Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 13,213
What happended to a public funded broadcaster being impartial. Also just because its happened before didn't mean its correct.I have to say that in its updated form I’ve read a lot worse than the BBC article.
like many others, my conclusion is that it tries to give an impress of balance whilst actually being pretty one-sided. It refers for instance to City spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their innocence without saying that the PL are spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their guilt. It refers to possible consequences for City if they are found guilty without referring to the possible consequences for the PL if they are not. It implies that City is more at risk because they don’t have the CAS safety net without observing that the Panel is likely to be significantly more robust than UEFA in the first place.
My overall impression is that someone at the BBC wanted to put something out showing that they weren’t scared by any cease and desist letter (or to dispel the rumours that they’d had one).
There’s nothing factually wrong in the article, they just cherry picked the bits they wanted to include and the bits they didn’t.
Typical piece of modern BBC click bait in other words. Not well written, biased, lacking in journalistic integrity.
nothing to see here, frankly. Nothing we haven’t seen many times before anyway.
Last edited: