Tale from the past that makes you question certain journos motives regarding John Stones coverage

[ijjysmith]

Nope. We'll have to agree to disagree because I think you're blatantly wrong.

Our players don't just get linked away because they're good.

Our players get linked away because agents think they can get more money for their clients at richer clubs. And richer clubs use the media to exert pressure on clubs they perceive to be financially weaker than them.

This is not 'oh woe is us'. This is not a 9/11 conspiracy theory. There is overwhelming evidence this goes on. We're not the only ones it affects, they do this to other clubs too.

Again, I'd like to differentiate that this is not tabloids being tabloids. This is taking it one step further - the sports journalism equivalent of insider trading. This isn't even McCarthy/Mirallas type speculative nonsense.

This is specific journos being leaned on by agents & clubs in a concerted campaign, with business practice info leaked to them to build pressure. Why is Matt Law the one who constantly tells the world Chelsea are about to bid XYZ for Stones? He's been fed this by the Chelsea hierarchy. This isn't a scoop, this is essentially propaganda/battle plan masquerading as a scoop. What I'm asking people to consider is his motives for doing this, because I think it is nativity in the extreme to believe he's 'just doing his job for journalistic love & a wage'. There's no attempt to research EFC's side of things and the story he reports is constantly from the Chelsea pov.

There's a difference between reporting news and trying to engineer it, and this is the latter, with certain journalists.

I'm clearly not wrong.

Our players get linked away because they're good.

 

[ijjysmith]

Take newspapers right out of the whole things. Imagine they didn't exist.

Chelsea would still want Stones because he's good and they clearly need a centre back.

Put the papers back in, of course they pick up on it. That's their job.

 

[ste d' indica]

The interesting thing is before going on I had a discussion with the producer making the point that the presenters need to do more research before making wild claims on radio, that they were most unprofessional.

In the course of my call the female presenter qualified her comment with I haven't checked this for awhile (or something similar). Touched a nerve.

I think journalism across the board is in a sad state of affairs at the moment, but sports journalism is particularly poor. As someone who has spent a couple of years working really hard on research for a post grad, checking and cross-checking sources, finding counter arguments, weighing up opinion, it annoys me the sloppy approaches taken by alleged professionals.

Honestly mate, you did well to keep your cool with them, particularly Wright, he had no intention of listening to your arguments, solely concerned with his own point of view.

 

[pablo 1878]

Take newspapers right out of the whole things. Imagine they didn't exist.

Chelsea would still want Stones because he's good and they clearly need a centre back.

Put the papers back in, of course they pick up on it. That's their job.

You're right, but there are games going on in the background that we have got no control over. Chelsea made their original bid, which was not only turned down by Everton, we supposedly told them categorically that the player is not for sale. Martinez has even made several public statements to this effect. Chelsea still want the player, which is fair enough.

Where it all gets murky for me is when a certain journalist, almost like a dog with a bone, will not give it up. Giving a punch by punch update of Chelsea's next bids. Why would they do this if they've been told the player is not for sale.

I'll finally get to my point; I think when we told Chelsea that Stones wasn't for sale, we added the words "for less than £40 million". It feels like we've given them enough reason to think they'll still get the player, and their man in the media knows this.

 

[ijjysmith]

You're right, but there are games going on in the background that we have got no control over. Chelsea made their original bid, which was not only turned down by Everton, we supposedly told them categorically that the player is not for sale. Martinez has even made several public statements to this effect. Chelsea still want the player, which is fair enough.

Where it all gets murky for me is when a certain journalist, almost like a dog with a bone, will not give it up. Giving a punch by punch update of Chelsea's next bids. Why would they do this if they've been told the player is not for sale.

I'll finally get to my point; I think when we told Chelsea that Stones wasn't for sale, we added the words "for less than £40 million". It feels like we've given them enough reason to think they'll still get the player, and their man in the media knows this.

Definitely mate. The press are awful and clearly make stuff up. We see it season after season.

I think I'm just struggling to get why people are that arsed about it all.

Chelsea are a popular club (Christ knows why!) so writing stuff about them, fictional or not, will help sell their papers.

 

[The Esk]

I think journalism across the board is in a sad state of affairs at the moment, but sports journalism is particularly poor. As someone who has spent a couple of years working really hard on research for a post grad, checking and cross-checking sources, finding counter arguments, weighing up opinion, it annoys me the sloppy approaches taken by alleged professionals.

Honestly mate, you did well to keep your cool with them, particularly Wright, he had no intention of listening to your arguments, solely concerned with his own point of view.

I agree totally, I wonder how much media training these guys get? Very little I would imagine.

However they do provide a platform for informed opinion once you get on, and that's how they should be used.

 

[ijjysmith]

I agree totally, I wonder how much media training these guys get? Very little I would imagine.

However they do provide a platform for informed opinion once you get on, and that's how they should be used.

Not really mate. A journalism uni course teaches the basic. There is very little ethics involved. A lot of theory that doesn't really encompass real life.

Then you take into account a qualified journo going to a paper like the Mirror for example, being told what to do by his manager there. I imagine it goes against nearly everything they are taught.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

In the modern game we are . Only the top 4 ,Liverpool and for some strange reason Spurs count

I agree with you but crying about the conspiracy theory that referees favour the big 4 as it is in the best interests of the PL as a whole is just absolute poppycock.

btw I agree we are in the second tier of clubs in the PL and we need to break back out of it.

 

[BoysInBlue]

I'm clearly not wrong.

Our players get linked away because they're good.

Again we'll have to agree to disagree. I think you're wrong because you're being so dismissive of the role agents & clubs play on leaning on journos to deliver their propaganda/send messages, in exchange for favours or some kind of gain.

That's what I object to. It does matter because people lose their jobs over that stuff. It clearly matters.