Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Asa's left peg said:
Tbf, it's just football. Horse racing (the sport of kings, no less) has been financed by Arab money for decades, good old Liz, god rest her soul was very pally with Maktoum, but there has been no issues with that. Golf - a little bit like Formula one, seems to be weathering the initial storm and will get off scott free in the coming months and years. Don't get me started on Tennis. Then we have the Russia washing Olympic games and the China washing Olympic games. I could go on but we are all busy men, obviously. If as a society we were serious about human rights we wouldn't sell the countries arms or let them control vast swathes of our capital.
In their defence, they may point to a 'democracy' thats has been 'civilised ' for hundreds of years whilst theirs less than a hundred, and lets children starve, people knowingly die in burning unsafe flats, steal from the public purse, politicians breaking the law etc. I'm just saying one countries human rights is anothers acceptable practice.

The defence rests. (bit like ours did in the last 5 mins)

Anyway all of this discussion adds credibility to that tossers argument, which in reality is personally driven gain.
Click to expand...
www.skysports.com

Ineos vs Qatar for Manchester United: Greenwashing vs Sportswashing?

Sky Sports Chief Reporter Kaveh Solhekol provides an update on the current bids for Manchester United.
www.skysports.com
You missed this little nugget out….WTAF! Why does everything need washing? Sportswashing v greenwashing
 
bluebarry said:
I asked Migeul Delaney about the concept of sportswashing. He said it was about influence (and negative publicity that buying a club brings is irrelevant). When asked about Middle Eastern investments in other industries he copped out by saying you would have to take it up with other journalists.

What are your thoughts on the following exchange:

Me: I'd appreciate your thoughts on the following: Surely the concept of "sportswashing" is a misnomer, particularly as buying a football club attracts significant negative publicity. Also, why is sport singled out over other Middle Eastern investments? For example, why isn't this "science washing": UAE to invest £10 billion in priority UK industries (including science).

Delaney's response: "People confuse the term. It's not about image. It's about influence. And there's little as influential as buying clubs. As regards other fields, you'd have to take it up with journlaists there"
Click to expand...
Good try Barry.. as ever, this partial clown's response tells you all you need to know about him and his ilk.

And I notice the 'avoidance/deflection' technique employed in the final part of the response.

What bits of psychology I remember from study all those years ago remind me that such 'avoidance/deflection' can be traced back to the user's own basic narcissism, how s/he sees the world in their own terms, with little empathy for other points of view ('cognitive dissonance' anyone?!)

Sums the twunt up..
 
So according to the Independants Tyrion, club ownership and the much discussed "Sportswashing" is nothing to do with image projection and publicity , good or bad and is more to do with influence.

This "influence' the irish midget speaks of, is this in any way to be confused with the other buzzwords like "Soft power" or other such boardroom speak? He speaks in riddles and doesn't answer simple questions. It's a relatively simple analogy as to why investment in sports is somehow viewed by his like as negative yet the investment of billions into a country's economy via housing projects or scientific research or other industry is somehow treated differently.
Where and how is this influence to be allegedly wielded?
By whom and in what capacity?

I have seen no sign of any such attempted influence by City's ownership in any field I can think of, sports, political, what exactly?
Moreover to what end is this "influence" employed. Is it allegedly nefarious and if so again to what end.
Who exactly is affected by this deployment of "influence".

It's no secret the middle eastern countries don't get a good press in respect of human rights and correctly so in some instances.

We cannot escape the fact there are distinct economic, religious, political, cultural and social differences to Western European countries and those of the middle east, some far east, Asia, Russia etc. There will inevitably be clashes of culture due to these differences. We will never be the same and the pursuit or concept of some ideological nirvana, whilst worthwhile is I fear, imaginary and unachievable.

So that leaves us with levels of tolerance of each other. Whilst I vehemently disagree with persecution of groups because of sexual orientation or ethnicity or skin colour, or the contractual enslavement of individuals as migrant workers to what degree am I to be outraged by these things occurring in another country? I choose not to go to these places. Am I to be guided by Amnesty International on who does and doesn't fall into an acceptable category? Is there a line or is it a sliding scale? I fear AI has its own agenda and therefore my opinion is that each individual must make up their own minds on these matters by informing themselves of the facts and not listening to the likes of Dan Roan or Matthew Syed (the ping pong cheat).

The Western Europeans should remember that he who casts the first stone etc Considering information such as that within the following article Legalised Homosexuality it seems somewhat ironic to be pontificating to other countries about their laws on such matters when we have barely got our own house in order.

The western media headlines decrying the capital punishment of individuals in middle eastern countries as barbaric and inhuman yet say nothing regarding the USA's policy on capital punishment. To an outsider it would seem its not the act but the method that draws such ire. They also rarely comment on the shipping off of prisoners to another countries borders, held without trial or due process to be beaten, tortured and killed to avoid international law sanctions in what is considered a major breach of human rights and seems to be a process only likely to occur in some fascist dystopian nightmare society yet we know it is not! It's hard to argue that these media opinions are not partly borne from a racist agenda or standpoint. SOme will agree others not.

Certainly many would not consider these matters at all in respect of an individual's (or state) ownership of their Football Club yet media in this country would have you view football ownership through some kaleidoscope filter whereby they get to judge who and what are fit and proper owners and they choose the terms and conditions by which this test is applied. Its sanctimonious claptrap at best. I don't have a problem with a correctly administered fit and proper test for ownership albeit I would be reticent about those chosen to apply such a test and who draws up the "rulebook". Interestingly that no doubt some would like to see the "Test" applied retrospectively in the hopes that somehow foreign ownership would be penalised in some way.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the sale of Trafford Rangers and my distinct feel of the media view is that they are not in favour of the Qatar bid and would much rather see jolly Jim INIOS installed as the new owner, renowned polluter and sworn enemy of the Green lobby. What a dilemma, which of the ugly sisters to marry eh?
 
Last edited:
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.