I'm not sure, truly, that bias is what I was getting at. It is lazy journalism I'm attacking as much as anything. This lazy journalism will have an effect on all media, won't it?
Trusting the press ....
- Thread starter Channon walked on H2O
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure, truly, that bias is what I was getting at. It is lazy journalism I'm attacking as much as anything. This lazy journalism will have an effect on all media, won't it?
Did they do that on Saturday? I watched it, and I'm pretty sure they spent just as much time analysing Saints' play.
I don't think there's such a thing as "lazy journalism" really. Not in the major papers, anyway. They're very skilled in knowing exactly how to phrase everything so that they sell as many papers as they can. If the writing style seems lazy, it's probably because they're catering to lazy readers, i.e. people who don't want to think too much.
Oh okay, I don't read the website much. City's mistakes were probably the most notable moments in the game though.
Well I agree, but to many on here that's an indicator of outrageous anti-Saints bias.
Agreed. If your only knowledge of the game was that article, you would think that Asaints were incredibly lucky not to get stuffed by City.
End of the day, a person writes them reports on the game. It is their say, their opinion. Their job is to sell papers, if they do bad, they get sacked. Therefore they will write any old ****e that sells. Take everything you read ever in a newspaper with a pinch of salt, as there is no guarentee anything you are reading is true. This horse meat saga is getting in to a bit of a joke regarding it too, papers are just shoving out random percentages of horse that are in food! A lasagne is 99% horse, was the headline, so that leaves 1% pasta, tomato, cheese and other ingrediants. Obviously not true at all, but it will sell papers!
There was a lot of talk about Man City losing the title, but I also read reports stating how well Saints played and even one that said Cortese might have done well in picking Poch.
On MOTD2, Colin Murray was mentioning that he'd not come across a single Saints fan who'd wanted Adkins to leave, but that unlike Chelsea fans, we'd got on with it. And he hinted as to the possible reasons why.
But we were good weren't we? We know that, don't see any reason why we should pleased to see others confirm that. No need to fish for compliments. I would prefer to quietly go about our business. This might not be too easy if we continue to upset the form books.
We're not terribly interesting from a narrative perspective at the moment. "Team plays good football, trending toward solid-but-unspectacular position" doesn't really grab eyeballs like "champions fading badly, dropping points against teams at the bottom; what went wrong!?'
Refreshingly effusive coverage of Saints' win on the football weekly podcast: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...-weekly-podcast-manchester-united-real-madrid
Graphic analysis of Puncheon's celebration too...
Graphic analysis of Puncheon's celebration too...
I actually thought it was a poorly written and inaccurate article, and wrote such at the time in the comments section underneath the report.
Good old "Auntie" !!
(Just don't mention miles, inches, feet, the net deficit in trade with the EU, or UKIP)
Hey! I might agree with many of their attitudes, but that doesn't make them (or me) neutral and unbiased!
BTW they're quite reasonable with the footy!
I read the BBC report on Saturday eveing and couldn't believe how much it was all about City's mistakes rather than giving us credit. Why did they make those mistakes for the goals? Because we were pressing them so much they were panicking. We forced those mistakes. Even though there wasn't anyone near Barry when he put it past his own goal he hadn't had anytime on the ball for the whole match and probably thought someone was lurking which is why he panicked. That is the whole idea of pressing the opposition and it would have been fair for that to be portrayed in that article.
With regards to write ups in the papers, come monday the focus will have moved away from the actual match and what happened and the press will be picking the bones out of the fall out from the match. This is ultimatley that City have now blown their title defence, so although dissapointed I wouldn't expect it to be about Saints.
With regards to write ups in the papers, come monday the focus will have moved away from the actual match and what happened and the press will be picking the bones out of the fall out from the match. This is ultimatley that City have now blown their title defence, so although dissapointed I wouldn't expect it to be about Saints.
Good old "Auntie" !!
(Just don't mention miles, inches, feet, the net deficit in trade with the EU, or UKIP)
Yeah they're massively biased in favour of UKIP aren't they? Despite them having zero MPs, and only 0.1% of councillors, Nigel Farage is never absent from any conversation about the EU on any BBC programme. You just can't buy that kind of publicity.
I'm sure that's what you meant
Yeah they're massively biased in favour of UKIP aren't they? Despite them having zero MPs, and only 0.1% of councillors, Nigel Farage is never absent from any conversation about the EU on any BBC programme. You just can't buy that kind of publicity.
I'm sure that's what you meant
Ukip came second in the last European elections so its only reasonable that any debate about Europe involves the leader of that particulary party. It could be that they top the polls in the next European elections,. What do you want the BBC to say " we're having a debate on Europe but won't include the party that came second when europe was put to a vote, because they have no representation at westminister".
Also it isn't one poor City performance they are reporting on. There is an underlying problem that has seen poor performances in general (with the odd good one dropped in) over the last couple of months that has ended their defence of the league title. That's news in our sports pages.
- Status