Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge

[Jazzman]

Are you lot serious? Someone mischievously titled a photo with the most innofensive epithet I can think of, the BBC inadvertently publish it leading to 130 pages of internet rage.
Then to crown it all and to defend the clubs bruised honour after this egregious slur, a city fan publishes an article on a popular football website which speculates that the fan in question might be suffering from some form of mental illness. It even throws a popular one in there without any knowledge at all about the fans medical history and without any consent from him.
Which is worse, being called Bertie or having your mental health speculated about on a football website?
Embarrassing and ill considered.

Outrage generated in the echo chamber of an internet forum isn't the real world.

You obviously have not understood it then.

 

[Phil1]

How is my post count relevant?

Are you a City fan? If you're not (which isn't a problem in itself) then you won't understand the angst that we feel towards the BBC and their overall biased reporting on all things City whilst at the same time enjoying daily reacharounds with those shithouses acrosss the road.
If you are, and you've decided that this subject is serious enough for you to make just your 20th post in 7 years then you're rightly getting called out on it.

 

[Marvin]

Are you lot serious? Someone mischievously titled a photo with the most innofensive epithet I can think of, the BBC inadvertently publish it leading to 130 pages of internet rage.
Then to crown it all and to defend the clubs bruised honour after this egregious slur, a city fan publishes an article on a popular football website which speculates that the fan in question might be suffering from some form of mental illness. It even throws a popular one in there without any knowledge at all about the fans medical history and without any consent from him.
Which is worse, being called Bertie or having your mental health speculated about on a football website?
Embarrassing and ill considered.

Outrage generated in the echo chamber of an internet forum isn't the real world.

It's about how MCFC and their supporters are presented in the media. I thought that they had inadvertently published someone else's barb, but it appears it was deliberate. It's just become a touchstone for the wider issue of how MCFC are treated as a whipping boy to create interest for Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal fans etc

It does bother me a little about what the fan himself thinks when he sees this topic. I hope he realises that we are trying to defend him

 

[guy debord]

Are you a City fan? If you're not (which isn't a problem in itself) then you won't understand the angst that we feel towards the BBC and their overall biased reporting on all things City whilst at the same time enjoying daily reacharounds with those shithouses acrosss the road.
If you are, and you've decided that this subject is serious enough for you to make just your 20th post in 7 years then you're rightly getting called out on it.

I've been a season ticket holder for 26 years.
We should call out genuine damaging bias and unfairness in reporting. But I think this was a stupid sub editing mistake not some corporate conspiracy and the article published is worse for Pete the badge than the picture title.
I could come on here agreeing with you all like a top blue but that's how we got where we are with this story.
It makes us look like hysterics, we should have taken the piss out of the BBC's incompetence and moved on.

 

[guy debord]

It's about how MCFC and their supporters are presented in the media. I thought that they had inadvertently published someone else's barb, but it appears it was deliberate. It's just become a touchstone for the wider issue of how MCFC are treated as a whipping boy to create interest for Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal fans etc

It does bother me a little about what the fan himself thinks when he sees this topic. I hope he realises that we are trying to defend him

The fact that we're hoping that Pete understands that were trying to defend him from the BBC in light of his mental illness that we don't know he has is not a great position to find ourselves in.

As for the bias, I think that our fan base is struggling a bit with the rapid growth of the club. We've gone from everyon'es favourite underdogs to looking like we could run the game in England for a decade. With that comes media shit stirring. For all clubs. Because people read it.

 

[Blue Mist]

The bbc just constructed a page questioning Herreras red card during the Chelsea match. Strangely it's just been deleted as quickly as it appeared. Unbelievable bias towards united in that organisation.

And that shows, like the OP, how out of control they are. It seems anyone can post anything, with out editorial control. It really is an amateur organisation that does not deserve public funding.

 

[dario2739]

I've been a season ticket holder for 26 years.
We should call out genuine damaging bias and unfairness in reporting. But I think this was a stupid sub editing mistake not some corporate conspiracy and the article published is worse for Pete the badge than the picture title.
I could come on here agreeing with you all like a top blue but that's how we got where we are with this story.
It makes us look like hysterics, we should have taken the piss out of the BBC's incompetence and moved on.

Absolute bollocks mate!
Nobody is saying it's corporate conspiracy either – you have woefully misunderstood this entire thread!
The caption was entirely intentional, it will have been added (as previously mentioned) by a plastic Rag working there, in full knowledge of what he was doing, and will have no doubt had a good chuckle with his equally plastic Raggy chums! Now, as pretty much everyone on here agrees – the term "Bertie" isn't one any of us are particularly bothered about if a Rag uses it – but this is a national, publicly funded organisation, that is supposed to be impartial – this should have been passed by an editor/studio manager before being made live on the BBC website... as has been mentioned too, you wouldn't see a photo of a United fan with the word "Rag" in the caption.
All that's needed in this case is for them to say "Yep, we fucked up - sorry for any offence caused" and for them to publish an apology online too.

 

[bluemoonmatt]

I've been a season ticket holder for 26 years.
We should call out genuine damaging bias and unfairness in reporting. But I think this was a stupid sub editing mistake not some corporate conspiracy and the article published is worse for Pete the badge than the picture title.
I could come on here agreeing with you all like a top blue but that's how we got where we are with this story.
It makes us look like hysterics, we should have taken the piss out of the BBC's incompetence and moved on.

The point is that if this was Sky, BT, Paddy Power etc then this would not be an issue, they are privately funded organisations whom are entitled to pick and chose their own editorial slant. However it is the BBC, a publically funded body whom by their own charter are not only meant to report without prejudice but be accountable (look how they've repeatedly argued this point in reletion to articles involving Islamic State for example). In this respect it is evident that they have failed. Now that is fine, where it becomes not fine is by following this up with lies and deflection, this is where they are supposed to prove the accountability part. I don't care as much as some about being called a Bertie, I quite revel in it now that we happen not to have anything to be bitter about, in fact I like it, I even quite like being called oil ****, it is banter. However banter should be fan to fan, with willing and knowing participants and certainly not perpetrated by an organisation who purport to have saint like standards, and absolutely certainly not whilst singling out an elderly and quite beautifully eccentric supporter without his knowledge or agreement. That is the sole reason this thread has rung to 130+ pages of rage. I do concede though, I really hope Pete is ok with all this.

 

[Lucky Toma]

Are you lot serious? Someone mischievously titled a photo with the most innofensive epithet I can think of, the BBC inadvertently publish it leading to 130 pages of internet rage.
Then to crown it all and to defend the clubs bruised honour after this egregious slur, a city fan publishes an article on a popular football website which speculates that the fan in question might be suffering from some form of mental illness. It even throws a popular one in there without any knowledge at all about the fans medical history and without any consent from him.
Which is worse, being called Bertie or having your mental health speculated about on a football website?
Embarrassing and ill considered.

Outrage generated in the echo chamber of an internet forum isn't the real world.

I included in the piece a caveat that I had debated long and hard about whether to touch on the possibility of any mental condition so I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint Guy Debord. However I would like to say my side of it.

Earlier in this thread a poster insisted that Pete once informed his child that he suffers from a form of Asperger's. Elsewhere several other posters mention a learning difficulty.

These claims are by no means factual which is why I said they were 'unverified reports'. The reason I included such 'speculation' (and I am certainly not in the habit of speculating to anyone's mental condition, least of all a Blue) is because in this particular instance its possibility IS pertinent to the BBC's mockery of the man. It potentially is part of the story.

That assertion is based entirely on fact and, more so, the most factual source a writer can possibly have - my own personal experiences.

I have run social media pages for a number of different companies ranging from Puma to clothing sites who request that I 'bantz' with fans to boost interaction.

None of these pages would have permitted me to run with this post and it has precisely nothing to do with the use of 'Bertie'.

Apologies if this is indelicate - and this is absolutely no judgement of Pete in any way, shape or form - but with only a photograph to go on of a man dressed entirely in blue, with a plethora of badges, and carrying City paraphernalia the suggestion would be that the man is eccentric or possibly more than eccentric. And all six companies I have worked for would definitely err on the side of caution here and forbid any post that could be construed as mockery.

This is the BBC who did this. The BBC!

 

[City Raider]

I exchange the odd tweet with a sports editor at the bbc and ex sports web editor so thought I'd share Toma's excellent article with him. His reply:

I'm well aware. It was poor from us. Unacceptable. Won't happen again. But it wasn't done in spite.

A couple of things. Only the person who did it knows if it was spiteful so not taking his reply as gospel but what is clear is that this has created a bit of a shit storm for them..

And in response to those who are embarrassed by our escalation, it is also clear the BBC know they are in the wrong. Why should anyone be embarrassed apart from them?

 

[casualdeyna]

I wish these people who feel the need to tell others to "grow a pair" and ignore it etc, would politely keep their opinions to themselves, what are you trying to achieve but cause arguments?

I have ignored all the nonsense I've seen and heard for ten years now. I've stopped buying the sun, the mirror, the mail etc. stopped paying for BT Sport etc. stopped following companies on twitter etc. Almost shunned all sports news now because of getting sick of hearing us slagged off. Where does it effing end?

I don't want everything I see or read to say "Isn't everything Manchester City fantastic" I just expect the same coverage every other effing team gets!!

I would pay for BT sport if we got fair coverage, I would buy newspapers for quick reads and catch up on the sports if we got fair coverage. We don't. So I don't buy them.

But when that includes your local newspaper and national broadcaster, it does seem to be getting a little bit silly. Lets all bury our heads in the sand and say "It comes with the territory" even though the media darlings don't get the same treatment.

Well done Lucky Toma, top article and well done PB and others for rightly raising this so highly. This is the tip of the iceberg. I'm sick and tired of having our seats counted, our club mocked at every turn, by anyone and everyone that isn't the official City website. Surely it isn't too much to ask for auntie beeb to be impartial, not slag off individual fans FFS.

 

[Orpheus]

A bit of sense LT and City Raider, good stuff.

 

[squirtyflower]

20 posts in 7 years and you come up with this gem... Sniff.....

My thoughts exactly
If this is evidence of the quality of his three posts a year I wouldn't bother with the remaining year if I was him

 

[mancityvstoke]

How is my post count relevant?

I'd agree that it is..............it's entirely relevant in this instance

 

[guy debord]

I'd agree that it is..............it's entirely relevant in this instance

So let me get this straight, unless you are a regular poster you're not welcome to post unless you agree with the majority view?
If that's the case what the fuck is the point of having a forum?

 

[GortonBlue62]

I'd agree that it is..............it's entirely relevant in this instance

His post count is irrelevant.

The only relevant thing is the substance of his post.

And the substance of his post is spot on. Much more eloquently stated than my 'grow a pair...' several pages earlier.

 

[manchester blue]

The fact that we're hoping that Pete understands that were trying to defend him from the BBC in light of his mental illness that we don't know he has is not a great position to find ourselves in.

As for the bias, I think that our fan base is struggling a bit with the rapid growth of the club. We've gone from everyon'es favourite underdogs to looking like we could run the game in England for a decade. With that comes media shit stirring. For all clubs. Because people read it.

It's neither mate. Have a read of the posts and you'll get the gist of why people have called out the BBC on this. Nobody, yet nobody has taken offence. The fact is that the BBC should be above this kind of thing. The fact they're not and the fact they have told lie after lie in their correspondence is just not acceptable. People just want a true acknowledgement of how it happened, we all know; it's just the BBC think we're all as stupid as their Assistant Complaints Manager.

And as someone who's always argued that post counts should not be displayed on the forum I agree that your post count is irrelevant and you are entitled to your opinion. Even though it's wrong!!

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I wish these people who feel the need to tell others to "grow a pair" and ignore it etc, would politely keep their opinions to themselves, what are you trying to achieve but cause arguments?

I have ignored all the nonsense I've seen and heard for ten years now. I've stopped buying the sun, the mirror, the mail etc. stopped paying for BT Sport etc. stopped following companies on twitter etc. Almost shunned all sports news now because of getting sick of hearing us slagged off. Where does it effing end?

I don't want everything I see or read to say "Isn't everything Manchester City fantastic" I just expect the same coverage every other effing team gets!!

I would pay for BT sport if we got fair coverage, I would buy newspapers for quick reads and catch up on the sports if we got fair coverage. We don't. So I don't buy them.

But when that includes your local newspaper and national broadcaster, it does seem to be getting a little bit silly. Lets all bury our heads in the sand and say "It comes with the territory" even though the media darlings don't get the same treatment.

Well done Lucky Toma, top article and well done PB and others for rightly raising this so highly. This is the tip of the iceberg. I'm sick and tired of having our seats counted, our club mocked at every turn, by anyone and everyone that isn't the official City website. Surely it isn't too much to ask for auntie beeb to be impartial, not slag off individual fans FFS.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[bluealf]

I wish these people who feel the need to tell others to "grow a pair" and ignore it etc, would politely keep their opinions to themselves, what are you trying to achieve but cause arguments?

I have ignored all the nonsense I've seen and heard for ten years now. I've stopped buying the sun, the mirror, the mail etc. stopped paying for BT Sport etc. stopped following companies on twitter etc. Almost shunned all sports news now because of getting sick of hearing us slagged off. Where does it effing end?

I don't want everything I see or read to say "Isn't everything Manchester City fantastic" I just expect the same coverage every other effing team gets!!

I would pay for BT sport if we got fair coverage, I would buy newspapers for quick reads and catch up on the sports if we got fair coverage. We don't. So I don't buy them.

But when that includes your local newspaper and national broadcaster, it does seem to be getting a little bit silly. Lets all bury our heads in the sand and say "It comes with the territory" even though the media darlings don't get the same treatment.

Well done Lucky Toma, top article and well done PB and others for rightly raising this so highly. This is the tip of the iceberg. I'm sick and tired of having our seats counted, our club mocked at every turn, by anyone and everyone that isn't the official City website. Surely it isn't too much to ask for auntie beeb to be impartial, not slag off individual fans FFS.

Well said, is it wrong to want to pick up a paper and read something reasonable about your club, instead all we get is bile poured our way, I stopped buying newspapers years ago when our club changed its name to Oil Rich City and just to make it even worse it is even entrenched into football manager games, it is fucking sickening and on that matter the press release function in that game when we play the rags always makes it out as if City beating them is a rare event, twats every single one of them.

 

[mancityvstoke]

His post count is irrelevant.

The only relevant thing is the substance of his post.

And the substance of his post is spot on. Much more eloquently stated than my 'grow a pair...' several pages earlier.

you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

It isn't spot on in mine.