Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty much what was expected to happen then. For them to agree to remove the video shows that they were guilty and as such should be forced into an apology.
I doubt anybody outside of this forum has noticed the removal and have already made their Ill founded judgements.
I suppose we move on until the next slanderous piece emerges…
 
Paladin said:
Received this reply from the City Press Officer.

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your email.


We have already been in touch with Sky Sports News regarding this broadcast. Sky have now removed this clip from their whole estate, and have sent written reminders to all presenters of the need to challenge unsubstantiated claims, such as the ones made here, in the future.

Best,

MCFC Press Office
Click to expand...
How can sky presenters challenge unsubstantiated claims when the producer, dressed in a full red wanker kit sat in his office, is screaming in their earpiece not to challenge it and to mention City's name.
 
The perfect fumble said:
They've definitely removed it.

Sometimes Sky Sports News YouTube site won't allow you to post videos, forcing you to visit the site to watch it, usually because it contains match footage, but this is different. The video has been removed both from the site and from the Sky Sports News Article about the Juventus resignations.
Click to expand...

I’ve had the following response from City press office. To be fair, sounds as if they were straight on to the matter & as a result Sky acted accordingly. I don’t think the club should give the issue more credence by demanding a written apology on Sky news. It just alerts more idiots to the allegations

“Thank you for your email.

We have already been in touch with Sky Sports News regarding this broadcast. Sky have now removed this clip from their whole estate, and have sent written reminders to all presenters of the need to challenge unsubstantiated claims, such as the ones made here, in the future.”
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve always felt that it should be mandated that any apology/retraction in the press should have the same prominence and column inches as the article that gave rise to it.
Click to expand...

I’m beginning to think I may have imagined this now but I thought I remembered some legislation passed a number of years ago that required exactly this?

I’m getting a vague flashback of The Sun running a front page story on Bob Crow driving some big fancy car and then later retracting it on the front page admitting that not only doesn’t he drive the car in question but he doesn’t actually drive any car whatsoever.

Probably losing it and imagining the whole thing though.
 
Phil1 said:
If somebody at the club has been in touch with Sky which has led to the video being removed but with no apology accompanying that decision then it’s not really going far enough is it?
Many will have already watched it and will have been left with their already made up minds that we are bent being solidified.
Click to expand...
Could it be classed as slanderous as it’s the spoken word?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Very difficult to dictate editorial policy, but tend to agree.

Sven once tried to sue me because I described him a "legendary pork swordsman" in a showbiz piece I wrote for the Bizarre column.

Thankfully the lawyer on shift in the office, usually spent sat on their arses and reading the paper for £300-an-hour, batted it back and we settled for £10k to charity.

Worth their weight in gold, those fellas ;)
Click to expand...
“Legendary Pork Swordsman” Genuinely made me laugh that Tolmie, brightened up my day. I’ll be plagiarising that on our Golf Whattsapp group!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.