Media discussion - 2025/26

giphy.gif

Gotta love bluemoon.
 
I'm with @Damocles in a lot of this.

I do think some of the things that people complain about in this thread are ridiculously petty tiny items that really don't mean anything. The frustration with this is that there really are some articles that are poor/biased/wrong that really do need calling out, but if we end up calling out 95% of articles for one reason or another then we look like lunatics and the genuine points get ignored.

Plenty of City fans (myself included at times) have divided journalists into good or bad. When the truth is a lot less black and white.

It's a lot more like a scale, with the majority of journalists somewhere in the middle. Those in the middle might occasionally use a phrase we don't like, but that might be ignorance or an error, it doesn't instantly make them evil.

As for Sam chatting to the WhatsApp wankers, we have no idea what was said, how often it's all happened etc. I tend to try and take people as I find them, and he's done some good pieces, some less impressive. That doesn't necessarily make him some massive shithouse, it just makes him human.
 
Damocles said:
Sorry, I'm pretty sick of being nice about this.

I think you people are tapped. And worst than this, I think you're liars. Every time I tell you to show me what he said that was so egregious, there's some half baked tweet or an article where he printed both sides of an argument. You dont even remember what he said but have just decided to hate him because you're caught up in a reality tv show. Go on, why dont you personally show me where the big bad reporter hurt you?

Tis for example

"Sam Lee reported that we were guilty as charged by UEFA and listed a whole host of punishments we were about to get, and was quite delighted in that."

This is you lying. Show me this.

You want a cheerleader in the press because you're small and insecure men who are so fucking frightened that your rag mates will take the piss out of you that you need constant reassurance over how brilliant and not guilty and wonderful and everything else positive that City are. Your scousers in disguise, constantly jumping on anyone who might even be perceived to have veered from the "correct line".
Click to expand...

Interesting that for a bloke who likes to think he is superior to many people on here, is constantly resorting to abuse and name calling.

If you want to look for his 5yo article, then knock yourself out, I'm not spending hours trawling for it, amongst the sea of shite that is Man City/115/CAS/Guilty we all know what we read at the time, people other than me have said they read his article from the Athletic, I read it on X and that is even worse to trawl back through but again knock yourself out if you want to look to prove me wrong.

Don't presume to put words into my mouth, you have no idea what I want or don't want from reporters, and as for all that frightened rag garbage, get over yourself, Sigmund, that was just utterly pathetic and frankly laughable.
 
Last edited:
bluealf said:
Interesting that for a bloke who likes to think he is superior to many people on here, is constantly resorting to abuse and name calling.

If you want to look for his 5yo article, then knock yourself out, I'm not spending ours trawling for it, amongst the sea of shite that is Man City/115/CAS/Guilty we all know what we read at the time, people other than me have said they read his article from the Athletic, I read it on X and that is even worse to trawl back through but again knock yourself out if you want to look to prove me wrong.

Don't presume to put words into my mouth, you have no idea what I want or don't want from reporters, and as for all that frightened rag garbage, get over yourself, Sigmund, that was just utterly pathetic and frankly laughable.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with being a rag?
 
My views on Sam Lee.

I've met him a good few times, quite often at the CFA when I was part of City Matters and at a pre-season charity game where we had a long and interesting chat. In that setting he's a thoroughly nice guy. But I also saw a less pleasant side of him when someone had a go at him once on a train, then it continued onto Twitter.

He got quite abusive, which was wrong in my opinion. As a public figure he should walk away from encounters like that. Maybe foolishly, as someone who'd had a number of pleasant interactions with him, I intervened and suggested he walk away from his keyboard. That got me some abuse so I changed my opinion of him.

From a journalistic point of view, when I listened to the 93:20 pod, a typical Sam Lee interview was often full of "Well yes, or no, but maybe" without a great deal of insight. Personally it could be a bit irritating and I'd be in the car shouting "Say something for goodness sake".

As far as his work in The Athletic is concerned, I don't expect an uncritical cheerleader and I'm fine with him expressing critical opinions and writing about both sides of the debate. But my beef has been the same as others, in that I'd have expected more forensic insight into the charges, putting the case for innocence alongside the case for guilt. It's not like there aren't people who have done that, either on here or elsewhere. Did he do anything after the CAS verdict?

Of course we don't yet know the exact detail of the PL charges, and I don't subscribe to the Athletic (and it's a long time since I read anything in there) so he might have done something that tried to put the alternative view. Even if he couldn't work it out for himself, there's people like Matt Lawton (I think his name is) who's usually sound on the financial side. No one is asking him to proclaim our innocence from the rooftops but just to be objective. Some of us on here have done a fair bit of digging based on what's been published, so it's not unreasonable to expect the City writer to do that, even if he needs some help.

Was he right to talk to the likes of Delaney & Mackenna? Well the optics were hardly going to endear him to the members of this forum. If he came out of that conversation thinking "these guys are obsessed loons" then that gets a thumbs up from me. But I doubt he has the knowledge to argue the case with them or challenge their views.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
My views on Sam Lee.

I've met him a good few times, quite often at the CFA when I was part of City Matters and at a pre-season charity game where we had a long and interesting chat. In that setting he's a thoroughly nice guy. But I also saw a less pleasant side of him when someone had a go at him once on a train, then it continued onto Twitter.

He got quite abusive, which was wrong in my opinion. As a public figure he should walk away from encounters like that. Maybe foolishly, as someone who'd had a number of pleasant interactions with him, I intervened and suggested he walk away from his keyboard. That got me some abuse so I changed my opinion of him.

From a journalistic point of view, when I listened to the 93:20 pod, a typical Sam Lee interview was often full of "Well yes, or no, but maybe" without a great deal of insight. Personally it could be a bit irritating and I'd be in the car shouting "Say something for goodness sake".

As far as his work in The Athletic is concerned, I don't expect an uncritical cheerleader and I'm fine with him expressing critical opinions and writing about both sides of the debate. But my beef has been the same as others, in that I'd have expected more forensic insight into the charges, putting the case for innocence alongside the case for guilt. It's not like there aren't people who have done that, either on here or elsewhere. Did he do anything after the CAS verdict?

Of course we don't yet know the exact detail of the PL charges, and I don't subscribe to the Athletic (and it's a long time since I read anything in there) so he might have done something that tried to put the alternative view. Even if he couldn't work it out for himself, there's people like Matt Lawton (I think his name is) who's usually sound on the financial side. No one is asking him to proclaim our innocence from the rooftops but just to be objective. Some of us on here have done a fair bit of digging based on what's been published, so it's not unreasonable to expect the City writer to do that, even if he needs some help.

Was he right to talk to the likes of Delaney & Mackenna? Well the optics were hardly going to endear him to the members of this forum. If he came out of that conversation thinking "these guys are obsessed loons" then that gets a thumbs up from me. But I doubt he has the knowledge to argue the case with them or challenge their views.
Click to expand...
He got Abusive when someone had a go at him on the train. Simple answer don't have a good at someone on a train, especially when you don't know them, if you do then you have to deal with the outcome. That's hardly a stain on Sam's character.
 
Superace said:
He got Abusive when someone had a go at him on the train. Simple answer don't have a good at someone on a train, especially when you don't know them, if you do then you have to deal with the outcome. That's hardly a stain on Sam's character.
Click to expand...
I agree that it's not right to be abusive to someone face-to-face but it was on social media, where he could easily have walked away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top