Facebook crack down on fake news campaign targeting City

[Chris in London]

'Fake news' is ultimately not true. So the articles that Facebook is removing is stuff that is from an untrusted source - this 'Mirror Herald' isn't a news site. I'd be very surprised if they were removing articles from The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Mail, The Mirror, The Sun... I'd more expect them to be hitting those pages that spoof themselves into looking like genuine news websites, but contain only propaganda or contain only paid-for advertorials.
.

David, you mention Occam’s razor which is not a bad logical tool to adopt, so I ask you this. Is it more probable that the campaign of actual fake news that Facebook has identified is a one-off that has now been quashed, or is the likelihood that whoever is responsible for that campaign against City has also adopted other strategies as part of a wider strategy to denigrate Manchester City, and perhaps thereby denigrate the UAE?

if the latter, is the likelihood that the campaign is limited to fake news, or is it more likely that a range of strategies are adopted, including reporting that whilst not containing outright falsehoods is nonetheless not fair and balanced, a tendency to concentrate on pieces that show a City in a negative light, a tendency to act in ways that tarnish stories that show City in a positive light, and so on?

Again, if the latter, is the likelihood that whoever is responsible for this campaign will confine himself to a relatively unknown media outlet, or is it more likely that he would wish to engage more mainstream outlets?

And finally, if the latter, is it probable that the individual journalists who would be most likely to become inveigled in such a scheme would be the well established journalists, or is it more likely to be those who are younger, less financially secure, and more susceptible to being rewarded for producing output that seeks to further the same objectives as the discredited fake news stories?

 

[KS55]

More on McGeehan. It was December 2017 when he published the article that probably started the "sportswashing" saga on Medium.

He'd just left HRW at that point (and been kicked out of the UAE 4 years previously) which begs the question of what he was doing for a living at that point. Why choose that particular time to release that? He'd not even mentioned us in that 2010 Guardian article where he'd ripped into the UAE.

That point in time was the start of the escalation of the diplomatic spat between some Arab nations, including the UAE, Saudi, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt and others, and Qatar. This was over their support and funding for the Muslim Brotherhood, which the former group believed was essentially a terrorist grouping. This spat started around 2013 but exploded in late-2017/early 2018 when diplomatic relations were broken off and sanctions imposed. And up pops an unemployed McGeehan with that pretty vituperative piece. I suppose it could be a complete coincidence but....

HRW?

 

[Ric]

HRW?

Human Rights Watch.

 

[KS55]

Human Rights Watch.

Cheers. I'm slow at this time of day!

 

[KS55]

That is a very good post mate and I would agree with pretty much all of that.

With regards individual journalists, and an agenda, I do think some journalists do genuinely dislike us and our footballing model and that is reflected in their writing and even if we do good, they see a reason or motive to downplay us or our achievements.

It is not right of course, but for some it seems more digestible to believe the words are from a more sinister, orchestrated campaign than a collection of individuals who see the club so differently to how we view it.

It does not mean that those journalists do not need holding to account, they do, but the argument is more easily brushed a side when we start arguing wide scale agendas, collusion and finding fault with minuscule details in articles as evidence . In addition to probably losing the sympathetic ear of some journalists who have also been pigeon-holed as part of the problem.

If a journo is genuinely sympathetic, he is unlikely to change his mind based on a reading of Bluemoon or a few tweets.

 

[KS55]

Yeah I think they did change, for league winners, partly, are so they said, because of the anomaly of us winning the league but being in pot three etc, not pot one as champions.

I would prefer the traditional way of knock out football, tough luck if you get a tough draw.Keep the national sides apart, fair enough, but otherwise If we get a league of City, Bayern, Real, Juventus so be it.

The other three would be complaining....oh no, not City again, its unfair!

 

[andyhinch]

Cheers. I'm slow at this time of day!

I’m slow at any time of the day

 

[KS55]

He is a member of the government he wont be responsible for specific issues but you can hardly doubt his support for the governments policies or at least not going against it.

Whats your view on who is responsible for our own issues in this country ? Or America or other countries ? Most people tend to blame all politicians and sometime even the entire populations for the actions of there government because they voted them in or did not protest or helped by participating in some way

Another one! Mansour is not a member of the government.

 

[Gary James]

The inconsistency that infuriates me most about the way we are treated by some in the media and rival fans is that they tell us it’s wrong for MCFC to receive investment/income from the UAE but somehow not perceived as an issue elsewhere. Regardless of whether City is owned by a state or not those that attack City fans because we support a team with those connections seem to say that other clubs or Footballing organisations are not an issue. The following is a simplistic view but it’s overlooked by others: Arsenal have been receiving transformational income from the UAE for longer than City has via Emirates (an airline like Etihad from the UAE established & managed in a similar way). Similarly, the FA - and therefore every club that enters the FA Cup - receives significant sponsorship from that company. When people (like Piers Morgan who told City fans to boycott our club because of the UAE investment) are challenged on why it’s okay for AFC or the FA but not MCFC they often go quiet, fail to see the issue or say ‘ah, but we don’t receive as much’, proving it’s nothing to do with a state investing, human rights or any thing else... it’s about one club getting something and others not. I know that’s simplistic but if the people who continually challenged MCFC fans about their support did the same to fans of Arsenal AND every club that willingly enters the FA Cup knowing where the sponsorship comes from then that’s fine. Until then it looks like a football club’s fan base is being targeted. Some will say ‘but that’s only sponsorship... well sponsors are using clubs/competitions to sell products/lifestyle etc. so why is that any different from the idea of sportswashing? Sponsors can make sports and clubs change direction, change policies, buy players etc.

Football clubs have choices. They can reject sponsorship deals and investment; they can pull out of tournaments. If they don’t and they receive income from the same places MCFC does then neither they, nor their fans, nor the media, can criticise City on ethical grounds without criticising the others.

 

[Gordyola]

Another one! Mansour is not a member of the government.

He’s deputy PM of the UAE & Minister for Presidential Affairs