CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

Bellamy's Caddy said:
I've just had a response from BBC RE a complaint I put in over their coverage of the CAS report. For anyone interested I've included it below:

I don't find their answers satisfactory. They've deliberately picked out parts to reflect badly on City and conveniently ignored that one of football's governing body absurd their power to take action against one of its members. That said I'm glad I ranted at them, it made me feel better if nothing else.

Thank you for getting in touch about our reporting on Manchester City’s Uefa FFP case.

As a result of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) 93-page legal document being released to the media with no embargo to allow preparation, the news story was a naturally developing one over the first couple of hours as the full details were fully digested. The piece underwent a number of changes in that period. Importantly none of the alterations were as a result of factual errors – it was the process of our journalists developing the initial take into the full story.

By 9.00pm the story was finalised with headline and copy referencing the fact that the report had found there was 'no conclusive evidence” Manchester City “disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship'.

The criticism of Manchester City by CAS was an important part of the story. Manchester City were said to have committed a “severe breach” by showing a “blatant disregard” to UEFA, European football’s governing body. The panel said that Manchester City were to be “seriously reproached” for obstructing UEFA’s investigation. The 10m Euros fine, albeit reduced from 30m, remains one of the biggest in football history.

When the CAS verdict was released the previous week we had already reported prominently that Manchester City had overturned their ban and had been cleared of “disguising equity funds as sponsorship contributions.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53387306

Therefore in our initial version of the story on the release of the full report we focused on the criticism of Manchester City from CAS that we judged key new information. We included high up in the story that “the panel cannot reach the conclusion that disguised funding was paid to City” and in subsequent versions built up that part of the story with more information.

Reporting on a complex and evolving story like this required our journalists to digest a high volume of detail to produce an accurate and impartial account of the case.

Thank you again for your feedback, which has been shared with the relevant teams.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team
Click to expand...


yup same response, a real journalist would be looking into why City refused to co-operate with the investigation, rather than just looking at the headline
 
flook said:
yup same response, a real journalist would be looking into why City refused to co-operate with the investigation, rather than just looking at the headline
Click to expand...

You will have a job finding a " real journalist " though, Martin Samual apart the remainder are all rag/dipper/ Qatar loving whores.
 
Plays By Sense Of Smell said:
#metoo. It at least gives me a laugh knowing this when they spout their guff.
#catchmeifyoucan
Click to expand...

I always remember years ago,when sky & Maxwell started they asked the bbc,there opinion,well new TV companies wont have the rich history & integrity the bbC have.
Anyway they asked why people still have to pay to watch when anew independent companies start,well one thing advertising revenue is not sustainable,
They lied then & it's in their D&A as now
 
The one I have a problem with is Nick Harris of Sporting 'Intelligence'. He uses Twitter as a platform to espouse defamatory lies about City and as soon as someone questions him that he may actually be wrong he blocks them! Democracy, free speech and all that? Only when it suits him!

I can understand why City are reluctant to challenge the likes of the Daily Mail et al, but City need to identify and pursue litigation against 'keyboard warriors' who clearly have an agenda like Harris. He is a law unto himself who think they can get away with it as a 'one man band' but actually need knocking down a peg or two.
 
ste.sully said:
The one I have a problem with is Nick Harris of Sporting 'Intelligence'. He uses Twitter as a platform to espouse defamatory lies about City and as soon as someone questions him that he may actually be wrong he blocks them! Democracy, free speech and all that? Only when it suits him!

I can understand why City are reluctant to challenge the likes of the Daily Mail et al, but City need to identify and pursue litigation against 'keyboard warriors' who clearly have an agenda like Harris. He is a law unto himself who think they can get away with it as a 'one man band' but actually need knocking down a peg or two.
Click to expand...
This guy really doesn't bother me. In fact I only think about him probably once a day for that millisecond between the turde releasing from my anus and it hitting the water.
 
kippax4ever said:
What is it with the BBC,
They post shit on their website(a wankstain piece)
And no c.nts name,who wrote it,
Then you make a complaint & you get a reply & no c.nt signs that either.
I only got o- levels, but these c.nts aren't even to that level,
And people called the daily Sport,ffs.
Click to expand...
The trouble with complaints to the BBC is that they themselves decide whether or not a complaint about them is justified. In nearly every case of a customer complaint, they just deny doing wrong, put forward some lame excuse and dismiss the complaint. They don't take complaints seriously.

How many of us have received the exact same response to a complaint about this week's reporting? A large number of complaints about the same issue should set alarm bells ringing, but it doesn't for the BBC. They show disdain and contempt towards their customers.

The only time they will take a complaint seriously is if it comes from someone with a respected public profile.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.