publicly slag them off means I think he is morally inferior".

It's fucking madness. He doesn't owe you a passionate defence of all things City, why do YOU think he owes you that? His job is to report stories in or around City, not to take up arms and charge at what City fans believe is the enemy.

All this thread does is complain about client journalism and now you're complaining that somebody isn't engaging in that and is instead actually doing his job.

Becaus if Sam Lee is a **** for not defending City then that means you're actually totally ok with biased journalism which means you have no argument against the Delaneys and Harris'. You can't have this both ways. Either that mob are twats for engaging in partisan journalism or Sam isn't for not engaging in it. Pick one.
Click to expand...
The point about wanking dogs off is a sound one though.
 
TinFoilHat said:
View attachment 162547
View attachment 162548

No clubs gets preferential media treatment.
Click to expand...
Surely the Sun showing some compassion is a good thing? You could argue that they would have reacted differently to another club but still. That said, who was it who reported on the Leicester helicopter crash with stories about his alleged girlfriend being in the crash with him?
 
Last edited:
Centurions said:
Surely the Sun showing some compassion is a good thing? You could argue that they would have reacted differently to a another club but still. That said, who was it who reported on the Leicester helicopter crash with stories about his alleged girlfriend being in the crash with him?
Click to expand...
Theres compassion and theres fear.

I'm not a fan of either organisation involved.

I'd surmise it wasn't done out of respect but fear of another feral backlash.
 
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