Media thread 2022/23
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
That's fucking disgraceful.
Emailed them:
Sir,
Regarding the article
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashi...pe=owned&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social and it’s lack of due impartiality (as per the editors code).
The paragraphs relating to Manchester City, start with a lazy insult to the fans and city of Manchester, by referring to them as ‘citeh’, none of the other teams had disparaging remarks about them. Eg Liverpool could easily have been called ‘dippers’, Arsenal ‘Tarquins’ or Chelsea ‘Chavs’, but the entire piece only insulted Manchester City.
The final sentence then has the oft repeated but entirely false trope that Manchester City is owned by a state, and additionally shoehorning in a potentially slanderous ‘despotic regime’ insult.
The indisputable facts are Manchester City is majority owned by Sheik Mansoor having been purchased with his own privately held money. Since the purchase minority stakes have been sold to Chinese and American (Clearlake) investors. Manchester City, is therefore, clearly not ‘state owned’.
Only the Manchester City paragraphs had these sort of lies and insults. Compare with, for example, the hagiography of the Liverpool paragraph - eg no mention of the appalling civil rights and inequalities in the US where their owners come from, or that they are sponsored by a ‘Sportswashing’ (to use the vernacular of some Ill informed journalists) bank, who have been repeatedly fined for money laundering on behalf of terrorist states and entities.
I look forward to the Manchester City paragraph being edited to reflect the known facts rather than untruthful tropes and the removal of a lazy cultural insult.
And that the editorial staff of Conde Nast are made aware of the falsehoods they should not repeat.
I would have expected better from a magazine that is meant to be more cerebral than a rabid football fanzine, perhaps , and I’m guessing here, the author of the piece should flag up their allegiances, if they can only write biased drivel about their footballing rivals.
Yours sincerely
If anyone else would like to:
Condé Nast
www.condenast.co.uk
complaints@condenast.co.uk
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
their too busy looking for pointless things to show while the games clearly going on in background
Well done.Emailed them:
Sir,
Regarding the article
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashi...pe=owned&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social and it’s lack of due impartiality (as per the editors code).
The paragraphs relating to Manchester City, start with a lazy insult to the fans and city of Manchester, by referring to them as ‘citeh’, none of the other teams had disparaging remarks about them. Eg Liverpool could easily have been called ‘dippers’, Arsenal ‘Tarquins’ or Chelsea ‘Chavs’, but the entire piece only insulted Manchester City.
The final sentence then has the oft repeated but entirely false trope that Manchester City is owned by a state, and additionally shoehorning in a potentially slanderous ‘despotic regime’ insult.
The indisputable facts are Manchester City is majority owned by Sheik Mansoor having been purchased with his own privately held money. Since the purchase minority stakes have been sold to Chinese and American (Clearlake) investors. Manchester City, is therefore, clearly not ‘state owned’.
Only the Manchester City paragraphs had these sort of lies and insults. Compare with, for example, the hagiography of the Liverpool paragraph - eg no mention of the appalling civil rights and inequalities in the US where their owners come from, or that they are sponsored by a ‘Sportswashing’ (to use the vernacular of some Ill informed journalists) bank, who have been repeatedly fined for money laundering on behalf of terrorist states and entities.
I look forward to the Manchester City paragraph being edited to reflect the known facts rather than untruthful tropes and the removal of a lazy cultural insult.
And that the editorial staff of Conde Nast are made aware of the falsehoods they should not repeat.
I would have expected better from a magazine that is meant to be more cerebral than a rabid football fanzine, perhaps , and I’m guessing here, the author of the piece should flag up their allegiances, if they can only write biased drivel about their footballing rivals.
Yours sincerely
If anyone else would like to:
&Condé Nast
complaints@condenast.co.uk
Let's keep an eye on it to see if the paragraph is altered or removed.
Rochdale Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 3,495
There was a Bournemouth podcast last week where their fans said we weren't condescending towards them as fans of other big clubs are.
laserblue
Well-Known Member
Unsurprisingly no comment on Liverpool's shirts bearing the name of a terrorist supporting organisation fined $1.5 billion for money laundering for Iran and others, fined £20 million for breaking EU sanctions on Russia and most recently found to have facilitated money transfers between Iran and the Taliban.
- Status