A590 blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 643
Good effort but dont hold your breathletter sent as below - not much chance, he's probably a dipper or a rag. (EDIT probably not)
Hi Tim,
Probably a tricky subject but an old chestnut for football fans like me who don't happen to support those two huge northern redshirt clubs who get such overwhelming coverage on the BBC website and via its contributions shown in the wider network. This includes the overwhelmingly negative coverage of their PL rivals - which also generate lots of clicks from the same target audience. Nothing new really, the US-owned client media of the US-owned clubs controlling the PL (now an increased majority) have been doing the same for over a decade. Ever since the nouveau rich started to challenge for the established top 4's revenue streams - which is of course the whole point of the exercise.
The surprise is that our public broadcaster has joined in over that period with increasing enthusiasm and some suggest the long-term banning by Man City of its Sports Editor Dan Roan back in 2018 could be a major factor!
Anyway, my request is that your programme could look at their article yesterday which seeks to justify Liverpool's current splurge in the transfer market. It's exactly the opposite of their standard reaction to any lavish spending by the likes of Chelsea, Man City or Newcastle. The authors switch between timeframes and net/gross spending stats to produce a wholly misleading picture and this is reflected in many of the critical comments at the end of the piece. I believe an accurate table showing the true position they're trying to explain away is given here but there are many other independent sources too.
If you calculate the % of articles written over recent years about Liverpool & Manchester United (Simon Stone is both their United correspondent & also their Chief Football Writer btw) I'm pretty sure it would also demonstrate the blatantly unbalanced coverage these two teams get.
Best Wishes,