Boycotting the meeja
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,807
- Location
- State of Volatile Apathy
Okay, so what impact would this have on the rights and wrongs of showing the programme?
It is quite common to report on allegative subject matter in mainstream media as long 'proper' terminology is stuck to (i.e. they don't draw any conclusions without undue evidence). Which is why I'm concerned that without having any in-depth knowledge of the programme you keep referring to allegations they may or may not have made.
Could just as easily be they just presented facts more or less properly and Fergie is upset at the impression that these facts collected together give, which is not really anybody else's fault but his son's...
Did the programme start some phone-in poll asking if Fergie's son should be convicted?
The obvious legal avenue for Fergie and son to take has been opted against, so I don't quite understand what the law has to do with this.
The allegations were made when the programme was aired. Why else bother showing it? The fact that the BBC bothered to pursue it is proof that they are alleging something.
If there was enough evidence shown in the programme, the FA would have pursued it, they're compelled to. The fact that they didn't is proof enough that it wasn't conclusive.
So basically, the programme was based on "what ifs" and "maybes" - and whilst a lot of people are happy with that, clearly SAF isn't, and he's perfectly entitled to be.
LOL, i'm sure the BBC presented these "facts" in such a way as to imply as much as possible - after all that's what sells the programme. But as said, it wasn't presented well enough to get the appropriate authorities involved?
Did the programme start some phone-in poll asking if Fergie's son should be convicted?
The obvious legal avenue for Fergie and son to take has been opted against, so I don't quite understand what the law has to do with this.
Because the law states that a person is innocent until proven guilty, this is clear and has been for a long time. And evidently, the son was not convicted or even tried in front of the FA for what he did. Doesn't that say something to you?
Allegations can be incredibly damaging to anyone. Sometimes the media need to accept that with the power they have over the public, they can't just go around slinging mud at everything that moves and hoping some of it sticks.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Yeah, right, of course they would
Alex Ferguson is certainly perfectly entitled to be unhappy about the allegations made about his son.
As I understand it, even the toothless FA don't agree that he is perfectly entitled to boycott the BBC, as a result of which they periodically impose nominal fines on him and tell him that he is being very naughty and silly. That is about all they are prepared to say or do about the Saintly (but wildly temperamental) Alex Ferguson
The bungs bit was never proven but it was clear his son profited from his position at the club. It was clearly a confict of interest and was stopped at the request of the shareholders when it was revealed. I don't think they ever actually did anything illegal but it was certainly unethical.
As I understand it, even the toothless FA don't agree that he is perfectly entitled to boycott the BBC, as a result of which they periodically impose nominal fines on him and tell him that he is being very naughty and silly. That is about all they are prepared to say or do about the Saintly (but wildly temperamental) Alex Ferguson
So why don't you think they come down on him like a ton of bricks?
Unethical according to whom?
And hello? This is football. Unethical things go on all the time. A lot of clubs spend a lot of their time seeing exactly how far they can push the rules without breaking them, especially with regards to transfers.
Unethical enough to get most people sacked for gross misconduct if they did it. Most business's will not let you have any direct involvement with purchases from family member and it's banned outright in the public sector. Fergie only survived as he's so important to the club. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of pulling players back from Preston as I doubt that's in the best interests of the club or players.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,807
- Location
- State of Volatile Apathy
I don't think you have a clear indication of what the allegations, if any, in the programme are, or of the legally required factual basis in journalism.
And I'm well aware of basic legal tenets, I just don't understand why you're reminding us of them here when the law has absolutely no involvement in this issue.
Hello.
Just because murder occurs every day, it doesn't mean we ignore stealing; reducing something by proxy is illogical unless you can justify clear and direct parallels that justify it.
In Fergie's case it is probably unique in both the nature and level of which these actions have been carried out. I'm glad someone brought up him cancelling the loans to his son's (ex-)club, it's another example of Fergie blurring the personal/professional line.
Football quite obviously isn't most business though is it? comparing it to retail or finance or accounting isn't at all helpful as the contrasts are so stark.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,807
- Location
- State of Volatile Apathy
What 'contrasts' specifically are you referring to?
Comparisons can very easily be made to the interior operations of a club as it is a profit-making business headed by staff and upper-level managers who oversee the development and occasional transfer of assets (players).
Comparisons can very easily be made to the interior operations of a club as it is a profit-making business headed by staff and upper-level managers who oversee the development and occasional transfer of assets (players).
While it's very possible that Taggart recalled the players out of spite, clubs are very particular about who they loan young players to and a change of manager massively changes the nature of the deal.
Take Jack Wilshere's loan to Bolton as an example; there's not a chance in hell that Wenger would have loaned a player like Wilshere to Bolton while Fat Sam or Megson were managing there.
if you can't see the contrasts then you're beyond help.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,807
- Location
- State of Volatile Apathy
Well you're right in that you can't rule out that this was a consideration, but somehow I doubt that a change in manager would change the coaching staff and weekly tactics to such a degree that it warranted terminating the players' loans for their individual welfare.
Good point though, I have a feeling Fergie might've used this one in a press conference if he was asked about it regardless of what actually happened.
it does have some uses (sorry if a repost)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...le-linesman-Apprentice-star-Karren-Brady.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01_04/sky.mp3
hopefully bye bye to both of them
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...le-linesman-Apprentice-star-Karren-Brady.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01_04/sky.mp3
hopefully bye bye to both of them
I don't get why you're not reading what i've said.
Do we, or do we not operate on an "innocent until proven guilty" system? This is true whether it's for murder, assault, or even something like misconduct on a football field. The player cannot be charged unless the allegation is proven beyond all doubt.
Now, as I said above, the BBC failed to do this - otherwise, as the ruling body over football in England, the FA would have been compelled to step in. It's happened before regarding allegations in sport, hell it was media evidence just last year that led to the charging of two people in relation to World Cup votes.
My point is that i'd not defend SAF if his son was indeed guilty of what was alleged. But at this point it looks like nothing more than a desperate smear campaign for viewing figures. If the son "stretched" the rules without breaking them then you can hardly blame him - after all it goes on in every sport. It's only when the rules are clearly broken that there is a problem.
Hello?
We don't ignore it - we investigate, and if there is evidence, the person responsible is charged. I challenge you to find an example of someone not being charged for a crime when there is irrefutable proof that he or she committed it.
Again, which rules have been broken?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It's good to see the barmy Daily Wail take a stand on sexism
As to the ageing Sky Sports dinosaurs Gray & Keys - they don't think it's all over - it will be soon
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 20,773
- Location
- North Yorkshire
Cold do with freshening up on SS now you mention it.
I much prefer BBC's line up , I don't why I just do
I much prefer BBC's line up , I don't why I just do