Media discussion - 2024/25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can anybody explain to me how Sky as an organisation feel the need to issue an apology for Sherwood's remarks not being those of the organisation, yet every single HYS section of every single "news" article about us and these charges is predominated by ill informed, (borderline?) libellous remarks which clearly do not meet their codes of conduct regarding "truth or suspicion of being misleading or false"?

Do these news outlets not need to issue the same disclaimers or are they saying that these comments ARE the views of that publication?

If it's the second, will they be in the shit if we're cleared/found innocent/not guilty?
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
Can anybody explain to me how Sky as an organisation feel the need to issue an apology for Sherwood's remarks not being those of the organisation, yet every single HYS section of every single "news" article about us and these charges is predominated by ill informed, (borderline?) libellous remarks which clearly do not meet their codes of conduct regarding "truth or suspicion of being misleading or false"?

Do these news outlets not need to issue the same disclaimers or are they saying that these comments ARE the views of that publication?

If it's the second, will they be in the shit if we're cleared/found innocent/not guilty?
Click to expand...
Probably because Sherwood said it off his own back in a really obvious manner which could have resulted in possible legal action by the club.

Whereas the usual "borderline libelous" comments and stories are likely reviewed by editorial staff prior to being issued to make sure, whilst keeping their sneaky agenda, they remain on the legally acceptable side of borderline.
 
Eric Hitchmough said:
Of course BBC headline focuses on the amount we’ve spent.

I’ve not read the 856 comments but I’m sure they’re all fair and balanced, and don’t allude to the charges at any point.
Click to expand...
I replied to one of the many 115,cheque book pep cheaty city with "jealous much " promptly removed .
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
Probably because Sherwood said it off his own back in a really obvious manner which could have resulted in possible legal action by the club.

Whereas the usual "borderline libelous" comments and stories are likely reviewed by editorial staff prior to being issued to make sure, whilst keeping their sneaky agenda, they remain on the legally acceptable side of borderline.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

We're talking about the comments made by the general public, yes?
I just find it weird that media outlets allow these to be published in their name, yet other media outlets don't allow "celebrities" to say the same things.

Is legal action against one a possibility and another not?

Clearly I know nothing about the loopholes of the legal profession :)
 
gray740 said:
I replied to one of the many 115,cheque book pep cheaty city with "jealous much " promptly removed .
Click to expand...
I replied to one saying "Surely this is libellous? Hope you enjoy your day in court ;)"
(it was an article about the Tim Sherwood retraction/apology)

It was also removed, promptly

The explanation was that I was impersonating somebody that I was not, namely our clubs lawyers!
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
Thanks.

We're talking about the comments made by the general public, yes?
I just find it weird that media outlets allow these to be published in their name, yet other media outlets don't allow "celebrities" to say the same things.

Is legal action against one a possibility and another not?

Clearly I know nothing about the loopholes of the legal profession :)
Click to expand...
Neither do I mate, but I'm assuming that if a guest on the show makes a comment that the backroom staff think could lead to trouble they'll correct it. Whereas much of the headlines, articles and scripted stuff in the studio will already have been reviewed upfront.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Some **** on Sky News just saying Manchester City spending the most money in the transfer window ‘as usual’. Then another ****, Harris, crowbars the charges in with tedious predictability, without referencing City’s denial, again with tedious predictability.
Click to expand...

If you outlay over a £100 million in player spending then give Haaland a nearly decade long contract it gives and idea what’s happening with these bullshit charges. The numpties who think this is still happening believe it’s some sort of transfer ban due to happen. Only FIFA can impose something like that, not the Premier League.
 
I just saw a clip of the Peterboro chairman with Stefan & Jim White saying we’ve used our expensive lawyers to delay & try & stifle everyone & will likely pay off the premier league…..

So we’ve gone from him describing us as a great club with great people to corrupt gangsters……
 
cheekybids said:
I just saw a clip of the Peterboro chairman with Stefan & Jim White saying we’ve used our expensive lawyers to delay & try & stifle everyone & will likely pay off the premier league…..

So we’ve gone from him describing us as a great club with great people to corrupt gangsters……
Click to expand...
We must have taken our loan players back.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
The figure the media and oppo fans, either conveniently or genuinely forget to look at is net spend.

Gross spend are always the headline grabbing figures, whereas net spend (i.e. taking into account things like the sale of Alvarez) are forgotten. IMHO, net spend proves the well ran clubs from the likes of the rags.

We all know why this happens, almost everyone who isn't a city fan lives the same lie of 'spend spend spend, 115, 115,115'
Click to expand...
115%.Innocent ....

Get the banner up 1894 !!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top