BBC forced to withdraw claim that Man City have bought English football.

[MillionMilesAway]

I can't say definitively that it is biased reporting and you can't say definitively that it is just rank bad reporting .

The end result is something that is wrong and therefore demonstrates a bias against our club.

I don't think it demonstrates bias specifically. Claiming it's bias is like crying wolf.

It certainly demonstrates a lack of attention to detail, but anything beyond that is more opinion than fact.

 

[laserblue]

It's so boringly predictable isn't it? If it's the other mob then its Dalglish or Rush. The theatre of dreams, Anfield under the lights, these iconic stadiums blah fucking blah. Crush the lot of them, let the camera's pan in on their pained faces and bitter tears of disappointment.

Yes those iconic stadiums, Klanfield and the Theatre of Screams, the construction of which neither club put a penny towards. Both had their ground 100% gifted to them by their first sugar daddies namely John Houlding and John Henry Davies. And their fans have the brass neck and total irony failure to claim City got a free stadium.

 

[waspish]

Thats not biased that just rank bad reporting - an example of what can occur when everyone is on holiday and a junior staff member or an outsider is brought in to fill when they don't have the necessary skill sets.

My Mrs works in a shop and a lad who works in there has his big break on a local radio station at the moment - its because everyone is on holiday. He plays music and updates listeners with scores on a Saturday afternoon - his delivery is piss poor ( not as stumbling and mumbling as Adrian Chiles though ) and he knows fuck all about football but he is cheap.

Simple anyone writing articles for the bbc should be told do research or be sacked if they get it wrong!

 

[bluethrunthru]

Simple anyone writing articles for the bbc should be told do research or be sacked if they get it wrong!

that pre-supposes the person who verifies it all has also done their research !

 

[Phil1]

I don't think it demonstrates bias specifically. Claiming it's bias is like crying wolf.

It certainly demonstrates a lack of attention to detail, but anything beyond that is more opinion than fact.

I’ve been meaning to ask you, do you work in the media by any chance?
You seem awfully quick to dismiss most complaints of bias.
A bias that is painfully obvious when it comes to the BBC.

 

[waspish]

that pre-supposes the person who verifies it all has also done their research !

Do editors check facts for every article they trust them to get it right then when complaints come in they give them a warning to get the articles factual correct or your out the door?! Its not hard really.

 

[GortonBlue62]

I don't think it demonstrates bias specifically. Claiming it's bias is like crying wolf.

It certainly demonstrates a lack of attention to detail, but anything beyond that is more opinion than fact.

The factually incorrect information they put out, wrongly stated that United were the only club to win 4 trophies in a single season, and failed to mention our achievement of last season (about 13 weeks ago).

This creates a positive view of United and by omission a negative view of City.

Whether it is conspiracy or cock up is irrelevant. Then end result is bias.

 

[asahartford1]

I’ve been meaning to ask you, do you work in the media by any chance?
You seem awfully quick to dismiss most complaints of bias.
A bias that is painfully obvious when it comes to the BBC.

Asking if one had taken a bung, moments after winni g a trophy is neither bias or ignorance of facts, it is an attempt to discredit achievement and destroy a character .

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I’ve been meaning to ask you, do you work in the media by any chance?
You seem awfully quick to dismiss most complaints of bias.
A bias that is painfully obvious when it comes to the BBC.

I don't, and never have.

I just see a difference between a biassed article (I view this to mean one where there is deliberate intent to skew, of which there are plenty) and a crap one (can be just bad writing, which can be interpreted in many ways, but does not convey intent); in this case (the four trophies one), I think there is more evidence of crap quality than bias.

I'd agree that it does appear that the BBC Sport department is skewed, although some of the articles are clickbait purely because they have to register clicks; some things are just bad or inaccurate journalism. Some of the dross that e.g. Shamoon Hafeez (who does some of the matchday ticker stuff) does not hide his Utdism.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Asking if one had taken a bung, moments after winni g a trophy is neither bias or ignorance of facts, it is an attempt to discredit achievement and destroy a character .

That is, yes, but was Rob Harris of Associated Press (at least, if it's the one after the cup final, it was).