Facebook crack down on fake news campaign targeting City

[EL APACHE TEVEZ]

Hopefully this is the start of the fightback although I fear it may be too little too late. Lots of damage has already been done and we aren't making any real inroads with the media in this country. If they can't slag us off they just starve us of publicity. Last seasons unprecedented domestic quadruple is a prime example. Football could be dead anyway if this virus isn't conquered, I don't see behind closed doors games keeping it going for long.

Top post Chapo

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Hopefully the thin end of the wedge, some arses will be twitching today.

Be afraid be very afraid.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Don’t think they’re actually accusing any British journalists as such, from what I can tell, but it goes to show the depths that some clubs will stoop to to try and discredit City.

Yes there are some clubs involved in doing us down, which is going to become quite clear when the moment is right.

This is more to do with Qatar though, in its stand-off with the UAE & Saudi (among others). This particular project was fairly amateurish all things considered but there will have been other projects involving mainstream journalists and where better than the English sports media. City know this of course and you only have to look at the likes of Rob Harris (who appears on Qatari outlets regularly but refuses to say if he's paid by them). Then there's their go-to 'yooman rights' guy, McGeehan. No serious outlet or organisation uses him for stuff like that. No one but a handful of football journalists (Conn, Delaney et al) who hang on his every word. And when you examine those words, you see a clear pattern emerging.

 

[franksinatra]

Yeah I've not really thought this was one through, just gone wading in there swinging my handbag.
My bad.

It was a fair question and for all we know the Qatari campaign could be that subtle, but maybe not in rigging voting. None of us know for sure.

 

[WRicko]

What does it mean by fake news in this context ? I mean its a an opinion held by many that our owner is engaged in sports washing opinions are not news so how can they be fake news ? And our owner does have human rights issues and the UAE is involved in Yemen So they are facts ? So how is that fake news ?

 

[Bill]

Should this thread be re-named “Agenda”

Im more surprised it’s been reported which makes me think with my tin foil hat that maybe just maybe there is more to come.

dont use the "A" word. people will call you paranoid .

 

[crazyg]

What does it mean by fake news in this context ? I mean its a an opinion held by many that our owner is engaged in sports washing opinions are not news so how can they be fake news ? And our owner does have human rights issues and the UAE is involved in Yemen So they are facts ? So how is that fake news ?

Put your Daily Mail down and try an independent thought.

 

[paulchapo]

What does it mean by fake news in this context ? I mean its a an opinion held by many that our owner is engaged in sports washing opinions are not news so how can they be fake news ? And our owner does have human rights issues and the UAE is involved in Yemen So they are facts ? So how is that fake news ?

Just because it's an opinion held by many it doesn't mean it's true or correct. As for human rights issues you'd be hard pressed to find a country in the world that hasn't had or got them, including the UK. Again though that opinion differs on which side you are on and what you consider breaching human rights, or whether doing so is ever right in certain circumstances.

 

[danielwood5]

What does it mean by fake news in this context ? I mean its a an opinion held by many that our owner is engaged in sports washing opinions are not news so how can they be fake news ? And our owner does have human rights issues and the UAE is involved in Yemen So they are facts ? So how is that fake news ?

What human rights issues does Sheikh Mansour have? Links to credible sources would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If you want evidence, look at these two articles from McGeehan in The Guardian, just a few months apart. At this point (2010) he wasn't working for Human Rights Watch so why is he even being given space, not once but twice?

Here's the first in May 2010 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/18/sex-and-the-city-2-abu-dhabi
Note that there's no mention of City or sportswashing in this, just a tirade against Abu Dhabi (where he was living at the time). Note also some of the wording:

In contrast to the image it attempts to project globally, the UAE is a country where human rights are systematically violated and where women are routinely discriminated against

This is yet another example of the Janus-faced character of the UAE's rulers. To the outside world they want to portray themselves as progressive (and in Dubai's case their survival depends on that), but internally, their legitimacy to rule still hinges on tribal loyalty and they cannot be seen to abandon what they characterise as Islamic principles.

The country's rulers believe flashy public relations will always prevail over wishy-washy notions of equality, justice and fundamental rights, and that it is possible to go on violating those rights in the most obscene and flagrant manner, as long as the brand remains untarnished.

Now here's another from him, in December 2010, after Qatar had been controversially awarded the World Cup: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/06/qatar-world-cup-human-rights
Good start

Criticism of Qatar's victory is not just correct, it is highly necessary.

You assume he's going to lay into the Qatari's record on human rights as intrinsically there's little significant difference between the two countries. Both are relatively liberal in terms of religious freedom, broadly following Islamic principles, both absolute monarchies with a limited nod to democracy, both wealthy states keen to project a certain image, etc. Yet his tone couldn't be more different.

While concerns over women's rights and attitudes to homosexuality are entirely valid, there has been no meaningful criticism of what is by far the most problematic aspect of Qatar 2022: the systematic exploitation of the country's migrant workforce

"Entirely valid". That's it. Nothing on Qatari human rights, just the treatment of migrant workers.

Qatar is far from backward: Doha-based al-Jazeera's boldness in criticising its neighbours is testament to that

So Al-Jazeera is "bold" for criticising its neighbours but it probably doesn't criticise Qatar, where it's based. That's more of a test of editorial independence I would have said, yet not a mention of that. And Qatar, according to McGeehan is "far from backward".

The contrast could barely be more stark.