Media Thread - 2021/22

[Prestwich_Blue]

He could have handled things totally differently. He could have asked, in a non-confrontational fashion, for opinions from City fans who fell in that middle ground he tried - very badly - to specify. You could even argue that, as a professional writer, his inability to phrase his original tweet properly either shows him to be a poor communicator or a deliberate wum.

But having done what he did, he got an entirely predictable reaction, particularly when he was starting from the point of view that some of us are (in his words) 'militant cranks'. So, if that's what you think to start with, what exactly did he expect? There has to be a strong suspicion that this is what he wanted, so he could prove his point.

Once that all kicked off, he had no need to react. He could have got his DM's and written his piece, which might possibly have been a fair and interesting one (although he's not the most insightful writer and I got fed up of his inane waffling through his answers to questions on the 93:20 pod).

After all, not all City fans do think the same way and there will inevitably be many different shades of political opinion among a large fanbase like ours. We certainly see that when we highlight the LGBT Pride events the club puts on.

But I've seen him do this before, where he gets a rush of blood and tweets snide and sarcastic responses, usually the standard journalistic one of the "how dare you have a different opinion to me" variety. He should have been looking to build bridges with our fanbase after his utterly execrable performance over CAS but he deliberately set out to alienate many of us further. If his job does depend on building subscriber numbers among the fanbase he's supposed to be covering, as alleged in Private Eye, he should be starting to panic.

 

[Shaffer92]

I got fed up of his inane waffling through his answers to questions on the 93:20 pod).

You don't like his trademark,"one source has told me City is going to sign player x, but my other source said they aren't" saying? And I thought it was just me!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You don't like his trademark,"one source has told me City is going to sign player x, but my other source said they aren't" saying? And I thought it was just me!

Which is a rambling way of saying "Actually I have no reliable information on that whatsoever". Which at least is honest.

 

[ArdwickAlbert]

You don't like his trademark,"one source has told me City is going to sign player x, but my other source said they aren't" saying? And I thought it was just me!

Or the other one he uses when it’s a done deal, “ I got told about this a few weeks ago but couldn’t get it verified so held off reporting it Wish I’d run with it now”. Of. Course. You. Did.

 

[HelloCity]

He could have handled things totally differently. He could have asked, in a non-confrontational fashion, for opinions from City fans who fell in that middle ground he tried - very badly - to specify. You could even argue that, as a professional writer, his inability to phrase his original tweet properly either shows him to be a poor communicator or a deliberate wum.

But having done what he did, he got an entirely predictable reaction, particularly when he was starting from the point of view that some of us are (in his words) 'militant cranks'. So, if that's what you think to start with, what exactly did he expect? There has to be a strong suspicion that this is what he wanted, so he could prove his point.

Once that all kicked off, he had no need to react. He could have got his DM's and written his piece, which might possibly have been a fair and interesting one (although he's not the most insightful writer and I got fed up of his inane waffling through his answers to questions on the 93:20 pod).

After all, not all City fans do think the same way and there will inevitably be many different shades of political opinion among a large fanbase like ours. We certainly see that when we highlight the LGBT Pride events the club puts on.

But I've seen him do this before, where he gets a rush of blood and tweets snide and sarcastic responses, usually the standard journalistic one of the "how dare you have a different opinion to me" variety. He should have been looking to build bridges with our fanbase after his utterly execrable performance over CAS but he deliberately set out to alienate many of us further. If his job does depend on building subscriber numbers among the fanbase he's supposed to be covering, as alleged in Private Eye, he should be starting to panic.

He would tell everyone who would listen, often privately, that Pep was 100% leaving City before he signed his last contract. At the same time all his City articles would often have at least one mention about how Pep would be leaving.

When Pep later extended his contract he never wrote a single article on it and never once mentioned it on Twitter.

 

[Yelloways Army]

Ex-City star Elabdellaoui's sensational comeback despite being BLIND in one eye

OMAR ELABDELLAOUI has made a miracle return to club football after becoming clinically blind in one eye. The 30-year-old ex-Man City defender was injured when a firework exploded in his hand at a N…

www.thesun.co.uk

Ex Man City Star??????

NO APPEARANCES FOR US!!!!

 

[mcfcphil]

He could have handled things totally differently. He could have asked, in a non-confrontational fashion, for opinions from City fans who fell in that middle ground he tried - very badly - to specify. You could even argue that, as a professional writer, his inability to phrase his original tweet properly either shows him to be a poor communicator or a deliberate wum.

But having done what he did, he got an entirely predictable reaction, particularly when he was starting from the point of view that some of us are (in his words) 'militant cranks'. So, if that's what you think to start with, what exactly did he expect? There has to be a strong suspicion that this is what he wanted, so he could prove his point.

Once that all kicked off, he had no need to react. He could have got his DM's and written his piece, which might possibly have been a fair and interesting one (although he's not the most insightful writer and I got fed up of his inane waffling through his answers to questions on the 93:20 pod).

After all, not all City fans do think the same way and there will inevitably be many different shades of political opinion among a large fanbase like ours. We certainly see that when we highlight the LGBT Pride events the club puts on.

But I've seen him do this before, where he gets a rush of blood and tweets snide and sarcastic responses, usually the standard journalistic one of the "how dare you have a different opinion to me" variety. He should have been looking to build bridges with our fanbase after his utterly execrable performance over CAS but he deliberately set out to alienate many of us further. If his job does depend on building subscriber numbers among the fanbase he's supposed to be covering, as alleged in Private Eye, he should be starting to panic.

I saw his original tweet, and genuinely I think people are going way overboard.

I have huge issues with the “media” treatment of City, but come on, the way he phrased his orginal tweet was obviously an exaggeration of both ends of the spectrum to illustrate a point.

I don’t think it does our fan base any favours to react in this way, especially when Sam Lee doesn’t even make the top 10 in terms of journalists with a vendetta against City

 

[Prophet of Doom]

The Athletic have Mitten, Anka, Whitwell and Crafton all covering United. We have the Brummie Rag reporting on City part time as he can’t be arsed to even to travel to some away games ( but more than happy to post snide tweets getting blues backs up ).

Would love to know what business plan at The Athletic instructed him to antagonise the fans of the club he writes about ?

But then we all know when The Athletic write about City we are not it’s intended audience.

 

[WestGorton]

The Athletic have Mitten, Anka, Whitwell and Crafton all covering United. We have the Brummie Rag reporting on City part time as he can’t be arsed to even to travel to some away games ( but more than happy to post snide tweets getting blues backs up ).

Would love to know what business plan at The Athletic instructed him to antagonise the fans of the club he writes about ?

But then we all know when The Athletic write about City we are not it’s intended audience.

Mitten and Walsh. Liars on a Prime Minister scale. I know.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

While Lee is no legal expert, he had access to lawyers. Two things struck me about his coverage and that of his colleagues. One was the point you made about the seriousness of submitting false accounts, the other concerns the emails.
1. A first year student of Evidence would have spotted that the emails were evidence of conversations not of later actions. Yet every journo treated them as evidence of alleged substantial action. Did not one journo get proper advice or did they all ignore it for the sake of a narrative? Even Martin Samuel fell into this trap.
2. None of the journos had actually seen the emails. What they saw was Speigel's version of them. Did none of them question the veracity of what Speigel was printing? Turns out that Speigel manipulated the emails for effect: e.g. ramming two together and presenting them as one; putting emails exchanged months or even years apart next to each other and pretending they were contemporary action and reaction.
Note: neither UEFA, nor any of the hateful eight have ever seen those emails!
I am not being wise after the event, I posted these points at the time; if an idiot like me could spot this from afar why could not the journos?

He didn't even spot that some of the emails pre-dated the introduction of FFP! The so-called evidence was laughable and CAS treated it with the contempt it deserved. The coverage of the whole saga was simply dishonest.