Guardian produces more bollocks than a Vet Neutering a herd of Bulls Having read the article, its the usual "...a source close to the club...", which is Journalist for No source at all, I made it all up. And suggesting the call was made to Brian Marwood, who strangely is not asked to substantiate the 'rumour'. If I were suspicious, I'd say the timing was typical. Liverpool have just dumped both Manchester clubs out of the Domestic Cups and confidence is up, team spirit is buoyant. Suddenly it comes out that Carroll, finally beginning to play like the player we saw at Newcastle, is being offered around like a cheap trick. Its obviously an attempt to damage the lad's morale and confidence, IMO. These rags do so little to actually research and provide evidence its simply unbelievable. If you started suggesting a couple of Hollywood types were consorting out of wedlock with persons not their marriage partners, you'd be sued so fast, but because its 'just football' its allowed to go on. FFS!
this is quite amazing. Kenny Dalglish has denied Liverpool's interest in Carlos Tevez has created a problem between the club and Andy Carroll and said his faith in the squad means there should be no repeat of last January's remarkable transfer deadline day at Anfield. first just who asked kenny about this transfer and what did he say... I'm willing to bet kenny never acknowledged any such contact but this first quote form this thing tacitly suggested he did. then they turn about and talk about some phone call sources say occured then finally give kennys actual comments to the press "There's nothing happening and I don't anticipate anything happening either. That does us fine," he said. "Last year was a bit manic but there will be nothing at all. There's no need for us to pass comment on anything that's been speculative in the newspapers. The only thing that might be happening is the young boy from Wrexham [goalkeeper Danny Ward for £100,000]. But that's for the academy, not us." The Ward deal went through after Dalglish had spoken. yet this is at the bottom and the headline is pretty clear and bold. Kenny Dalglish denies move for Carlos Tevez has upset Andy Carroll so where did anyone ask kenny about this upset than poor andy might feel? or where's the denial of a move for tevez... all kenny said was no moves in or out at the eha dof a press conference for wolves. You are right utter tripe of a story that has no foundation at all
The link to the Guardian includes a direct link to e-mail their sports writers. Somebody should draw something up and we'll bombard them with it.
It just seems that the only reason to write a completely unfounded headline is to draw the reader in only to find you've been sold on something with no actual relationship with reality. Not so much as to actually lie. Dalglish didn't deny or confirm anything. Talk****e are even worse, suggesting Kenny was angry with City. When you read it, he says nothing different than in the Guardian report, but because he says "Speak to City about it, we've got nothing to say", he's angry with City. Talk about making it all up
You'd think after Hillsborough and all the recent revelations of journalistic malpractice- not to mention downright illegal and immoral activities exposed by the Leveson inquiry- that the press would keep their heads down a bit and make sure their reporting is accurate and balanced. But no, they still come out with reams of ****e designed purely to make trouble and money regardless of the detrimental effects on peoples lives. I suppose if they're morally bankrupt enough to hack the phones of possible murder victims and to slight bereaved families then we can't expect football to get anything like fair treatment.
David Taylor who works for Guardian released Tevez/Carrolls story.Wrote Fergies book apparently, nuff said!!
Let's be fair to the journos for a moment. The clubs are only going to give them what they want the press to know (for whatever reason). They are left with trying to pick up scraps from untrustworthy sources whilst at the same time producing something that is supposed to 'excite' their readers. No wonder they become adept at writing speculation and half truths. They need what appears to be sensationalist stories to satisfy their editors. Unfortunately, in todays world the time and space for well researched and considered articles has been lost - if you want an informed opinion you have to trawl through a mess of blogs etc. Gone are the days when the grandees of the sports press really did top level contacts and a wealth of experience upon which to base their offerings. If it looks good and doesn't get them sued then it may as well pass for the truth as far as our sportswriters are concerned.
Sorry Dave, I totally disagree with you. Their job is simply to REPORT. Not lie, not fabricate, not embellish, just REPORT on the FACTS. Sympathy for the press? I'd rather sympathise with a manc
perfidity: (adj) Perfidity means an amoral person possessed of foul desires such as *****philia, sex with animals, raping young girls and writing untrue stories to ****-stir. The old man was possessed of a nature consisting of perfidity. Also used to mean lying, faithless, or treacherous... I love the word, its much underused. I first found it in King Lear...
Ooh goody, grammar wars. I hate to be a pedant (well actually I don't, I enjoy it ) but: Perfidity would be a noun not an adjective if it existed- I think you might be thinking of perfidy. Perfidious is an adjective and perfidiousness the more common noun associated with it (although the stupid spellcheck on here doesn't like it). Woo, I feel better now. Back on topic, I agree with Jonesey. Journalists have too much power to wield it in the irresponsible manner that they do. It's wrong to damage people's lives or reputations just to sell newspapers. If hacks fancy themselves as creative writers then they can always go and write novels or scripts or FA reports. The whole journalistic profession is getting hauled over the coals by the Leveson inquiry and it's well overdue.
Of course, you're right - I was thinking about the Shakespeare quote "O perfidious Gloucester..." Half of them do creative writing (or players'/Managers' ghostwritten 'auto'biographies)...
Is it Richard III? I haven't read that since I was at school and didn't understand it then. Tbh, it wouldn't surprise me if old Shakey had used "perfidity", spelling was irregular in those days and he often made up words on the spot.
It could be Richard III (he was Duke of Gloucester before King), and Glouceser was also in King Lear - I may have mixed them up. "Out, vile jelly" - that one I haven't mixed up - Lear all the way...
Eyeballs... Act III Scene vii [video=youtube;gv-F5TZajMs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv-F5TZajMs[/video]
I think you took me a little too literally I saw Derek Jacobi as Dick the Turd at the Royal Exchange i=n Liverpool - Quality
The job of a journalist has never been merely to REPORT on the FACTS. Even when the facts are known the job of a journalist is to present those facts along with possible implications in such a way as to satisfy both the wishes of his/her employers and to meet the supposed demands of the audience for the media that employs him/her. Hence a fact - 10% of the population of the UK live below the Poverty Line ( a truism as the Poverty Line is drawn so that the bottom 10% of the population in income terms live below it) can be presented in many different ways so as to evoke the desired response. The ONLY sympathy that I have for journalists is that they have to prostitute their ability to write creatively to meet the needs of others in order to earn a living. After that I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. When I was teaching corporate and marketing strategy I tried to drum into students (both undergraduates and postgraduates) that all models should carry a warning "This may not be the truth". I believe that all utterances from the media should also carry this warning.
