Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

The back page of the Mirror is unacceptable.

 

But I am also concerned that the Club has not only inexplicably lost a flimsy case against us at the tribunal, but the PR department has also appeared to lose the media battle to put our reasonable case across.

 

JW will not be pleased.

 

agree but with the rare exception the media will not go near the counter arguments for the same reason the internet 'neutrals' or the 'man on the street' will avoid challenging the F.A conclusion because of the sensitvity of the subject. The PR line put out by the FA relies on people's fear of being labelled racist by association. I've experienced it already. If you try to exlain to someone with a vague idea of what's going on then you become a racist in their eyes too.

Not many journalists have the cojones to go out on a limb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't bought the Mirror in years, and even when I did it was mainly out of some misguided belief that it was the paper of the 'working man'. The truth is that it's a pile 'o shite, marginally less offensive than the Sun but still full of jingoistic bollocks and trashy zeleb stories.

 

I noted with a certain glee today that, hot on the heels of the Mirror's latest bout of moralising, one of their journo's gave evidence that phone hacking was rampant at the rag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest San Don
The back page of the Mirror is unacceptable.

 

But I am also concerned that the Club has not only inexplicably lost a flimsy case against us at the tribunal, but the PR department has also appeared to lose the media battle to put our reasonable case across.

 

JW will not be pleased.

 

How the fuck could we mount a 'media battle' when the FA ordered us not to make comments about it you fucking dullard?

 

And how the fuck do you 'know' JW (who he, JWH!?) will not be pleased? You dont fucking know that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy. Just don't buy tabloids. We can gather enough information about the world to form an independant opinion from multiple sources these days so these rags with shrinking readerships could easily be made redundant. Just don't buy them. Or exercise your free will and be selective

 

I'd agree but it's not just the tabloids - even the 'quality' papers have the lowest common denominator type journalists like the useless Patrick Barclay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why any Liverpool supporter bought that fucking man u fans rag in the first place is beyond me.

 

You would'nt believe just how fucking thick some of our own fans are! I had a house painter doing the outside of our house just last week. He'd been telling me what a big red he was an how he used to have a season ticket in the Kop. He sits down to have his butties at lunchtime an pulls out a fucking copy of The S*n!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
It doesn't shock, it disgusts.

 

Absolutely. I'm not shocked that a tabloid has printed that; it's hardly a surprise to see that sort of paper coming out with that bullshit. However, I reserve the right to be utterly sick with what was said. It was fucking grim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Apart from those who sought to exonerate Suarez before they knew the facts, people reserved judgment on the Uruguayan until the tribunal made its decision.

 

Ac_ywgFCQAAv5B8.jpg:large

 

Worra load of bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I might be a lot of things,

 

but I'm not a gullible soft cunt like you,

 

I was never taken in by Maddocks (I'm little Christy's mate) or "cut them some slack" Bascombe,

 

I'd trust any cunt on the planet before a fickle journalist,

 

How old are you?

 

50?

 

Ye soft cunt, wise up, I thought all you Delly mob were "on the ball"

 

Delly mob. Ha! I have never been taken in by maddocks, bascombe, or any of them. If I'm not sure I'm right about something I check your opinion on it. If my opinion is the complete opposite to yours, I can relax. You are right about my age though. I'm still gutted about the Orwell closing down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

 

The difference is that Terry will have to be proven guilty, and then judged by a group of his peers, rather than 'found' guilty. Suarez was found guilty rather than proven or judged by an impartial panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What The Mirror are doing is simple; they are giving the masses (non LFC fans) what they want with the contraversial headline and then reeling our gullible fans back with this new headline expecting a pat on the back and a new Brian Reade article.

 

Brian Reade aside The Mirror has been ,for years, living of the fact that they are not The S*n and people praise them for it and buy the product; they don't give a toss about us and never had. Its just to sell papers. When we all realise this and stop buying it things may change, but I doubt it.

 

I only buy local papers these days or pick up info from twitter, but I ain't paying for it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think the Guardian has been far worse in its coverage, the Mirror at least has tabloid behaviour and tabloid readers, the Guardian is supposed to present a fair and balanced liberal point of view.

 

Instead it has ignored John Barnes comments (as have almost all the other papers), whilst covering Paul McGrath's, it has offered no balance and no sense of balance. Which considering this is a paper that is so insistent upon cultural understanding makes their narrative far worse in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...