Exposing the hypocrisy of journalists

[Fred_Quimby]

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.

Fake news has been going on for years. It is the reason I stopped buying a paper years ago. It's just that more and more people are starting to twig.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

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?

Right. His perspective on City is entirely received. He's done no actual work himself -- he's spinning/amplifying the work done by others.

He likes to point to his positive piece in April of 18 after City locked up the title as proof of his lack of bias whereby he he attempts to "break" readers of the notion that City didn't do it all with money, but with intelligence and determination. That's not new ground -- City fans (and anyone who actually paid attention and knows something about the sport) already knew that.

He wrote it because he knew the clicks on his article from those who hate City would be significant. Same as his recent piece on why non-American fans hate the US Women's team. He's in sales. He doesn't offer new information nor insight. He editorializes. He takes the common perspective or what he sees as such and says it's wrong -- whatever it is -- to get clicks.

The problem with him, the schmuck, is that he thinks and acts like he's a correspondent in the rice paddies of Vietnam breaking the story of the My Lai massacre. "You can't challenge my reporting" he wails. Of course we can't, dumbshit: you haven't done any real reporting; you've simply editorialized on the reporting others already did.

 

[Proy]

Right. His perspective on City is entirely received. He's done no actual work himself -- he's spinning/amplifying the work done by others.

He likes to point to his positive piece in April of 18 after City locked up the title as proof of his lack of bias whereby he he attempts to "break" readers of the notion that City didn't do it all with money, but with intelligence and determination. That's not new ground -- City fans (and anyone who actually paid attention and knows something about the sport) already knew that.

He wrote it because he knew the clicks on his article from those who hate City would be significant. Same as his recent piece on why non-American fans hate the US Women's team. He's in sales. He doesn't offer new information nor insight. He editorializes. He takes the common perspective or what he sees as such and says it's wrong -- whatever it is -- to get clicks.

The problem with him, the schmuck, is that he thinks and acts like he's a correspondent in the rice paddies of Vietnam breaking the story of the My Lai massacre. "You can't challenge my reporting" he wails. Of course we can't, dumbshit: you haven't done any real reporting; you've simply editorialized on the reporting others already did.

Whilst I agree that is much of his issue, I still think he believes that what he writes has some accuracy. Hatred is a like a virus, and he hates Manchester City and anything connected to it.

I think today it’s gone past journalists being salesman when it comes to city, I think there is a deep lying and genuine displeasure towards the football club.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Right. His perspective on City is entirely received. He's done no actual work himself -- he's spinning/amplifying the work done by others.

He likes to point to his positive piece in April of 18 after City locked up the title as proof of his lack of bias whereby he he attempts to "break" readers of the notion that City didn't do it all with money, but with intelligence and determination. That's not new ground -- City fans (and anyone who actually paid attention and knows something about the sport) already knew that.

He wrote it because he knew the clicks on his article from those who hate City would be significant. Same as his recent piece on why non-American fans hate the US Women's team. He's in sales. He doesn't offer new information nor insight. He editorializes. He takes the common perspective or what he sees as such and says it's wrong -- whatever it is -- to get clicks.

The problem with him, the schmuck, is that he thinks and acts like he's a correspondent in the rice paddies of Vietnam breaking the story of the My Lai massacre. "You can't challenge my reporting" he wails. Of course we can't, dumbshit: you haven't done any real reporting; you've simply editorialized on the reporting others already did.

Delaney is just another cut-and-paste merchant. The media is full of them these days. He is incapable of unbased reporting. What he does is spout his political opinions on social media based on what he has read elsewhere. He is not a journalist in any serious sense.
The whole sportwashing concept is a fake narrative. Sheik Mansour has made a profit from his investments in city which has enabled hm to move away from dependency on oil revenues which is his long-term strategy and that of his family. Abu Dhabi is one of the most liberal places in the Middle East. It is hardly criticised at all by Amnesty International who have strongly condemned the USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Libya, Syria, and Egypt in recent years.

 

[cookster]

Whilst I agree that is much of his issue, I still think he believes that what he writes has some accuracy. Hatred is a like a virus, and he hates Manchester City and anything connected to it.

I think today it’s gone past journalists being salesman when it comes to city, I think there is a deep lying and genuine displeasure towards the football club.

He's a United fan, that is the root cause.

 

[Bilboblue]

Delaney is just another cut-and-paste merchant. The media is full of them these days. He is incapable of unbased reporting. What he does is spout his political opinions on social media based on what he has read elsewhere. He is not a journalist in any serious sense.
The whole sportwashing concept is a fake narrative. Sheik Mansour has made a profit from his investments in city which has enabled hm to move away from dependency on oil revenues which is his long-term strategy and that of his family. Abu Dhabi is one of the most liberal places in the Middle East. It is hardly criticised at all by Amnesty International who have strongly condemned the USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Libya, Syria, and Egypt in recent years.

It's a complete misconception.

Sportwashing is described as trying to cover up human rights violations by presenting a positive front, but the very fact Sheikh Mansour owns the best side in England, that has won titles and cups regularly, means if anything, people will look deeper into Abu Dhabi's background.

But, we are not owned by Abu Dhabi, and this is where the journalists are all getting it wrong, but cannot admit it, because then, they will look very stupid indeed.

 

[Bilboblue]

He's a United fan, that is the root cause.

Is there any proof of that?

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Is there any proof of that?

Well be appears to be a hypocrite, stupid and a twat, so there's a very good chance.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Whilst I agree that is much of his issue, I still think he believes that what he writes has some accuracy. Hatred is a like a virus, and he hates Manchester City and anything connected to it.

I think today it’s gone past journalists being salesman when it comes to city, I think there is a deep lying and genuine displeasure towards the football club.

The way I think about it, it’s far more of an insult to him to be called a bad, lazy journalist than a biased journalist who has a dislike for a particular club. That’s my objection to what he writes — he’s not very good, but he still gets paid despite being crap. I don’t know that he hates City — I might conclude that, sure. But I can definitely conclude that he adds very little value to my understanding of the sport.

The analogy may not work, but Dan Jenkins was incredibly biased against Tiger Woods. But he was a hell of a writer — full of insight, experienced, very funny and told me lots new. So I don’t care about his bias because he’s entitled to it. He shouldn’t be entitled to money if he’s shit though.

 

[cookster]

Is there any proof of that?

Proof as him admitting on Twitter no, but I was told via DM by another journalist who knows him. @tolmie's hairdoo can probably confirm.