Media coverage 2018/19

[Fordyboy46]

anyone who wants to read that shit realise this.. They put that shit out to cause a stir and bring in the clicks. I wish this forum would ban these links, it feeds the shit machine that we all hate

The Irish Times lol, come on who are they pandering to, which two fanbases ffs?

 

[DrBlueBob]

Its not the media's fault City fans are so upset about the media, it's the clubs. According to this no mark anyway...

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/...e-fa-cup-money-owners-abu-dhabi-donald-trump/

Ironic sub head alert:-

In the face of controversy, City supporters have become staunch defenders of something they know little about

Apparently, if you bother to read the article pre 2011 we had "A staggering advantage over everyone else, so why did we feel the need to stretch it"

@sam Cunningham it's rather a silly article.

If City had constructed this behemoth within the rules, then fair play. Rather one sided view.

I am rather enjoying this.

 

[argyle]

The Irish media and links to it should be banned from these forums imo as they are irrelevant and written purely to satisfy its utd/Liverpool readership.

Called for it yesterday.

Their articles are being posted on here and are getting more clicks and attention than they otherwise would get.

Also goes for anything that Delaney says on twitter. Block 'em and ignore.

 

[DrBlueBob]

Presumably a legitimate question for such ‘journalists’ would be to ask if they themselves have received payments, kindnesses from third parties to ask such questions and pursue certain agendas at particular times. Quite sure they’d be equally indignant about being asked, but the lines between whose employ football journalists are in are increasingly blurred, which makes the question moot.

Also, have they ever paid a source for information?

 

[Henkeman]

I see Ewan MacKenna has finally published his article. I've not read it and have no intention of doing so, but having talked forever about how the Independent would carry it, I see he's put it up on a blog site.

Guess the lawyers weren't happy.

 

[jrb]

I see Ewan MacKenna has finally published his article. I've not read it and have no intention of doing so, but having talked forever about how the Independent would carry it, I see he's put it up on a blog site.

Guess the lawyers weren't happy.

Timed it to perfection, on parade day.

The plastic Scouse c***!

 

[Henkeman]

Also, have they ever paid a source for information?

More pertinently given what they're asking, have they declared every payment given and hospitality received to HMRC?

 

[DrBlueBob]

I don't mind in principle the question being asked. But if questioning is legitimate, then questioning the motives of journalists is also legitimate, and that question was specifically to attempt to cast aspersions. Fine, then the same can be done to them - that's what they object to when it happens. Journalists often seem to believe they are a higher authority, and they are not. They are every bit as worthy of scrutiny as anyone else. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I'm fine thanks. How are you?

More pertinently given what they're asking, have they declared every payment given and hospitality received to HMRC?

Are you really asking that question? Today? Do you think he deserves to be asked that question?

 

[domalino]

I see Ewan MacKenna has finally published his article. I've not read it and have no intention of doing so, but having talked forever about how the Independent would carry it, I see he's put it up on a blog site.

Guess the lawyers weren't happy.

He hasn't linked it on his twitter account?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The ones who justify Harris' question on the grounds that questions are important would object thoroughly if they were subject to the same thing. Asking questions is fine, but they do have to be justified. Otherwise, we're all free to ask anything we like of them on the same grounds, and - more importantly - they're compelled to answer them.

That they don't like.

The que

Yes. But he's had six months to ask in press conferences - why hasn't he done so?

As for the last bit - Harris, obviously.

Harris is a narcissistic attention-seeker. His question was designed to draw attention to himself, like most of his social media output. If he had any evidence of wrongdoing by Pep then the last place he would reveal it would be in a publc press conference where all his rivals could also get the story. A proper investigative journalist keeps his story under wraps until he is ready to publish. What Harris did was no more than a personal smear. Accusing Pep of corruption (even in the form of a posed question) is defamatory. If City decide to sue him he will have to prove his allegations are true (the burden of proof lies with him in a civil action) This mistake could be the end of his career.