You're obviously having trouble understanding the term "disgraceful journalism"...
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You're obviously having trouble understanding the term "disgraceful journalism"...
I suggest you read my post again. Just to add, there's no evidence that they were true and all of those rumour stories of bids which varied from €80mill to over £100mill, plus or including various Real players were later refuted by stories even their own papers ran stating that they understood no bids had been made at that point. It's pretty clear they didn't have much of a clue what was going on until the last week.
I could write a quick article about how Hernandez is looking for a move and will sign for Tottenham in January. If it happens it doesn't mean I'm right as I have no clue about Hernandez's state of mind and am just going with the general flow of rumours that he may leave in January.
Speculation based on other speculation is a disgrace to journalism. What should happen in the event of a fire is that the reporter arrives, looks at the scene, and reports what the homeowner, fire brigade and neighbors have to say about it. The typical Bale stories would be more like someone hearing of someone else who heard a third person claim he'd head a fire engine's siren--and then writing up the details of the fire. The fact that there actually was a fire would not make that something other than a disgrace to journalism.
It's also disgraceful because some (but not all) of this was deliberate tapping up. Claiming a move is afoot before it actually happens has proved to be a great way of making one happen by unsettling the player. Journalists who play along with this are certainly a disgrace to journalism.
I had to bump this up because it's happening again. Daily Fail make up a story of boardroom and player unrest, and Talk$hite report the made up story as "the papers report...". Talk Radio presenters say to each other "does this seem to be similar to what happened to AVB at Chelsea...", and none of it need have a grain of truth. And then the story takes on a lift of its own and may ultimately be self-fulfilling. I know a lot of people are upset at the current situation, and perhaps what is being said might even mirror your own opinion BUT that does not mean it is not disgraceful journalism. Like previous stories, whatever is going on with the Board and the players may or may not be true, but that doesn't mean that those "reporting" it know anything!
Unless we have Dawson, Sandro and Defoe conspiring to get AVB out, how would it be anything like his time at Chelsea?
"and none of it need have a grain of truth. And then the story takes on a lift of its own and may ultimately be self-fulfilling."
Tis gossip, but what is the equivalent in industry for which there would be legal redress ??
For example, if I was to falsely claim there is boardroom and key personnel unrest at a big UK PLC re their
current business strategy, and there subsequently was a big downward run on the share price, would I
as the reporter be liable in some way ??
Tis gossip, but what is the equivalent in industry for which there would be legal redress ??
For example, if I was to falsely claim there is boardroom and key personnel unrest at a big UK PLC re their
current business strategy, and there subsequently was a big downward run on the share price, would I
as the reporter be liable in some way ??
So you got this one wrong then as well HIAG?
You seem to love writing things that will then come back to trip you up don't you?
I think you owe Durham an apology as he was spot on about it all.
You accused the Fail and Talkshite of this over the Bale saga and it turned ou they were completely right all along about him wanting out to Madrid!
maybe, just maybe, they have a source on the inside whois feeding them this info as a way to weaken AVB's position?
Wow, must have taken a brain the size of a planet to work that one out! And how many sports "journalist" stories turn out to be completely wrong? The point is that they can print anything they want and if it's right they claim how clever they are with insider knowledge and if it's wrong you never hear about it again. They can get it right without knowing anything, that's the beauty of the game. So Daily Fail, with a track record of anti-Spurs stories, come out with this - all unattributed of course - and Talk$hite report it as "the papers report..." and then feature callers who all want AVB out. Of course a lot of people do, but it isn't in the interests of Talk Radio to put on anyone who has a contrary opinion.
Did you even read what you highlighted in bold? Oh nevermind read my posts higher up the page if you want to understand.
It must be sad to realise that you're not even the first dullard incapable of grasping the concept of "disgraceful journalism" on this thread.
Back to the woodwork with you. Go on, SHOO!
You know how I keep saying the Grauniad has an anti-Spurs bias? I'd like to thank Daniel Taylor for proving my point: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/dec/05/tottenham-fan-group-atmosphere
Not only has this been shot down by The Fighting Cock, but also by the club - who retweeted this post.
The funny part is Taylor is already having to climb down on Twatter by admitting the article is wrong. The council wrote to the club with concerns about standing, which the article does not mention - as you can expect with the usual hatchet job journalism the club is all too frequently subjected to.
:::EDIT:::
Since I posted this, official word has come from the club: "we have no plans to stop 1882 buying tickets together, have never attempted to do so and remain fully committed to a positive relationship within the parameters that the stadium and licensing provides us with." - Jonathan Waite, Supporters Liaison Officer
Not only has this been shot down by The Fighting Cock, but also by the club - who retweeted this post.
The funny part is Taylor is already having to climb down on Twatter by admitting the article is wrong. The council wrote to the club with concerns about standing, which the article does not mention - as you can expect with the usual hatchet job journalism the club is all too frequently subjected to.
:::EDIT:::
Since I posted this, official word has come from the club: "we have no plans to stop 1882 buying tickets together, have never attempted to do so and remain fully committed to a positive relationship within the parameters that the stadium and licensing provides us with." - Jonathan Waite, Supporters Liaison Officer
How poor does an article have to be in order to need clarification within an hour? That's the journalists opinion of his own work.
If it's broken to that extent, then why doesn't the Guardian fix it? Very shoddy.
If it's broken to that extent, then why doesn't the Guardian fix it? Very shoddy.
I'd like to name and shame Danny Griffiths for this piece of crap:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/22/tim-s...ble-week-with-victory-at-southampton-4240552/
I particularly like this bit:
What. A. Twat.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/22/tim-s...ble-week-with-victory-at-southampton-4240552/
I particularly like this bit:
What. A. Twat.
He also says
"Spurs have won in style – albeit against a moderate team punching above their weight"
Which is very disrespectful to Southampton, who I think play football in the right way and have had some fully deserved results this season. Their second goal was, lets admit it, very good indeed!
"Spurs have won in style – albeit against a moderate team punching above their weight"
Which is very disrespectful to Southampton, who I think play football in the right way and have had some fully deserved results this season. Their second goal was, lets admit it, very good indeed!
