Media Discussion - 2023/24

[Tim of the Oak]

Yes there bigger fan bases but our shirt sales and memberships have seen colossal growth in the last couple of years. We are always going to get plenty of negativity because we win more trophies than the competition. If anything, I think the coverage this season has been much more balanced. Maybe that’s because we aren’t leading the Prem.

Hardly anybody in the media takes on the cult of Liverpool FC. We just have to deal with it.

 

[Brendan110_0]

I was wondering what sort of lack of effort the bbc would put into our achievements of the last calendar year, and yes no mention of winning the Premier League three times in a row either.

Jealous sad twats !

Remember when we weren't a good team until 3 in a row, change that 3 CL's in a row now.

 

[Franny 1234]

At Christmas dinner my elderly Grandma said to my mum, “ this turkey is bloody lovely Anne, did you cook it in the microphone oven?”

My Grandma also watched cartoons in her later years and when the Coyote dropped to his death off a mountain she’d say “bloody hell, I bet that hurt”.

Two pint bottles of Guinness Original and a large Whisky every night and lived until around mid 80’s, born 1900, two World Wars, what a generation!

I visited her while she was home cooking pies. I sarcastically said are those pies edible her reply was. No there cheese and onion. RIP mum xxx

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I found this article in the Mirror quite amusing if not somewhat true!

MSN

They say we’ll be cleared because of our ‘legal team’ (wank expression) exploiting ‘loopholes’ (another wank expression in the circumstances).

It’s astonishing (or rather should be) that none of these articles (or certainly none that I’ve seen) ever contemplate or posit that we may possibly be cleared simply because there is no meaningful evidence, despite the fact there isn’t any whatsoever in public circulation. None. Unless you count the doctored Der Spiegel emails, which speak for themselves.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one.

I actually haven’t seen a single article that has questioned that, which means that the whole of the MSM appears to accept the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

You think one journalist might have even raised it as an ancillary point at the very least.

Incredible really.

 

[cheekybids]

They say we’ll be cleared because of our ‘legal team’ (wank expression) exploiting ‘loopholes’ (another wank expression in the circumstances).

It’s astonishing (or rather should be) that none of these articles (or certainly none that I’ve seen) ever contemplate or posit that we may possibly be cleared simply because there is no meaningful evidence, despite the fact there isn’t any whatsoever in public circulation. None. Unless you count the doctored Der Spiegel emails, which speak for themselves.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one.

I actually haven’t seen a single article that has questioned that, which means that the whole of the MSM appears to accept the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

You think one journalist might have even raised it as an ancillary point at the very least.

Incredible really.

As you say not fucking 1 has gone out there on their own to say I think they could be innocent & absolutely no report of doctored emails.

You’d think maybe 1 arse licking journalist would say it to try & get an exclusive after the case.

 

[Blueknows]

Don't know about your mate but when it comes to mixed metaphors my mum was the queen of them.

Mine was the same , hi mum how's your day been ? Ive been busier than a one-armed clown making balloon animals at a kid’s party , I've got more problems than a maths book at the moment , you're as sharp as cue ball her particular favourites

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

As you say not fucking 1 has gone out there on their own to say I think they could be innocent & absolutely no report of doctored emails.

You’d think maybe 1 arse licking journalist would say it to try & get an exclusive after the case.

Sam Lee would have done if he had any balls and wasn’t a sinfully thick ****.

What’s he got to lose except face with his cohort?

 

[citizen_maine]

They say we’ll be cleared because of our ‘legal team’ (wank expression) exploiting ‘loopholes’ (another wank expression in the circumstances).

It’s astonishing (or rather should be) that none of these articles (or certainly none that I’ve seen) ever contemplate or posit that we may possibly be cleared simply because there is no meaningful evidence, despite the fact there isn’t any whatsoever in public circulation. None. Unless you count the doctored Der Spiegel emails, which speak for themselves.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one.

I actually haven’t seen a single article that has questioned that, which means that the whole of the MSM appears to accept the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

You think one journalist might have even raised it as an ancillary point at the very least.

Incredible really.

You'd think even just from a faux outrage/click bait perspective that someone would have taken a contrary approach

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

You'd think even just from a faux outrage/click bait perspective that someone would have taken a contrary approach

Yeah, it’s baffling, and as @cheekybids said what a thing to call at this point if you back the right horse.

 

[Chris in London]

They say we’ll be cleared because of our ‘legal team’ (wank expression) exploiting ‘loopholes’ (another wank expression in the circumstances).

It’s astonishing (or rather should be) that none of these articles (or certainly none that I’ve seen) ever contemplate or posit that we may possibly be cleared simply because there is no meaningful evidence, despite the fact there isn’t any whatsoever in public circulation. None. Unless you count the doctored Der Spiegel emails, which speak for themselves.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in circulation that remotely points to the charges even constituting a case to answer - and yet I have not seen a single article that raises that as an issue. Not one.

I actually haven’t seen a single article that has questioned that, which means that the whole of the MSM appears to accept the charges as being meritorious without even knowing a single thing about their substance or merit.

You think one journalist might have even raised it as an ancillary point at the very least.

Incredible really.

What that tells me is that there is not a single journalist who is interested in the merits of the charges against us.

Perhaps some journalists do not understand the issues involved in the charges. Perhaps others are not interested in whether we are actually guilty or not. Perhaps both. We all knew that there were some journalists whose output was driven solely by clicks. These are the hacks who would not write a story that was unlikely to drive clicks but had journalistic merit.

I didn’t realise that was all of them. Every single one of them.