Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
I listened to his podcast for the first time and I didn't realise the he was a match going red as little as ten years ago. The way he was reminiscing about fergie years made me want to twat him. You can be as professional as you want but that runs to deep to act impartial as a journo imo!
 
Haven’t seen to much of the sports media today - watching Ukraine but I can only assume the Human Rights zealots are writing extensively on Dirty Russian Oil Money, Abromovich, Chelsea and Human Rights abuses in Eastern Europe….
 
nmc said:
Haven’t seen to much of the sports media today - watching Ukraine but I can only assume the Human Rights zealots are writing extensively on Dirty Russian Oil Money, Abromovich, Chelsea and Human Rights abuses in Eastern Europe….
Click to expand...
And clubs who have Aeroflot amongst their sponsors perhaps, alongside Saudi Telecom.
 
mcfcphil said:
the way he phrased his orginal tweet was obviously an exaggeration of both ends of the spectrum to illustrate a point.
Click to expand...
No.

It was a loaded question.

A loaded question is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person/persons being questioned is likely to disagree with......




"A common view of City fans online is that they’re militant and abusive. I’ve found a lot who aren’t and may do an article on what they have to say. That would probably paint City fans in a good light. That's a bad thing now is it?"

This is so obvious it's puerile.

Where do you even begin? The answer is you don't.

Lee is just a bad faith actor and he's not alone in his debased profession. I don't know whether he's as stupid as he appears, he may be faking it on the assumption that City fans are as dumb as dog biscuits.

Either way he can f**k off.
 
Last edited:
Norbiton said:
Can Sam Lee enlighten us as to which clubs have fans online who are not militant and abusive? City seem to be singled out for behaviour which, from what I read, is pretty much universal.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he could tell us when our militant fans got a long established journalist fired for writing an honest story about a disaster that left 97 dead.
There is defending the club you love militant and obsessive, paranoid delusional, dangerous militant.
I know which one I am.
 
The perfect fumble said:
No.

It was a loaded question.

A loaded question is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person/persons being questioned is likely to disagree with......




"A common view of City fans online is that they’re militant and abusive. I’ve found a lot who aren’t and may do an article on what they have to say. That would probably paint City fans in a good light. That's a bad thing now is it?"

This is so obvious as to be puerile.

Where do you even begin? The answer is you don't.

Lee is just a bad faith actor and he's not alone in his debased profession. I don't know whether he's as stupid as he appears, he may be faking it on the assumption that City fans are as dumb as dog biscuits.

Either way he can f**k off.
Click to expand...

He has small band of City mates who he meets up with whenever he goes away. He will know their take on anything City related. Why the need to take this inane line of questioning to Twitter? I think we all know the answer to that.
 
mcfcphil said:
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
Click to expand...
I read the tweet by this 'wordsmith' on here.Then
coming from him I re-read it several more times without really allunderstanding what he was trying to say.
So that's just you and he who understand with everybody else getting it wrong?
He stated he has about a hundred 'genuine' reies from genuine City fans (were you one?) In about 9 hours. I do not believe that for one minute. 100 fans hanging on his every post to send him their non militant replies and he reads not only these but all the other dissenting replies. Does he not have a proper job? Or a life?
It's all just agitation and exaggeration and it's worse coming from the guy who is supposed to 'represent' City.
 
mat said:
Did Liverpool win the title last night?
Click to expand...
You might think so from the Mancunian presenter on BBC's local news who gleefully mentioned they had closed the gap by 'hammering' (stressing the word) Leeds.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mat
Danny Hoekman said:
He has small band of City mates who he meets up with whenever he goes away. He will know their take on anything City related. Why the need to take this inane line of questioning to Twitter? I think we all know the answer to that.
Click to expand...

Yes we do.

It's shock jock, designed not to illuminate but to inflame. It's just click bait gutter journalism.

So what do we do? Assuming there is a we.

Lee was right for the wrong reasons, City fans are not homogeneous, on a side note, Liverpool fans are not homogeneous either, but on occasion they're capable of acting as if they are, cults do have their upsides! And Lee has something we don't, he has a bully pulpit, a tiny one in a crowded market, but it comes with a faded stamp of authenticity as City correspondent for The Athletic.

What do we have?.......Nothing.

Hence all the posts bemoaning the lack of aggressive rebuttal by the club in the face of all this bullshit.
 
The perfect fumble said:
No.

It was a loaded question.

A loaded question is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person/persons being questioned is likely to disagree with......




"A common view of City fans online is that they’re militant and abusive. I’ve found a lot who aren’t and may do an article on what they have to say. That would probably paint City fans in a good light. That's a bad thing now is it?"

This is so obvious as to be puerile.

Where do you even begin? The answer is you don't.

Lee is just a bad faith actor and he's not alone in his debased profession. I don't know whether he's as stupid as he appears, he may be faking it on the assumption that City fans are as dumb as dog biscuits.

Either way he can f**k off.
Click to expand...

He’s a twat!
 
It's an attempt to silence or brand those prominent fans who pushback on their flawed theories and agenda (like PB) as lunatic fringe and therefore their ridiculous assumptions have credibility.

"A common view of City fans online is that they’re militant and abusive." We all know 'who's' view he is talking about. He had a meeting with them to discuss us anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top