Should Everton Ban The S*n

[weaf]

It's annoying how people seem to be concentrating on the racist element of it. I do agree that the gorilla comment was out of order but I’m willing to believe that although misguided, racism may not have been the intention. What he said about Liverpool was beyond the pale however. Firstly, making a derogatory (and incorrect comment about us all being on minimum wage...Like that's a problem even if it was true. It was sheer elitism. And then there was the drug dealer element and the fact that it was published on the eve of the Hillsborough anniversary by a journalist who should never be writing about Liverpool again, never mind a smear article!


I think the racism element has taken away from the real issue and the usual 'PC gone mad' brigade have diluted what he actually said.

 

[Durham Toffee]

It's annoying how people seem to be concentrating on the racist element of it. I do agree that the gorilla comment was out of order but I’m willing to believe that although misguided, racism may not have been the intention. What he said about Liverpool was beyond the pale however. Firstly, making a derogatory (and incorrect comment about us all being on minimum wage...Like that's a problem even if it was true. It was sheer elitism. And then there was the drug dealer element and the fact that it was published on the eve of the Hillsborough anniversary by a journalist who should never be writing about Liverpool again, never mind a smear article!


I think the racism element has taken away from the real issue and the usual 'PC gone mad' brigade have diluted what he actually said.

True, to a certain extent.

But the S*n as an organisation was well aware of Barkley's Nigerian roots - no matter how many times they deny it. They have produced at least two articles that specifically mention his Nigerian roots.

What beggars belief is that this then went through at least two, if not three layers of scrutiny and was still permitted to be published.

They knew damn well, in my opinion.

Let's no forget that McKenzie once produced an article in that rag ridiculing a black teacher and saying that he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children...because his skin colour obviously made him untrustworthy.

 

[Bluerover]

Now that the Club has dealt with the matter in a conclusive way, can I just make this point......

If one ignores an attention seeker one deprives it of necessary oxygen.

 

[Khalekan]

Gillette Soccer Saturday reviewing today's game - talk a lot about Ross Barkely and his nightclub incident but not a jot about the "scum" article. Executive gagging order no doubt

That is an interesting development.

I was wondering if it had been mentioned on talkSPORT as well.

@davek and others, myself included, always opposed us following the RS ban from a few months ago on the grounds of it would be a bit hypocritical to do so whilst still taking the Murdoch Sky shilling.

But a poster on here yesterday, I cannot remember whom, posted a contrary view that Sky TV and other Murdoch media entities should not be lumped in with The Sun ergo there is no contradiction in banning the rag but keeping in with Sky.

And I must admit that made sense to me.

But I am reading your post and also seeing posts on other forums alluding to the fact there seems to be a news blackout in other Murdoch outlets which does validate the belief that they are all one big cesspool.

A poster on one board raised a great point.

If a BBC person had said or oriented that Sky would have been all over it, he said.

And I was thinking of the furore over David Moyes's remarks to the woman interviewer a few weeks ago.

 

[SingBlue]

Received my weekly popbitch email on Thursday, and read this snippet:

" >> Product displacement <<
MacKenzie faces double chop

If you're one of the remaining few who can still bear to read Kelvin MacKenzie's column in the S*n, you'll maybe have wondered
why he's been mentioning his price comparison website, A Spokesman Said, so much. Well, it's because he desperately needs it to take off.

Kelv is facing an expensive divorce. Remember a couple of years back we reported that he was having an affair with a secretary at the S*n, and was all set to shack up with her until getting cold feet at the last minute? His wife has finally decided to give him the boot and is set to take him to the cleaners.

Presumably the reason he's working the self-promotion angle so hard is that he knows Rebekah Brooks is aching to bin his 300K a year column - cutting costs and helping to detoxify the S*n's brand in one easy move. He's hanging on by a thread (thanks to support from editor Tony Gallagher and owner Rupert Murdoch) so is almost literally trying to make hay while the Sun shines."

So, I live abroad, and can't recall when the reaction to McKenzie's missive about Barkley started in earnest, but for sure popbitch would've been on it if it was prior to their Thursday mass mail.

So, putting my tin foil hat on, if the speculation is correct and the rag wanted to sack him, that would explain the lack of editorial oversight, and the fact that wider media is now describing that column as his career obituary. Almost like Rent-a-quote Anderson did their job for them (although I find it hard to swallow the "detoxify their brand" line).

 

[davek]

That is an interesting development.

I was wondering if it had been mentioned on talkSPORT as well.

@davek and others, myself included, always opposed us following the RS ban from a few months ago on the grounds of it would be a bit hypocritical to do so whilst still taking the Murdoch Sky shilling.

But a poster on here yesterday, I cannot remember whom, posted a contrary view that Sky TV and other Murdoch media entities should not be lumped in with The Sun ergo there is no contradiction in banning the rag but keeping in with Sky.

And I must admit that made sense to me.

But I am reading your post and also seeing posts on other forums alluding to the fact there seems to be a news blackout in other Murdoch outlets which does validate the belief that they are all one big cesspool.

A poster on one board raised a great point.

If a BBC person had said or oriented that Sky would have been all over it, he said.

And I was thinking of the furore over David Moyes's remarks to the woman interviewer a few weeks ago.

There's no doubt whatsoever that they are all owned by a single news group. There is a huge hypocrisy going on. We all know it. But the cash that football clubs get from that source has the effect of fire-walling it from being recognised.

Murdoch's cash in all its guises should be refused if any consistency was being sought. It's an inconvenient truth.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Murdoch's cash in all its guises should be refused if any consistency was being sought

Easily said, but pretty much impossible to do.

Basically, we'd have to send Sky back all their TV money, so wouldn't be able to balance the books, would have to sell off all our best assets ( ie players ), wouldn't be able to replace them with anything like the same quality and would likely get relegated within two or three seasons.

But OK, at least it'd keep a few folk on the internet happy !

 

[davek]

Easily said, but pretty much impossible to do.

Basically, we'd have to send Sky back all their TV money, so wouldn't be able to balance the books, would have to sell off all our best assets ( ie players ), wouldn't be able to replace them with anything like the same quality and would likely get relegated within two or three seasons.

But OK, at least it'd keep a few folk on the internet happy !

The point is: Murdoch cash/Murdoch presence - do without it all or it looks like a hypocrisy.

We all know that there's a shabby turning of a blind eye on this.

 

[Woolly Blue]

We all know that there's a shabby turning of a blind eye on this.

Oh, absolutely, but if you were in charge you'd do exactly the same thing.

 

[davek]

Oh, absolutely, but if you were in charge you'd do exactly the same thing.

If I was in charge all the footy would be on the BBC.

 

[Woolly Blue]

If I was in charge all the footy would be on the BBC.

If you were in charge the country would join arms behind @bluestevon to topple you from your throne and we'd all be working for the Russians, who would close down the Sun and replace it with the Morning Star.


Or something ...

 

[hirons11]

Indeed - not only was the sun article an attack on Ross Barkely it was an attack on the city of Liverpool so that thick blert Thommo sits there and makes no comment regarding Kelvin McKenzies article!!! Makes Colin Murrys stance even more admirable in my view. Is he the only acceptable RS media person around?

 

[John23]

I thought it was very much a washing of the hands attempt

"Kelvin isn't part of the sports writing section, yet we've been banned for what he said"

Yep. That's it in a nutshell. Then they quickly moved on

 

[Nobby Nobbs]

Mackenzie's artical comfims to me why there will always be a North South devide and always will be, they hold the people of the North in complete contempt,

 

[ToffeeTim]

That is an interesting development.

I was wondering if it had been mentioned on talkSPORT as well.

@davek and others, myself included, always opposed us following the RS ban from a few months ago on the grounds of it would be a bit hypocritical to do so whilst still taking the Murdoch Sky shilling.

But a poster on here yesterday, I cannot remember whom, posted a contrary view that Sky TV and other Murdoch media entities should not be lumped in with The Sun ergo there is no contradiction in banning the rag but keeping in with Sky.

And I must admit that made sense to me.

But I am reading your post and also seeing posts on other forums alluding to the fact there seems to be a news blackout in other Murdoch outlets which does validate the belief that they are all one big cesspool.

A poster on one board raised a great point.

If a BBC person had said or oriented that Sky would have been all over it, he said.

And I was thinking of the furore over David Moyes's remarks to the woman interviewer a few weeks ago.

Maybe I'm taking a simplistic view and maybe it's because I'm younger, but to me the Sun published the stuff this week and in the aftermath of Hillsborough so the Sun have been rightly punished and banned. But I don't understand the clamour for banning all other media sources with theslightest ounce of connection. Sky didn't even exist in 89 as far as I'm aware.

But I dunno, maybe I'm being simplistic. Also I don't think it's been a complete media blackout on sky, I think Stelling said something like Ross has been in the headlines "some unwanted, some unwarranted". But yes it wasn't mentioned in any length. But then they were talking to Pinochhio and I zoned out mainly lol