I dont think there is much distinction between Sky and that paper. It's always been a huge hypocrisy that the S*n is a pariah but Sky is tolerated...a convenient hypocrisy because of the cash injection of Sky.
You either have principle or you don't. If Anderson is adamant that Murdochs presence is marginalised in the city then he has to state that the club's sever links with his empire.
Anderson is a huge hypocrite and he's turned on this club and accused it of selling out the city. How bad is that when he can't even get the paper thrown out of shops in the city he has a large say over?
He's 'kin shameful.
I'll try and take each point, which are all valid. I can't put a position that the Sun and Sky aren't heavily linked. We know they are. The media is one big racket in all honesty and his played a filthy role in society of the last 30 years. The Sun wrote what they wrote after Hillsborough, and perhaps more relevantly they have published what is racist language against Barkley. I accept and suspect the main cause her has been ignorance but it's their job not to make these mistakes. Either way, in fairness Sky haven't said those things. I do think the principle of judging people/organisations on what they do as opposed who they are alligned to is important. That being said I'm not averse to a call to boycott sky too, but I'm not sure we are there yet in terms of winning the wider argument?
I agree with you that some of what Anderson is now saying is not helpful. Attacking Mckenzie and attacking Everton Football Club are different things. He could have done one without the other. I think language such as "selling the city out" is a bit rich and you are right leaves him open to the accusation you have made. I also think it makes Evertonian's defensive, so thats not a great intervention at all.
That being said if you ask me, hand on heart if I had to pick a side; either supporters, campaign groups around Hillsborough, now probably Ross Barkley who will have had to have read that nonsense (and lets not forget having had to put up with years of rubbish from pundits and coaches scapegoating him) wanting to ban the Sun, or Moshiri, Kenwright and Elstone trying to keep up cosy relations with Jim White I know which side I am intuitively on. Whichever way we look at it, we have sold ourselves down the river going cap in hand to blokes like Jim White. How can Kenwright give the speech he does at the Hillsborough memorial and go along with that? We've had to do it, to be blunt because some two bob Murdoch spin knows how to market our club better than our own people and Moshiri hasn't shown the balls to bin off the chaff from the previous regime. That inertia is allowing a space for Newspapers to target our young players who have been subject to a cowardly assault (which you rightly pointed out could have been a lot worse) and shift the discourse away from one of sympathy to one of guilt on Barkley's part.
Forget letting the City down and other hyperbolic phrases that don't help, but if the old regimes inadequacy and the new ones cowardice allows the Sun to remain an active part we have let Ross Barkley down.
As a final aside, there is no way on earth Liverpool FC allow any newspaper to get away with this to one of their players. There's no way Alex Fergusan allows this to happen to a United player (remember him going on the attack re Cantona). He'd have personally battered any Sun journalists trying to get in after this. We are a nice club but we lack that ruthless self preservation that exists in clubs that are the best currently. Inaction over this will re-enforce that. To think we would sell Ross Barkley down the river so Moshiri can keep his relationship going with his mate at Talk sport.
