PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Suffolk Blue]

The content in the article was probably created by AI similar to ChatGPT, verified by AI and edited by AI (no AI was used in the creation of this post)

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

That article by the BBC was so amateurish that it makes me wonder if they have had these mythical letters?

It's almost as if they wanted to be biased. Maybe it was a City fan that did the article, hoping to influence the case against City.

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

I think we all know whats coming regardless of whether were guilty or not. You only have to look at that terry flewers quote tweets on a post about settlement. Were going to be guilty regardless.

Guilty of being better than everyone else. I can live with that.

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

The content in the article was probably created by AI similar to ChatGPT, verified by AI and edited by AI (no AI was used in the creation of this post)

I hear the original article was written in crayon by Simon Stone.

 

[Mr Fraser]

The content in the article was probably created by AI similar to ChatGPT, verified by AI and edited by AI (no AI was used in the creation of this post)

Not very knowledgeable about AI apart from it is in development , but if it was written by AI and about a high profile area of sports news then robust procedures would be in place prior to publication

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

BBCIAC

 

[Revolver]

A shoddy article that wouldn’t never have seen the light of day if it had been written about the BBCs beloved Liverpool or United.

Well done City fans who wrote into complain. It’s beyond me why the club didn’t officially complain. Fear of whatever is the only thing I can think of.

But again well done for those who called these amateurs out.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Not very knowledgeable about AI apart from it is in development , but if it was written by AI and about a high profile area of sports news then robust procedures would be in place prior to publication

I admire your optimism. I don't think procedures these days are as robust as they once were.

 

[mattcity5]

Reply received about that BBC "article". I'll post in the media thread as well.

Thanks for contacting us about an article on our BBC Sport website, now headlined ‘Manchester City 115 charges explained: What is latest on club's PSR case?’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o).

The initial version of this article featured some errors in language in some of the headings and subheadings, which could have given readers the impression that we were assuming guilt on the part of Manchester City, relating to alleged breaches of Premier League rules.

The article was written as an internet search ‘Question and Answer’, setting out to answer some of the most popular searches off the back of Everton and Nottingham Forest’s breaches of PSR rules. The headings in the article were made up of the most prevalent searches by fans, but we didn’t explain this context in the piece, which then could have given the impression we were assuming guilt. The article itself however, did repeatedly outline City’s defence and denial of all charges.

We have now corrected this language, and added some further context as to where the questions in the piece were taken from.

We’re sorry for the mistakes made here, and we’d like to thank you for flagging this to us. We’ve shared your disappointment with the team at BBC Sport, which helps to inform our work moving forward.

This is our response at Stage 1a of the BBC’s complaints process. If you’re dissatisfied with this reply, a follow-up complaint may be considered at Stage 1b. You must submit a follow-up within 20 working days through the BBC Complaints webform. If you do decide to contact us again, please include your case number, and explain why you feel your complaint has not been addressed. We will then review your complaint.

Thanks again and wishing you all the best,

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

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 

 

[blueinbrazil]

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 

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