Exposing the hypocrisy of journalists

[rugbyblue]

I have a different perspective on all of this, as frankly I'm finding the semantics battle on both sides a bit exhausting.


And no journalist wants to admit that. You're getting the very heart of his essence. Of course he's going to be defensive. He's cornered. Like the rat he is.

Delaney has published a number of untrue claims about City, in particular that Etihad and Emirates are the same, and that we're owned by Abu Dhabi.

He's been confronted with this dozens of times. This is not semantics (I mean, I did that over his use of the word like, when he should have used such as, but that's because he'd claimed he was immune to all criticism and i wanted to point out that he wasn't) but key, foundational points on his articles criticising both the club and our owners.

He has repeatedly used rhetorical fallacies, or outright evasion to avoid addressing his faults. He rejects that he's ever said 'abu dhabi takeover' then when being shown the example, moves the goalposts to 'american takeover' in an analogy to liverpool or united, a phrase he's never used before.

It's about showing bias, it's because he is biased.

And he's a shitty journalist, who starts with a conclusion and works backwards, something i'm writing a linguistic critique of at the moment.

Hint, if something's never been done before, for him to describe it as a trend is intellectually dishonest, unless he can show why it is, rather than just using emotive negative language for that.

IN short, he's a hack, he just happens to be the chief football writer of a national newspaper, who has hated our club and expressed that hatred for over a year now.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Delaney has published a number of untrue claims about City, in particular that Etihad and Emirates are the same, and that we're owned by Abu Dhabi.

He's been confronted with this dozens of times. This is not semantics (I mean, I did that over his use of the word like, when he should have used such as, but that's because he'd claimed he was immune to all criticism and i wanted to point out that he wasn't) but key, foundational points on his articles criticising both the club and our owners.

He has repeatedly used rhetorical fallacies, or outright evasion to avoid addressing his faults. He rejects that he's ever said 'abu dhabi takeover' then when being shown the example, moves the goalposts to 'american takeover' in an analogy to liverpool or united, a phrase he's never used before.

It's about showing bias, it's because he is biased.

And he's a shitty journalist, who starts with a conclusion and works backwards, something i'm writing a linguistic critique of at the moment.

Hint, if something's never been done before, for him to describe it as a trend is intellectually dishonest, unless he can show why it is, rather than just using emotive negative language for that.

IN short, he's a hack, he just happens to be the chief football writer of a national newspaper, who has hated our club and expressed that hatred for over a year now.

Yes. I think his bias isn't necessarily because he hates the club -- he might -- but because stories critical of City are more likely to get him paid.

And since he breaks no new ground, it's all he has to get himself paid.

Which means he's not even a shitty journalist, but not a journalist at all.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

Delaney, like MacKenna, is a fucking weapon.

 

[rugbyblue]

Delaney, like MacKenna, is a fucking weapon.

He;s had the evidence of his lies linked to him dozens of times, from multiple people and refuses to address them. The independent changed the article, clearly without speaking to him, and perpetuated that dishonesty.

Why Manchester City’s unprecedented treble is a product of trend rather than an outstanding achievement

A singular event, that has never happened before, is not a trend.

It only emphasises the problem that this was the first season in the history of the game where all five major leagues – England, Spain, Germany, Italy, France – saw their titles retained. When something becomes so frequent it becomes less worthy of celebration. It becomes the norm.

A singular event, that has never happened before, is not the norm. He even acknowledges that it's never happened before, but he just ignores that to try and perpetuate his narrative.

Depressingly, we’re just seeing more and more of this: a small group of the wealthiest clubs winning an increasing proportion of matches by ever increasing scorelines.

It's 116 years since another 6-0 win in the FA cup, it's 4 years since Arsenal beat Aston Villa 4-0, but the previous 4-0 win was in 94 with United beating Chelsea. His claim is entirely unsupported by the facts.

As a counter point:

Arsenal and Chelsea won the FA cup 3 times each in the last 10 years. No criticism of that.

United won 3 league titles back to back from 07-09, no criticism of that. And have 5 back to back wins since 93, if anything the last 10 years has been the least concentrated (albeit with city winning more than anyone else)

It is a situation where a feat like a treble is not an outstanding achievement, but just part of a trend.

No Men's team has ever won the domestic treble, so to try and say it's part of a trend is intellectually dishonest, it's just promoting his agenda, and outright lying.

 

[markprendy]

I have a (possibly faulty) memory of that getting pinned when the other stuff blew up.

My point was that he's not a sports hack primarily, and City are collateral rather than focus for him - useful to bring views in, but not an end goal.

It's weird because so many twitter trolls (I almost said journalists) including Mackenna (and maybe Mcgeehan) argue City fans should boycott the club because of the actions of the UAE who, as we all know, don't legally own City. Yet Mcgeehan regularly retweets articles from Human Rights Watch blaming the UAE for causing extreme poverty (especially to foreign workers) because of their boycott of Qatar. So if boycotting countries routinely causes such negative effects, how can he possibly advocate that City fans and all others who have some kind of real or imagined relationship with the UAE boycott them?

That cretin @EwanMacKenna is another that jumped on the bandwagon and has a pinned tweet on a story of Citys supposed link to human rights abuses, just like @McGeehan

 

[Rolee]

He;s had the evidence of his lies linked to him dozens of times, from multiple people and refuses to address them. The independent changed the article, clearly without speaking to him, and perpetuated that dishonesty.




A singular event, that has never happened before, is not a trend.



A singular event, that has never happened before, is not the norm. He even acknowledges that it's never happened before, but he just ignores that to try and perpetuate his narrative.




It's 116 years since another 6-0 win in the FA cup, it's 4 years since Arsenal beat Aston Villa 4-0, but the previous 4-0 win was in 94 with United beating Chelsea. His claim is entirely unsupported by the facts.

As a counter point:

Arsenal and Chelsea won the FA cup 3 times each in the last 10 years. No criticism of that.

United won 3 league titles back to back from 07-09, no criticism of that. And have 5 back to back wins since 93, if anything the last 10 years has been the least concentrated (albeit with city winning more than anyone else)




No Men's team has ever won the domestic treble, so to try and say it's part of a trend is intellectually dishonest, it's just promoting his agenda, and outright lying.

Have you challenged him with the criticisms in this post?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I have a different perspective on all of this, as frankly I'm finding the semantics battle on both sides a bit exhausting.

I'm still trying to figure out what new information Delaney has uncovered on his own. What story has he broken about City?

It's one thing to repeat/report what others have, and another to editorialize on what others have uncovered, which he seems to do regularly. But he's no investigative journalist. This isn't Bob Woodward here. Delaney's a salesman, there to generate clicks and eyeballs and thus earn a salary as advertisers pay his platform for the clicks and eyeballs he generates with his repetition of the work of others and his particular spin.

It's even more important in a world where the democratization of platforms allows for the untrained and the un-expert to spew facts, lies and opinions on a non-stop basis daily in vast volumes. Newspapers and periodicals are dying -- revenue is more important than ever because the field in infinitely more competitive with a gazillion entities offering "perspective" (good or bad) for free.

This is at the heart of the disagreement here: the world doesn't need Miguel Delaney. Very little if anything would be lost to the world's understanding of football were he to up and quit and become a goat-herder in the Himalayas. He doesn't add value.

Much as we might find Der Spiegel's articles inflammatory or specious, they were new ground broken. Delaney doesn't appear to offer that.

And this is why it is easy -- and probably correct -- for City fans to conclude he only has a bias or motive for what he publishes. His professional existence is fundamentally BASED on it, because he adds no value on the "new information" front.

And no journalist wants to admit that. You're getting the very heart of his essence. Of course he's going to be defensive. He's cornered. Like the rat he is.

I agree with the idea that he doesn't add anything himself.

As far as I can tell:
Someone, maybe Amnesty, reported that two close associates of Crown Prince MBZ were specifically placed at City. This proves that it's a state vehicle.
Spiegel's leaks show some things, but the lack of context (and anonymity) is not a problem (it's possible he means that there's other stuff leaked which he's read and hasn't been published, but I haven't seen him state he's read it, only to challenge whether others have read it).
City not challenging it is a clear clue that they're true, because anything serious would be challenged. (We'll ignore the comment from the club about context and no further comment would be made).

I agree, he's mates with McKenna (who does have history in challenging abuse), and dragged himself into it by trying to chew on rabin in the original blow-up. Before that, I don't recall much opinion on him.

He's certainly not the heavyweight that Jonathan Wilson of the Guardian is (whether people agree with what he writes, it's well written and with a logical throughline).

The Emirates/Etihad thing either is a genuine cock-up, or overly keenness to create an image. The 'report' piece the day after the cup final was just about the most bitter thing I've read.

 

[Bentheblue]

That cretin @EwanMacKenna is another that jumped on the bandwagon and has a pinned tweet on a story of Citys supposed link to human rights abuses, just like @McGeehan

Is it a coincidence that most of the anti City journo's
are Irish? It’s like they have their own anti City gang.

 

[Postman Pep]

I agree with the idea that he doesn't add anything himself.

As far as I can tell:
Someone, maybe Amnesty, reported that two close associates of Crown Prince MBZ were specifically placed at City. This proves that it's a state vehicle.
Spiegel's leaks show some things, but the lack of context (and anonymity) is not a problem (it's possible he means that there's other stuff leaked which he's read and hasn't been published, but I haven't seen him state he's read it, only to challenge whether others have read it).
City not challenging it is a clear clue that they're true, because anything serious would be challenged. (We'll ignore the comment from the club about context and no further comment would be made).

I agree, he's mates with McKenna (who does have history in challenging abuse), and dragged himself into it by trying to chew on rabin in the original blow-up. Before that, I don't recall much opinion on him.

He's certainly not the heavyweight that Jonathan Wilson of the Guardian is (whether people agree with what he writes, it's well written and with a logical throughline).

The Emirates/Etihad thing either is a genuine cock-up, or overly keenness to create an image. The 'report' piece the day after the cup final was just about the most bitter thing I've read.

You're right to distinguish between the two in the sense that Delaney is a poor excuse for a journalist while McKenna at least is consistent in his condemnation of despotic regimes even where he currently resides. What they are both doing is using the club's name to generate clicks and smear us all by association........whoever said there is no such thing as good publicity?

 

[Bodicoteblue]

These space-fillers are sadly symptomatic of the boris Johnson/Donald trump world we now live in.
They can legitimise and justify lies simply by having the knowledge that this is what their readers/listeners/customers/voters want to hear.
The use of ‘fake news’ , or ‘lying’ as we used to know it has become as useful a tool as the truth is.