Shocking Guardian article on De Jong/Ben Arfa

[Matty]

There was fuck all wrong with the tackle
Arfa didn't want to speak or see anyone when asked so DJ gave him plenty of time before getting in touch.
Both players don't wanna re-hash this but the Guardian feels it has to for some reason.

Fine to cover it. De Jong's message was newsworthy. It was a big controversy at the time, even if that was in part due to the way it was reported, but it's not the coverage of the issue that annoys, but the way it is done.

It doesn't actually say that De Jong's message happened recently though, I got the impression he wrote to Ben Arfa a couple of months after the challenge.

 

[Marvin]

I can't see what the fuss is about. I've read the article through and can't see anything anti-city in it at all. I'd go as far as to say very neutral and puts things into their context; for example, pointing out that City believe Van Marwijk wanted to deflect attention from himself.

As for the 'booked 9 times' line, that's pointing out that City believe NDJ is being treated unfairly.

Why write it? Why not? It was a big story at the time ( made a big story by the media ). City v Newcastle this week, international week so few stories around, etc.

The strapline is 'horror tackle'? It was a horror tackle, a man got a broken leg! I can see no implication from the journo that he's trying to make out that the tackle was malicious, which seems to be what is being read into the line.

I normally have no time for football journos, but can't see a single thing wrong with this article.

There is plenty of shite, malicious, opinionated and biased journalism out there, but I can't see it in this even when I go looking for it.

Horror tackle? The end result was horror for Ben Arfa but the tackle was legitimate. The rest of the article makes out De Jong to be a serial leg breaker who was censored by his own national coach and who has a disciplinary record. the sentences about City believing Van Marwijk had his own agenda are included so the journalist can say it's balanced, but they are attributed to City as if "they would say that wouldn't they".

 

[texas pete]

Another shite thread from the bluemoon paranoid society.

EVERYONE IS AGAINST CITY.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There was fuck all wrong with the tackle
Arfa didn't want to speak or see anyone when asked so DJ gave him plenty of time before getting in touch.
Both players don't wanna re-hash this but the Guardian feels it has to for some reason.

Fine to cover it. De Jong's message was newsworthy. It was a big controversy at the time, even if that was in part due to the way it was reported, but it's not the coverage of the issue that annoys, but the way it is done.

It doesn't actually say that De Jong's message happened recently though, I got the impression he wrote to Ben Arfa a couple of months after the challenge.

The interesting thing is that The Daily Fail have picked this up today and are implying that de Jong has only just written to Ben Arfa. As a consequence lots of NUFC fans believe this and are tweeting critical messages. I accept that this story is quite legitimate but it could have been written in a much more positive or even completely neutral way.

Interesting that Marvin, who I always see as the voice of cold, hard logic and reason on here, feels the same way as i do.

 

[more lazy than useless]

Horror tackle? The end result was horror for Ben Arfa but the tackle was legitimate. The rest of the article makes out De Jong to be a serial leg breaker who was censored by his own national coach and who has a disciplinary record. the sentences about City believing Van Marwijk had his own agenda are included so the journalist can say it's balanced, but they are attributed to City as if "they would say that wouldn't they".

I see what you're saying, but when I read it I can't see where the article implies what you think it implies.

It was a horror tackle, legitimate or not. Calling it that doesn't imply malicious intent unless the rest of the tone of the article puts a negative spin on NDJ, (like the number of times booked, national suspension etc) and I just don't get that from it, simply a level and balanced recounting of the facts and the opinions of those involved.

I suppose it's all in the way it's read. If you were looking for it to be biased, then your impression will be formed from the things you think back that up, and/or if I'm getting the impression as I read that it's neutral then maybe I read the rest of it in that way.

Maybe I'm too laid back. I'll have to work on getting angry.
Might leave it till tomorrow though, can't be arsed today ;)

 

[colourmeblue]

I can't see what the fuss is about. I've read the article through and can't see anything anti-city in it at all. I'd go as far as to say very neutral and puts things into their context; for example, pointing out that City believe Van Marwijk wanted to deflect attention from himself.

As for the 'booked 9 times' line, that's pointing out that City believe NDJ is being treated unfairly.

Why write it? Why not? It was a big story at the time ( made a big story by the media ). City v Newcastle this week, international week so few stories around, etc.

The strapline is 'horror tackle'? It was a horror tackle, a man got a broken leg! I can see no implication from the journo that he's trying to make out that the tackle was malicious, which seems to be what is being read into the line.

I normally have no time for football journos, but can't see a single thing wrong with this article.

There is plenty of shite, malicious, opinionated and biased journalism out there, but I can't see it in this even when I go looking for it.

Did someone lose these?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Maybe I'm too laid back. I'll have to work on getting angry.
Might leave it till tomorrow though, can't be arsed today ;)

You were arsed last Friday though in a thread about a story in the Daily Star re NDJ and his contract situation:

If you ask me they are just looking for something to print - just like we're looking for something to discuss ;)
Yes he has looked 'like thunder' recently. He isn't playing, is he supposed to be happy?
Yes he is yet to sign a new contract. How many players are in that situation throughout the leagues? It would be a long list. Only ever gets commented on when a jouno can call it 2 in a '2 + 2 = 4' story.

Try writing your own story around 'he wasn't playing but still travelled to QPR and watched the match' and it'll all sound so much different.

 

[more lazy than useless]

I can't see what the fuss is about. I've read the article through and can't see anything anti-city in it at all. I'd go as far as to say very neutral and puts things into their context; for example, pointing out that City believe Van Marwijk wanted to deflect attention from himself.

As for the 'booked 9 times' line, that's pointing out that City believe NDJ is being treated unfairly.

Why write it? Why not? It was a big story at the time ( made a big story by the media ). City v Newcastle this week, international week so few stories around, etc.

The strapline is 'horror tackle'? It was a horror tackle, a man got a broken leg! I can see no implication from the journo that he's trying to make out that the tackle was malicious, which seems to be what is being read into the line.

I normally have no time for football journos, but can't see a single thing wrong with this article.

There is plenty of shite, malicious, opinionated and biased journalism out there, but I can't see it in this even when I go looking for it.

Did someone lose these?

Close, but no cigar.

The glasses of some are blue tinted and are very definately being worn ;)<br /><br />-- Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:09 pm --<br /><br />

Maybe I'm too laid back. I'll have to work on getting angry.
Might leave it till tomorrow though, can't be arsed today ;)

You were arsed last Friday though in a thread about a story in the Daily Star re NDJ and his contract situation:

If you ask me they are just looking for something to print - just like we're looking for something to discuss ;)
Yes he has looked 'like thunder' recently. He isn't playing, is he supposed to be happy?
Yes he is yet to sign a new contract. How many players are in that situation throughout the leagues? It would be a long list. Only ever gets commented on when a jouno can call it 2 in a '2 + 2 = 4' story.

Try writing your own story around 'he wasn't playing but still travelled to QPR and watched the match' and it'll all sound so much different.

Like I posted earlier in this thread, there is plenty of shite/biased etc journalism out there, and some of it does wind me up (as much as I get wound up) but just can't see it in this piece. Sorry PB, I usually agree with what you post, but this time you've left me scratching my head.

 

[Marvin]

If you innoculate someone with a dead virus it can protect against future infection.

City fans are now immune, but there are segments of the population who don't have the immunity so the virus must still be fought

 

[johnny crossan]

Another shite thread from the bluemoon paranoid society.

EVERYONE IS AGAINST CITY.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

sure you're not under the molehill?