What's new

Sky/ESPN bias against Chelsea

Status
Not open for further replies.
WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE LOVE EACHOTHER AND OUR CLUB!!!!!!

 
Fantastic thread. Even the old axis of evil lynchpin G18 has made an appearance.

But this "Far worse goes on. You just don't get to hear about it. For me, there is a clear anti-Chelsea agenda in the media which means our guys are targeted whereas a blind eye is often turned towards others' indiscretions"

is one of my all-time favourite comments on this topic.

 
Should I take it that you're one of those who are of the opinion, firstly that supporters of every club are equally deluded in their perception of the way they are treated by the media?

I'll have to disagree. Without wading through the entire argument all over again, suffice it to say that the weight of adverse publicity directed towards Chelsea FC is mainly because we're an easy target.

What I'm still waiting for is for someone who shares your opinion to demonstrate that there is indeed a proportional amount of adverse media attention given towards other English clubs compared to that directed towards ourselves.

 
ignore him tommy.

liam is well known on this forum for this type of non-nonsense.

excuse me I have stut-stutter.

 
Tommy Docherty said:
Should I take it that you're one of those who are of the opinion, firstly that supporters of every club are equally deluded in their perception of the way they are treated by the media?

I'll have to disagree. Without wading through the entire argument all over again, suffice it to say that the weight of adverse publicity directed towards Chelsea FC is mainly because we're an easy target.

What I'm still waiting for is for someone who shares your opinion to demonstrate that there is indeed a proportional amount of adverse media attention given towards other English clubs compared to that directed towards ourselves.
Click to expand...
Anybody that disagrees with that only needs to look at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2006743/Ashley-Cole-leaves-rented-LA-home-looking-like-pig-sty.html

Ashley Cole staying in an LA apartment on holiday with a few mates and after an inevitable night out they slander him and only him, even when other high profile footballers like SWP were staying with him.

And..

This... http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3079258/.html

"Theresa, wearing a Chelsea shirt bearing the badge of the Headhunters football thugs"

As you'll see even in an event where innocent people have been killed and a man (albeit murderer) is laid to rest they still can't resist having a dig at Chelsea FC. What does the shirt she's wearing have anything to do with it? But of course, any opportunity to slander/ have a dig at our club is taken up without any thought or discretion at all.

 
One thing Abamovich has not done well in his time at the club is handle the media. His first press bloke was that idiot Goldberg from News of the World who was just rubbish. Then we had Peter Kenyon, corporate schmoozer par excellence though he may have been, every time he opened his mouth in public a kitten died in heaven. Abramovich's complete silence doesn't help either, it allows the media to just make stuff up. I'm surprised that such an astute man as Roman undoubtedly is hasn't realised the value of getting the media on your side. There's a formula for this. Get some smoothy in who takes journos out to expensive lunches, butter them up a bit, grease a few palms etc. Public image, or 'brand' as we have to call it nowadays does matter. Not only does it make the club more atractive to potential sponsors thus increasng revenues, but 'nice' clubs tend to get more favourable treatment from the UEFAs of this world.

As cartel-busters we were never going to be popular with the cartel, but I do think we could have improved things somewhat if we'd played the media game a bit more skilfully.

 
SilverPolish said:
One thing Abamovich has not done well in his time at the club is handle the media. His first press bloke was that idiot Goldberg from News of the World who was just rubbish. Then we had Peter Kenyon, corporate schmoozer par excellence though he may have been, every time he opened his mouth in public a kitten died in heaven. Abramovich's complete silence doesn't help either, it allows the media to just make stuff up. I'm surprised that such an astute man as Roman undoubtedly is hasn't realised the value of getting the media on your side. There's a formula for this. Get some smoothy in who takes journos out to expensive lunches, butter them up a bit, grease a few palms etc. Public image, or 'brand' as we have to call it nowadays does matter. Not only does it make the club more atractive to potential sponsors thus increasng revenues, but 'nice' clubs tend to get more favourable treatment from the UEFAs of this world.

As cartel-busters we were never going to be popular with the cartel, but I do think we could have improved things somewhat if we'd played the media game a bit more skilfully.
Click to expand...
Russians generally speaking are notoriously known for being discrete and less open to the media so I don't blame Roman for that. I'd rather Chelsea FC as a whole boycott the media. No interviews (unless on Chelsea TV), nothing.

 
Myles_91 said:
Russians generally speaking are notoriously known for being discrete and less open to the media so I don't blame Roman for that. I'd rather Chelsea FC as a whole boycott the media. No interviews (unless on Chelsea TV), nothing.
Click to expand...
I certainly don't blame Abramovich for not exposing himself to the madness of the press pack, but all the more reason for him to have made a definitive public declaration of intent. This could have been made under his control - Chelsea TV for example - and it would have provided a framework for subsequent speculations about him. By saying nothing at all he has allowed the space for more lurid memes to become established.

At risk of trading stereotypes, aren't Russians supposed to be good at intrigue? The media is there to be won over, let's not call it corruption, instead call it a mutually beneficial re-alignment of interests.

Boycott the media? Well firstly there are contractual obligations which apply, even if you are Fergie. Also, there will be clauses in all contracts with sponsors about media exposure. These things are very closely monitored, the more mentions that Samsung say, get from their association with Chelsea the higher the rewards the club gets. Boycotting the media would be an exercise in self harm.

No, the answer is to win them over, by any means necessary. I seriously hope there is a policy in place for this. Perhaps the post-JT Chelsea world would be the time to launch it.

 
No. Pandering to a bias media to gain favour is just fundamentally wrong. It goes against what the media is supposed to stand for and people shouldn't embrace it they should be contesting it.

 
Stim said:
No. Pandering to a bias media to gain favour is just fundamentally wrong. It goes against what the media is supposed to stand for and people shouldn't embrace it they should be contesting it.
Click to expand...
What the media should stand for and what the media does stand for are two very different things. It becomes a question of having to deal with the fundamental wrongness of the reality.

 
For the benefit of those who argue that most, if not all, supporters think that their club get a rough deal from the media. While this may be true, the law of averages demands that at least one set of supporters is going to be correct.

And that's us.

 
I'm pretty sure you're joking, but just in case, the law of averages makes no such demand. But we should never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

 
Liam said:
I'm pretty sure you're joking, but just in case, the law of averages makes no such demand. But we should never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
Incredible how short the memories of some are. When RA took over and started spending the media ran stories of "Chelsea ruining football" almost daily, and took constant chances to dig at Mourinho rendering him inferior to Wenger and Ferguson throughout the early years of his tenure. And of course we later had to endure the nonsense of "When he (Roman) leaves" and they took endless opportunities to try and defame his character and fortune.

We have the facts and have outlined numerous examples to you.

Objectivity is nigh on impossible in Sports Journalism. Any Sports Journalist that threatened to try and uncover the continuous bias of refereeing decisions/selections in favour of United would have to change career within 24 hours, equally any journalist that came & tried to defend JT over the race saga or praise his character or charitable nature would have had to do the same.

The biggest investor in this cash cow - The "Premier League" is Sky. Yes the same Sky that tried to buy out Manchester United entirely but were initially blocked from doing so by Govt intervention. The same Sky owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns NewsCorp. If the media can be biased in favour of a team, why can't they be biased against a team.

You only need to look at the biggest critics of Chelsea in Sports Journalism:

Neil Ashton (Crystal Palace Fan)

Darren Lewis (Spurs Fan)

Martin Lipton (Spurs Fan)

Ian Ridley (Fulham Fan)

Patrick Barclay (Fulham Fan w/soft spot for Arsenal)

John Cross (Arsenal Fan)

If you think in light of their club allegiances they can't be biased against us there's something wrong here. Contrast this to Martin Samuel who is a West Ham fan by admission but with a strange soft spot for us as his late father liked our teams of the 50s & 60s and his wife is also Chelsea. This allows him to be far less bias than most on all things Chelsea.

With the number of PROVEN Spurs, Liverpool and West Ham fans (and United sympathisers) in the media as well as influence from clubs like Fulham, Arsenal, Palace I find it incredible that anybody could deny bias against Chelsea. I remember a City v Chelsea game a few years back on Setanta Sports where they had Joe Royle and Kevin Keegan (both ex-City on the panel), there was another ex-City affiliate as well. How can you have 3 ex-City and 0 ex-Chelsea with no bias? It's impossible The Guardian even have and always have had their own Arsenal section and the Evening Standard has been renowned for it's Arsenal/Spurs bias since the 30s.

Journalists can only write what they can get away with. We're the smallest of 3/4 massive clubs in England and 10 or so in Europe so we are an easy target We're also owned by an Eastern European owner (traditionally hated by the media) and have a traditionally Working class (again, hated by the media) fanbase with a group of mainly foreign players (again, hated by the media) with the spine of our team consisting of Ashley Cole, John Terry and Frank Lampard (again, all hated by the media).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Liam said:
I'm pretty sure you're joking, but just in case, the law of averages makes no such demand. But we should never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
I wasn't actually, but I wasn't talking about conspiracies either. The media aren't out to get us. But we do get a rough ride

Ok, I'll try to explain. The media do have an agenda, and that agenda is to attract viewers/readers according on the nature of the media in question. For the press in particular, attracting a readership and actually selling newspapers has become more difficult since the advent of the Internet. With the sheer amount of free information available, the wonder is that anyone still pays for a newspaper.

Historically, there has been a dumbing down in the overall quality of journalism since the advent of quasi-newspapers, the Sun, The Star and The Sport, for example. This dumbing down has been exacerbated of late with the rise of the cult of the celebrity. Who's shagging who sells a lot more papers than a trade agreement that affect us all, whether we know it or not.

Furthermore, the waters are now muddied somewhat by the fact that Premier League Footballers are celebrities, and are therefore subject to the same kind of attention as singers, actors and that indefinable category of "celeb" who are mostly famous for being famous.

And so given the current climate, the media in general - with very few exceptions - set out to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Compare the attention given to Rio Ferdinand and John Terry following their recent respective tribunals. Both players were found guilty of practically the same offence. John Terry continues to be villified, yet hardly a word is written against Rio Ferdinand. To take another example. John Terry was stripped of the England captaincy following allegations of an affair with an ex-team-mates ex-girlfriend. Ryan Giggs on the other hand, is known to have had an affair with his brother's wife. Demands for Giggs to be stripped of the Team GB Captaincy were noticeable by their non-existence.

Hypocrisy? Certainly. Proof of conspiracy, that they're all out to get us? Not a chance. It's simply that there are far more non-Chelsea fans than Chelsea fans. Like it or not there are far more Man U fans especially in this country and worldwide. Then you have the Ferguson factor. The press in general are sh*t scared of the old scroat.

Comparison with comments on articles concerning the recent Clattenburg incident and other Chelsea related articles are in themselves illustrative of this. Ferguson has come out on the side of Clattenburg, The highest rated comments tend to be those that are the most abusive towards the club. In one of the Mail/Clattenburg articles, for instance - I think by Des Kelly - the very highest rated was one that stated: "Chelsea are a vile club in every way", or words to that effect. On another article, published only yesterday, written by Neil Ashton about the possibility of Pep Guardiola becoming our next manager, the lowest rated comment last time I checked was something like "Chelsea FC plastic club, plastic fans."

So why the discrepancy? Did the Mail actually skew the votes on the Kelly article and forget to do so on the Ashton story? Nope. It's simply that Man U fans in their droves have a greater interest in Clatteburg related articles. It's often the same with articles concerning contentious issues between ourselves and Liverpool. The highest rated comments are those that run the club down. "Normal". i.e. less contentious articles have the occasional Arsenal, Man U fan etc having a go but the vast majority of the comments will be by Chelsea fans, and therefore the highest rated will be those that are in favour of the club.

So there you have it. There is no anti-Chelsea conspiracy. The media are not out to get us. They are simply trying to sell papers, attract viewers and so on. And if slagging off Chelsea FC and in doing so pandering to the prejudices of the numerically superior opposition is what it takes to increase sales, then that's what they'll do.

As a footnote to the above: With the overall dumbing down that inevitably results from a policy of appealing to the lowest common denominator, when it comes to sports journalism - football journalism in the UK in particular, bar the occasional exception, it makes very little difference which paper you choose to read. What you're actually getting is little more than the same sh*t, different flavour.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent post Tommy. I can't argue against any of your points.

Hopefully you will allow that fans of a club are more sensitive to criticism of their own club and tend not to notice, at least not at a visceral level, when other clubs are criticised.

We are getting a lot of flak at the moment, at least some of it deserved, but we are also getting a lot of praise for the quality of our football which is really what the whole thing should be about.

 
Liam said:
Excellent post Tommy. I can't argue against any of your points.

Hopefully you will allow that fans of a club are more sensitive to criticism of their own club and tend not to notice, at least not at a visceral level, when other clubs are criticised.

We are getting a lot of flak at the moment, at least some of it deserved, but we are also getting a lot of praise for the quality of our football which is really what the whole thing should be about.
Click to expand...
Certainly. The ability to turn an at least partially blind eye is practically a pre-reqiusite for being a football supporter. Liverpool fans believe that the "London media" are against them, supporters of less successful clubs regard us as part of the priveliged Sky Elite. "Big clubs [including ourselves] always get the decisions" they say. Incredible but true.

And all the while the "traditional" bigger clubs, most notably Arsenal and Liverpool regard us as upstarts, resentfully bitter at our successes over the past decade. You can almost hear them wailing: "It should have been us". And Man U fans simply believe in their diving right to win everything is to win. That any player who chooses not to sign for them must be either a mercenary or corrupt, and that anyone who dares describe their "we do what we want" mentality as arrogant is simply seething with jealousy..

Oh yes, turning a blind eye comes perfectly naturally to the average football supporter. As does the tendency to make sweeping generalisations.

 
Don't really feel the need to start a new topic on this but...

Has anyone else noticed the insane anti-Chelsea bias on the BBC?

Throughout the Terry affair they were pretty making a story of some random player/ex-player saying how bad Terry's actions were. Then, after the clattenburg incident, no articles quotes from people saying the same kinds of things about Clattenburg, instead they pulled out quotes from everyone they could accusing Chelsea of lying.

Meanwhile, today, whilst most media outlets are saying about the impact Moses had yesterday or how RDM was quoted as saying it was a deserved win, the BBC take a quote out of context that says "we were lucky". They even had to paraphrase it.

There's a clear editorial stance going on here in an organisation mandated to be balanced.

 
Regarding bias on the BBC.

I remember at the end of last year when the first knock-out stage draw was made for the Champions League when we drew Napoli. This was also the day that both the Manchester clubs were in the draw for the Europa League cup. The main BBC football website was all about the Europa League and who both MANC clubs were drawn against. Not one thing about the Champions League, except a small link in the corner.

It was almost as if the Champions League didn't exist.

Also is it me or do ITV not like screening our Champions League games either? Well except until the end of last season when we were the only English side left in.

 
warney1 said:
Regarding bias on the BBC.

I remember at the end of last year when the first knock-out stage draw was made for the Champions League when we drew Napoli. This was also the day that both the Manchester clubs were in the draw for the Europa League cup. The main BBC football website was all about the Europa League and who both MANC clubs were drawn against. Not one thing about the Champions League, except a small link in the corner.

It was almost as if the Champions League didn't exist.

Also is it me or do ITV not like screening our Champions League games either? Well except until the end of last season when we were the only English side left in.
Click to expand...
It is strange that we haven't been on ITV so far but hopefully it stays that way. Can't stand that brummy c**t Adrian Chiles

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top