David Conn won't have written that headline, so your personal criticism of him is way off in this instance. He's also an excellent and incredibly thorough journalist who puts the majority of his industry peers to shame.SingBlue said:David
We know you read this forum, so here goes.
I know you are only a sports rather than a real journalist but you are supposed to be the "brainy one".(However low that bar maybe in the Guardian Sports Department)
When even the headline for your story contains two fundamental errors you need to look at yourself.
The headline reads
<<Human Rights Watch describes country ruled by City owner as 'a black hole' for basic human rights>>
1. Abu Dhabi isn't a country, just like Florida isn't a country. The country is the United Arab Emirates, of which AD is but one Emirate.
2. The City Owner does not rule either Abu Dhabi or the UAE.
Given the idiocy of the headline how informed can the rest of the article be?
On top of that, althpugh I will grant you perhaps this is more subjective Abu Dhabi is not a "black hole for human rights". I know this to be true because I live there and experience it every day.
I have also traveled to many countries that are becoming black holes for human rights. Russia, for instance, you know, the country that you probably think is "ruled" by Roman Abramovic.
Shame on you for such a shabby parroting of 3rd party publicity seeking.
What was the pitch? "Cut and paste this David, you'll look ever so clever."?
ctid
It's just not a rational argument that you buy a Premier League club to launder your human rights record.<br /><br />-- Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:25 am --<br /><br />Impeccable One said:Lets keep this simple. If you ruled a country that made you immensely wealthy and you knowingly committed human rights violations, do you a) Buy a sports franchise and build it in to something that draws global attention to your situation or b) Keep quiet, enjoy the lifestyle and generally try to keep your head down ?
Did David Conn not write the bit about Mubarak going to discuss military cooperation alongside Sheikh Mohammed with our defence secretary either?Dubai Blue said:David Conn won't have written that headline, so your personal criticism of him is way off in this instance. He's also an excellent and incredibly thorough journalist who puts the majority of his industry peers to shame.
Pretty much this.Skashion said:I see one motivation behind Manchester City being mentioned both by HRW and by Conn, and it is to use our name to attract attention. Sheikh Mansour isn't using us to distract attention from human rights. The attention isn't there anyway. Rather, it is HRW and Conn who are using our name to attract attention to the issue. Whether out of fine motive or not, I don't know, but that is what they are doing.
Because it's simply not his job to do so. He'd have had no idea where on the page his article would be placed, how many columns it would cover, or whether it would have to wrap around any adverts or pictures. They have sub-editors to do all that and they'd have made the call long after he'd left the office. Shit headlines dreamt up by subs are the bugbear of print journalists and I'd imagine David Conn isn't especially impressed with this particular effort, but that's just the way it goes.<br /><br />-- Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:45 am --<br /><br />Jumanji said:How can you be so sure he didn't write the headline?
Yes, he did, and by all means criticise him for it if that's your opinion.Skashion said:Did David Conn not write the bit about Mubarak going to discuss military cooperation alongside Sheikh Mohammed with our defence secretary either?
malg said:Pretty much this.Skashion said:I see one motivation behind Manchester City being mentioned both by HRW and by Conn, and it is to use our name to attract attention. Sheikh Mansour isn't using us to distract attention from human rights. The attention isn't there anyway. Rather, it is HRW and Conn who are using our name to attract attention to the issue. Whether out of fine motive or not, I don't know, but that is what they are doing.
Having once worked as a sub I can assure you all headline suggestions are welcomed, especially so from the writer, who is often expected to offer a range of possible screamers, although the final choice is sometimes not welcomed by same.Dubai Blue said:Because it's simply not his job to do so. He'd have had no idea where on the page his article would be placed, how many columns it would cover, or whether it would have to wrap around any adverts or pictures. They have sub-editors to do all that and they'd have made the call long after he'd left the office. Shit headlines dreamt up by subs are the bugbear of print journalists and I'd imagine David Conn isn't especially impressed with this particular effort, but that's just the way it goes.Jumanji said:How can you be so sure he didn't write the headline?
At last this is about city not human rights, conn did not even have to mention the clubs name,moomba said:I'm struggling to work out why we are involved in this. If Conn wants to write about human rights abuses then so be it. But making it about us just stinks of sensationalism to me.