Boycotting the meeja

stockhausen

stockhausen

stockhausen

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,130
The match report of last night's Leeds versus Arsenal FA Cup tie which appears above is written by the Guardian's football correspondent, Kevin McCarra. It's accurate, balanced and elegantly done – in the usual tradition of our football reporting. Except in one respect: McCarra wasn't at the match. We are banned from Elland Road.

According to a club spokesman: "The chairman will not accredit you. He won't let you in. You are banned. Indefinitely." These are the words of Ken Bates and inside Leeds United his word is law. (The Grauniad)
Click to expand...
Meanwhile Alex Ferguson continues to refuse to give post-match interviews to the BBC because they had the temerity to suggest that his son might be less than totally scrupulous despite outraged tut-tutting from the Premier League and the League Managers Association.

What a pair of mammary glands ;)
 
I've seen this a few times now, 'grauniad'= Guardian?

Edit - as much as the media likes to live by the principle that 'the people have a right to know' about news it just doesn't apply these days. Too many newspapers have been busted for e.g. invasion of privacy etc., and frankly 90% of it is embellished nonsense or just plain useless anyway. Seriously, I don't care what Beckham had for breakfast.

Which is a pity really because of course like years ago there are important issues happening around the world which do need reporting on. So strong reasons exist as to why the press should be allowed, where necessary to ruthlessly go about collecting news.

However these reasons don't really apply to just a few organisations reporting on football. If Fergie was blanking out all media then that is an issue since he's a public figure. He's just blanking out one organisation, and for ffs, we're in the information age and more than one channel covers the football. If people want his opinion they click onto another website / Sky for a bit. Way too much has been made of him ignoring the BBC.
 
Last edited:
Isn't Alex Ferguson supposed to talk to the media after the game as part of some media contract? At least that's what I've heard anyway.

It wouldn't surprise me if that's true, as he gets away with everything anyway!
 
They all must speak to any news organisation that is there, so e.g. BBC/ESPN/Eurosport/Sky etc., but Fergie is ignoring the BBC. Apparently he gets fined a little each time he doesn't speak to them, but considering how much money he makes I don't think it's an incentive at all. :p

Tunney said:
Yes, it's based on a misspelling that once appeared in the Guardian.
Click to expand...

Ah.

Like Chris 'pelanty' Waddle.
 
edwardcasbon1 said:
Isn't Alex Ferguson supposed to talk to the media after the game as part of some media contract? At least that's what I've heard anyway.

It wouldn't surprise me if that's true, as he gets away with everything anyway!
Click to expand...

He doesn't do interviews solely with the BBC. He does press conferences etc, but as you may have noticed on Match Of The Day it is always Mile Phelan or another coach, never SAF. He is supposed to but I don't think he really cares about what ever nourishment he receives each time he doesn't attend it.
 
I'm pretty sure Fergie is fined for not talking to BBC and that United pay the fine for him. Think I've read/heard it's around 10k a season.
 
Greenlizard0 said:
... If Fergie was blanking out all media then that is an issue since he's a public figure. He's just blanking out one organisation, and for ffs, we're in the information age and more than one channel covers the football. ...
Click to expand...
Remind me which "other" TV channel covers football and doesn't carry endless adverts for on-line gambling, or Ford, or McDonalds or inflatable friends for the socially inadequate :confused:

All Managers complain that referees are incompetent and biased; Ferguson just happens to be one of the most vocal and personally, I would like to hear his actual words and watch his apoplectic fit on MOTD rather than read all about it in next day's paper :p


Tunney said:
No, it's not. The league sells media rights and shares the money between the clubs. In return, the clubs have to deal with the press accordingly. ...
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I thought :confused:
 
I don't think there's any kind of exclusive agreement that Leeds have to talk to the Guardian, but its a bit like celebrities who hawk themselves round the media complaining when something nasty gets printed. You can't have it both ways, Ken.

Morba said:
Up to them what they do and who they speak to.
Click to expand...
Does the fact its not illegal to do make it magically less childish? I wasn't aware of that.
 
Greenlizard0 said:
as much as the media likes to live by the principle that 'the people have a right to know' about news it just doesn't apply these days
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Panorama is an example of how the press use it to do whatever the hell they want.

Ferguson refused to give interviews to the BBC after a documentary called "Father and Son" was shown on UK television in 2004. According to an article in The Independent newspaper, the documentary had "portrayed his agent son, Jason, as somebody who exploited his father's influence and position to his own ends in the transfer market." The same newspaper article made it clear that "Ferguson Jnr" was never found guilty of any wrong-doing, and it quoted Ferguson Senior as follows: "They [the BBC] did a story about my son that was whole lot of nonsense. It all made-up stuff and 'brown paper bags' and all that kind of carry-on. It was a horrible attack on my son's honour and he should never have been accused of that.".[56] Any interviews on BBC programmes such as Match of the Day have subsequently been done by his assistants (currently Mike Phelan). However, under new Premiership rules intended for the 2010–11 season, Ferguson will apparently be required to end his BBC boycott.[57] Ferguson has however refused to end his boycott and Manchester United will pay the resulting fines [58]
Click to expand...

So the BBC did a documentary about something that was unproven. Despite being unproven, it didn't stop them smearing it across the media?

You make your bed, you lie in it.
 
bayo000 said:
I'm pretty sure Fergie is fined for not talking to BBC and that United pay the fine for him. Think I've read/heard it's around 10k a season.
Click to expand...

Would say that the fines aren't working then wouldn't you?

I he continues to boycott then I would suggest a different form of punishment is in order as the fines aren't much of a deterrent, maybe touchline bans or not pay Man Utd the media rights money.
 
Tute said:
... So the BBC did a documentary about something that was unproven. ...
Click to expand...
I am amazed that Ferguson (or Ferguson Jr. with Daddy's dough) didn't sue the BBC for libel . . . perhaps they didn't want the case to go to court for some obscure reason, I wonder what that might be :confused:

Incidentally, I believe that Man. Utd. ended all contacts with Jason Ferguson's "Elite" management company round about the same time as the BBC programme . . . I wonder if there migfht be any connection :confused:


With the publication of Manchester United's internal review of recent transfer deals imminent, a BBC THREE investigation raises serious new questions about the business relationship between the club and Sir Alex Ferguson's football agent son, Jason.

Focusing on two of the transfer deals highlighted by the much documented '99 questions' produced by United's largest shareholders earlier this year, the programme, Fergie And Son reveals a series of key findings. (BBC Press Office LINK)
Click to expand...


I still maintain that Ken Bates and Alex Ferguson are a right pair of mammary glands :p
 
stockhausen said:
I am amazed that Ferguson (or Ferguson Jr. with Daddy's dough) didn't sue the BBC for libel . . . perhaps they didn't want the case to go to court for some obscure reason, I wonder what that might be :confused:

Incidentally, I believe that Man. Utd. ended all contacts with Jason Ferguson's "Elite" management company round about the same time as the BBC programme . . . I wonder if there migfht be any connection :confused:
Click to expand...

Because that's the media for you - the damage is done when the story is printed/shown. It's not like "innocent until proven guilty" is ever adhered to in this country, whether it's the populace or certain parts of the law.

The BBC ran with an unproven story and got burned for it. If they cared about SAF views after matches they could always try apologising?

I still maintain that Ken Bates and Alex Ferguson are a right pair of mammary glands :p
Click to expand...

You would.

[Edit] To be fair to Ken, i'd ban the Guardian from any property of mine too.
 
Last edited:
Tute said:
Because that's the media for you - the damage is done when the story is printed/shown. It's not like "innocent until proven guilty" is ever adhered to in this country, whether it's the populace or certain parts of the law. ...
Click to expand...
I guess that a fairly effective way to disprove false allegations is to contest them. Ferguson didn't actually do this did he? However, he has certainly done a cracking job of moving on and burying the BBC's story hasn't he? ;)

Tute said:
... The BBC ... got burned for [running an unproven story]. ...
Click to expand...
You mean they "got burned" by Ferguson throwing a six year long sulk :confused:


As with you, Bates and the Guardian, I entirely applaud the boycott by Liverpool FC fans of Murdoch's God-awful rag The Sun following Kelvin Mackenzie's slander of them over Hillsborough :)
 
stockhausen said:
I guess that a fairly effective way to disprove false allegations is to contest them. Ferguson didn't actually do this did he? However, he has certainly done a cracking job of moving on and burying the BBC's story hasn't he? ;)
Click to expand...

It still doesn't prove that it was true. I wonder if it would be any different if your son was accused in the paper of something unproven?

You mean they "got burned" by Ferguson throwing a six year long sulk :confused:
Click to expand...

They're the ones with the problem. Otherwise, why not just leave it be?

As with you, Bates and the Guardian, I entirely applaud the boycott by Liverpool FC fans of Murdoch's God-awful rag The Sun following Kelvin Mackenzie's slander of them over Hillsborough :)
Click to expand...

Admittedly a bit before my time but Mackenzie was made to apologise. From reading the story though, it epitomises everything wrong with that ****-poor heap of paper and it's phone-tapping sister rag.
 
Why are you assuming that the BBC's story was wrong, given that you don't know any of detail behind the programme?

Surely that's no better than any of us assuming it must be correct?
 
I'm not saying it was wrong - i'm saying it's unproven.

After all - "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". Until SAF's son gets convicted, in the eyes of the law he's innocent.

Doesn't stop the pitchfork-grabbing though does it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom