Eric Black, the next to be named by the Telegraph

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
MLsfc said:
Bribery is a crime - If that is what has happened. Admittedly it is very hard to draw full conclusions without all the information.

The benefit of a police investigation is that peoples names arent dragged through the mud to try and make a quick buck. If not all the people named have done much wrong (Jimmy F-H as an example may not have done anything) then the press still tear into them. But the police can investigate and if someone is clean, their public image isnt completely tarnished.
Click to expand...

The Telegraph won't really want sued for defamation and loss of earnings, so anything they report/show is very likely to be fact. That said if it isn't they can and will be sued by the affected parties. The defence against defamation is 'truth'. http://www.howtolaw.co/defend-a-defamation-action-392175
 
fatletiss said:
Not sure how else you'd expect it to come out. These people aren't going to sit down with a visible camera and a journalist and admit to anything.

The only time I'd be feeling uncomfortable with journalists doing this is if they set someone up who hasn't done anything and they are doing it to try and tempt someone down that route. That would be my definition of entrapment. It might be the case that sone of these are like that.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I don't really have a problem with undercover journalists or sting operations. I don't think the press are doing their job if they aren't trying to ferret out corruption.

I do kinda have a problem with undercover journalism in this instance. Because to me the injustice here is rather mild. It's football, not a multibillion pound government contract or human rights being violated. And I don't like the way The Telegraph is reporting this for maximum profit and drama rather than simply revealing the facts and alerting the authorities. They appear to me more eager to make a buck than to right an injustice and that's not exactly ethical journalism either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Munson owns Fosse, Archers Road, Ronnie Hotdogs (MLsfc) and 1 other person
latviandream said:
The Telegraph won't really want sued for defamation and loss of earnings, so anything they report/show is very likely to be fact. That said if it isn't they can and will be sued by the affected parties. The defence against defamation is 'truth'. http://www.howtolaw.co/defend-a-defamation-action-392175
Click to expand...
Youd think so wouldn't you? But we've seen on countless occassions papers and other media outlets publishing trash, based on very little evidence, about individuals and get away with it. Whats important is that the truth is revealed and only the guilty parties suffer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatletiss and latviandream
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
I don't know. I don't really have a problem with undercover journalists or sting operations. I don't think the press are doing their job if they aren't trying to ferret out corruption.

I do kinda have a problem with undercover journalism in this instance. Because to me the injustice here is rather mild. It's football, not a multibillion pound government contract or human rights being violated. And I don't like the way The Telegraph is reporting this for maximum profit and drama rather than simply revealing the facts and alerting the authorities. They appear to me more eager to make a buck than to right an injustice and that's not exactly ethical journalism either.
Click to expand...

Spot on on the second paragraph. Anyone who thinks the Telegraph are doing this an act of getting the truth out or goodwill etc. is in dreamlamd quite frankly.

They haven't even passed everything over to the FA yet, why not?
 
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
I don't know. I don't really have a problem with undercover journalists or sting operations. I don't think the press are doing their job if they aren't trying to ferret out corruption.

I do kinda have a problem with undercover journalism in this instance. Because to me the injustice here is rather mild. It's football, not a multibillion pound government contract or human rights being violated. And I don't like the way The Telegraph is reporting this for maximum profit and drama rather than simply revealing the facts and alerting the authorities. They appear to me more eager to make a buck than to right an injustice and that's not exactly ethical journalism either.
Click to expand...

They are trying to make a buck. But trying to make a buck as often been one of the underpinnings of the best investigative journalism throughout the past century. I don't particularly care if they draw it out for a couple days to achieve maximum effect so long as they aren't hiding anything that changes the story dramatically.

Edit: heck, I hope they do make a buck. And I hope that other papers look at it and say "wow, there's money in these here acts of journalism. Mayhap we ought to try some of that rather than spending all our budget on paparazzi snaps of B-list celebrities".
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint, fatletiss, He gets the ball and takes the p*ss and 3 others
It seems that in a lot of these cases targets are invited to attend a meeting to discuss something completely innocent and then they make throw away comments during discussions they thought would be about something else. The telegraph then sell the story as if this whole dodgy meeting was set up to discuss bribery etc. My issue is that the press exaggerate and dramatize stories to make more money rather than simply presenting the information as it is. So although they do expose some details, we get sold a story rather than told the truth as to what happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josh-LUFC and Archers Road
fran-MLs little camera said:
Papers aren't a charity....they investigate things because it is sensational news and sell papers. Dragging it out isn't risking lives, so I'm not going to be outraged about it.
Click to expand...

But because of the way they are handling it, I don't see their hands as any cleaner than those they are naming. Eric Black isn't risking anyone's lives, and he's just trying to make a buck himself.

But fair enough, I'm not outraged by The Telegraph either. I would say I am equally mildly disdainful of the actions of all sides.
 
Schad said:
Edit: heck, I hope they do make a buck. And I hope that other papers look at it and say "wow, there's money in these here acts of journalism. Mayhap we ought to try some of that rather than spending all our budget on paparazzi snaps of B-list celebrities".
Click to expand...

When it comes to the power of the press to achieve social justice and whatnot, I view this expose on the underhanded doing of agents and club officials to be of equal value to paparazzi snaps of B-list celebrities.

So far, at least. If they nail Redknapp for having millions in offshore accounts and having lied to the tax authorities about it, that's something worth investigating and writing about.
 
Apparently the meeting with Redknapp only lasted about 30 seconds. They'd barely even had time to take off their jackets, and the waiter was yet to even seat them, before he started rattling off all the various ways to scam money out of football, unprovoked by the journalists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint, Pelletron and fatletiss
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back