It's a mute point if you don't pay a licence fee
The club are playing it right, no response only winds them up more, to the point where they become negligent.
Yes unfortunately us fans have to take this shit but that last response is a admission of wrong doing from them.
The mood has changed this last week or so.
I think I know why.
Shush now.It's a mute point if you don't pay a licence fee
Your honour , it’s not me , it’s that AI thing.Again.If I had to hazard a guess, and their reply hints at this, I would say it is mostly AI generated giberish that is pulled from the internet to generate hits
Did I provoke them ? Delusional by me I know but seems quite a coincidence. Are the BBC so petty and in such a rush to prove C&D letters had NOT been sent they produced that abomination. Makes you wonder how the hell can the public believe anything they say about extremely serious issues, Israel, climate change, Russia...There is a media organization that all of us are legally forced to subscribe to, it's called the BBC and the annual fee is currently £169.50. They are absolutely front and central on the constant attacks into City and have been from day one. The content used by Der Spiegel and the Sunday Times was all provided by a group called "European Investigative Collaborations", (https://eic.network/) the BBC are quite open about their leading role in that group. Last summer after the treble victory they ran a "115 Charges" story on BBC World presented by Ross Atkins. It was an absolute hatchet job that could have been scripted on Rag Cafe. Right at the very end after five minutes of besmirching the club, smearing the owners and sponsors it ended with the cursory "City deny any wrong doing". It's estimated that 320 million people watch BBC World. Although the BBC coverage of Co-Live morphed into a weird rant about Ms Tiffin on here, it was a perfect illustration how a good news story was turned into an attack on MCFC. There are far too many examples of Dan Roan and Simon Stone attacks to be mentioned here.
So I would say the BBC is the absolute litmus test of any change or moderation in the media treatment of the "115 Charges". I'll be watching them in the next few days...
[aside] has anyone noticed how they never mention anything negative about the owners of MCFC in the coverage of the Women's team. That must be caused by a "clash of BBC agendas"...
I sent them this, wonder if I'll get an actual answer...
YOUR COMPLAINT:
Numerous inaccuracies and no writer identified
I understand you have made numerous changes to this article, which in its original format was horrendously inaccurate, biased and misleading. Well done for making the changes, but the article should never have been published in its original format and is still merely adequate now.
I have a question that I would like a response to, in order to understand something.
Why does the article not include who it was written by?
Is this because it was meant to be inflammatory? Is it because it was a team effort? Is it because it was rushed hatchet job that nobody wanted to admit to?
Seriously, I'm just speculating there. Please can you provide guidelines on why some articles give clarity of who they were written by, while some don't? It confuses me a little.
Thanks
Matt
Its a very wierd one isnt it. Almost like they wanted to show bias against City.Also why wasn't something so serious wasn't fact checked?
That ship, so far as football is concerned, set sail a long time ago.What happended to a public funded broadcaster being impartial.
Standard reply - generalised lines to take from a list of bullet points.Pretty much word for word the same response I got. You’d almost think that they’ve used an email template and banged it out to every City fan that complained :-)
Bundy?Let's hope they don't get AI to carry out the investigation.