Exposing the hypocrisy of journalists

[MillionMilesAway]

As a positive thing about McKenna, last week he slated the Brazil team for letting the unpleasant Bolsonaro to use them for his own benefits, so he's not shy about who he goes after.

Delaney seems to be on the coattails of his former colleague, rather than at the forefront - McKenna caused the resentment by saying that City is run by war criminals (so says Amnesty), ramped it up to mass murdering war criminals, and it then moved to the fans being supporters/sudden experts in Yemen.

I guarantee that using that kind of terminology will always get a response from a fanbase, football or not. Us fans and the hacks have then fed off each other.

The thing is, most of what is written is an interpretation of information. Many/most of the facts cited by various hacks are true, albeit sometimes stretched a bit so they're more 'based on truth'. Most importantly, there is no way that they would be allowed to publish overly tenuous claims - the media lawyers would stop it, and McKenna has admitted that he was unable to publish what he wanted, and was forced to issue a toned down version.

The counterpoint is that most of what is written is not the only interpretation of information. This is what allows there to be two sides, as the arguments should be based on the conclusions drawn, rather than the facts themselves. When arguments are made against the facts, then the person making the argument looks thick. Most counterarguments are based on exact wording used and semantics.
*
Has anyone asked the assorted hacks why they are linking City to Yemen (and asking them, without giving them the answer the asker may want to hear)?
Has anyone asked the assorted hacks whether they think linking fans of a club to Yemen was reasonable, was likely to produce a temperate response, or whether there was a goal in doing so?
Has anyone asked Delaney why it matters so much that an account has a name/picture - anyone could knock one up and pretend - I don't understand why it's a big thing for him.
Has anyone asked any of them why they have claimed that city_rabin works for the club? I think it was challenged early on, but it seemed that the reply was "because." If that's the best answer, then that's something a hack should be embarrassed about; did they really expect that other fans wouldn't involve themselves in seeing that type of thing?
Have any of the hacks been asked why they think fans might possibly be able to influence AD policy?

 

[laserblue]

Reading through that twitter thread, he repeatedly says he will go after whoever if there is a direct link but then asks people not to focus on the Standard Chartered and New Balance links to the same crisis.... You know because that would require posting something sensational leading with "Liverpool FC". What an utter fraud.

Standard Chartered have been fined $1.5 billion for serial money laundering offences, most of them on behalf of Iran. Iran funds the Houthi rebels in Yemen with money and weapons. The Houthi rebels have blockaded the Red Sea ports which has prevented badly needed food aid from getting into Yemen. 50,000 people have died in the resulting famine. Liverpool have taken and continue to take countless millions in sponsorship from Standard Chartered who have been their principal shirt sponsor since 2010 with an extension until at least 2023, sponsorship money that at least in part has its origin in money from Iran made by S&C as a result of their money laundering criminality.

Yet it's all the fault of City and our wonderful owner.

P.S. On a side note Liverpool's secondary (sleeve) sponsor is Western Union who have been fined $586 million for money laundering for criminals.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

Have you put this on his twitter account ? That's where it should be so others can see his hippocracey.

Great post

Thanks.

Will have to join Twitter first :)

Started taking more notice of social media recently due to the nonsense that’s out there regarding City and thinking about joining Twitter etc.

The unbelievable thing is that there nonsense up until recently has gone largely unchallenged, when challenged they are shown for the sheer hypocrisy and lies they write as facts.

So will join and add my bit of debate (calling it a debate is giving them too much respect) to the discussion, and hopefully highlight their lies to an ever increasing social media audience.

 

[Marvin]

As a positive thing about McKenna, last week he slated the Brazil team for letting the unpleasant Bolsonaro to use them for his own benefits, so he's not shy about who he goes after.

Delaney seems to be on the coattails of his former colleague, rather than at the forefront - McKenna caused the resentment by saying that City is run by war criminals (so says Amnesty), ramped it up to mass murdering war criminals, and it then moved to the fans being supporters/sudden experts in Yemen.

I guarantee that using that kind of terminology will always get a response from a fanbase, football or not. Us fans and the hacks have then fed off each other.

The thing is, most of what is written is an interpretation of information. Many/most of the facts cited by various hacks are true, albeit sometimes stretched a bit so they're more 'based on truth'. Most importantly, there is no way that they would be allowed to publish overly tenuous claims - the media lawyers would stop it, and McKenna has admitted that he was unable to publish what he wanted, and was forced to issue a toned down version.

The counterpoint is that most of what is written is not the only interpretation of information. This is what allows there to be two sides, as the arguments should be based on the conclusions drawn, rather than the facts themselves. When arguments are made against the facts, then the person making the argument looks thick. Most counterarguments are based on exact wording used and semantics.
*
Has anyone asked the assorted hacks why they are linking City to Yemen (and asking them, without giving them the answer the asker may want to hear)?
Has anyone asked the assorted hacks whether they think linking fans of a club to Yemen was reasonable, was likely to produce a temperate response, or whether there was a goal in doing so?
Has anyone asked Delaney why it matters so much that an account has a name/picture - anyone could knock one up and pretend - I don't understand why it's a big thing for him.
Has anyone asked any of them why they have claimed that city_rabin works for the club? I think it was challenged early on, but it seemed that the reply was "because." If that's the best answer, then that's something a hack should be embarrassed about; did they really expect that other fans wouldn't involve themselves in seeing that type of thing?
Have any of the hacks been asked why they think fans might possibly be able to influence AD policy?

You can say what needs to be said in one line:

The main regional power here is Saudi. They are linked to Man Utd, but he has chosen to go for City. What does that tell you?

 

[blueju]

As a positive thing about McKenna, last week he slated the Brazil team for letting the unpleasant Bolsonaro to use them for his own benefits, so he's not shy about who he goes after.

Delaney seems to be on the coattails of his former colleague, rather than at the forefront - McKenna caused the resentment by saying that City is run by war criminals (so says Amnesty), ramped it up to mass murdering war criminals, and it then moved to the fans being supporters/sudden experts in Yemen.

I guarantee that using that kind of terminology will always get a response from a fanbase, football or not. Us fans and the hacks have then fed off each other.

The thing is, most of what is written is an interpretation of information. Many/most of the facts cited by various hacks are true, albeit sometimes stretched a bit so they're more 'based on truth'. Most importantly, there is no way that they would be allowed to publish overly tenuous claims - the media lawyers would stop it, and McKenna has admitted that he was unable to publish what he wanted, and was forced to issue a toned down version.

The counterpoint is that most of what is written is not the only interpretation of information. This is what allows there to be two sides, as the arguments should be based on the conclusions drawn, rather than the facts themselves. When arguments are made against the facts, then the person making the argument looks thick. Most counterarguments are based on exact wording used and semantics.
*
Has anyone asked the assorted hacks why they are linking City to Yemen (and asking them, without giving them the answer the asker may want to hear)?
Has anyone asked the assorted hacks whether they think linking fans of a club to Yemen was reasonable, was likely to produce a temperate response, or whether there was a goal in doing so?
Has anyone asked Delaney why it matters so much that an account has a name/picture - anyone could knock one up and pretend - I don't understand why it's a big thing for him.
Has anyone asked any of them why they have claimed that city_rabin works for the club? I think it was challenged early on, but it seemed that the reply was "because." If that's the best answer, then that's something a hack should be embarrassed about; did they really expect that other fans wouldn't involve themselves in seeing that type of thing?
Have any of the hacks been asked why they think fans might possibly be able to influence AD policy?

To simplify what you just wrote, if we weren’t upsetting the status quo for the last ten or eleven years they wouldn’t give a rats arse about Yemen, human rights or chasing down city fans on social media

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Every time one of these self-proclaimed hacks tweet shit about City our fans should be all over the tweet countering the argument and highlighting utd and LFC sponsors links to criminal activity, that might shut them up.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

You can say what needs to be said in one line:

The main regional power here is Saudi. They are linked to Man Utd, but he has chosen to go for City. What does that tell you?

And it would be the wrong way to go about it.

Telling him what the answer you want to hear gives him something to cite as a biassed viewpoint. It should be about why he thinks something, and what he has to back it up, and then questioning whether that's reliable or reasonable.

I don't think Saudi links to Utd are important in going after City. They're incidental to Utd/Liverpool vs City.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

To simplify what you just wrote, if we weren’t upsetting the status quo for the last ten or eleven years they wouldn’t give a rats arse about Yemen, human rights or chasing down city fans on social media

I think that's true about Delaney and Harris, less so for McKenna and McGeehan.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Every time one of these self-proclaimed hacks tweet shit about City our fans should be all over the tweet countering the argument and highlighting utd and LFC sponsors links to criminal activity, that might shut them up.

All over, but carefully.
Let them introduce a reason to compare with Utd/Liverpool, and to explain their opinion as to why it's different. Give them enough rope...

 

[City_rabin]

I think that's true about Delaney and Harris, less so for McKenna and McGeehan.

McGeehan is the central to the whole thing. All these guys quote McGeehan or at the very least use the same language. He is their go to guy for UAE bashing. He has been shaping himself up to be a key media reference point for the UAE, which in itself isn't bad but his understanding of things is incredibly biased and not very smart..sadly though he has been awfully quiet ;)