Watching sunday supplement this morning, you can just hear the contempt in their voices when talking about Chelsea & Mourinho. Before then, they were talking about Liverpool and were all upbeat, but as soon as Chelsea/Mourinho are mentioned, they start discrediting us. Martin Lipton saying that Man City were considerably weaker when they played us etc, then one of the other journos talking about how our "young team" is all a myth, blah, blah, blah. 

 

Their dislike for us is so transparent, but is it always going to be like this? Will we ever get real 100% credit for anything we do? 

I suspect, given their age, the journalists grew up as Man U or Liverpool. Even if they come from London.

Mourinho will grudgingly earn their respect in the long run.

I can't see us becoming better liked with Roman and Jose here, we'll never be the apple of the journo's eyes like United or Liverpool, but we could MAYBE become less vilified than Arsenal if they're bought by some ruthless dictator that pays for their signings in puppy carcasses.

Watching sunday supplement this morning, you can just hear the contempt in their voices when talking about Chelsea & Mourinho. Before then, they were talking about Liverpool and were all upbeat, but as soon as Chelsea/Mourinho are mentioned, they start discrediting us. Martin Lipton saying that Man City were considerably weaker when they played us etc, then one of the other journos talking about how our "young team" is all a myth, blah, blah, blah.

Their dislike for us is so transparent, but is it always going to be like this? Will we ever get real 100% credit for anything we do?

isn't Martin lipton a Chelsea fan?!

isn't Martin lipton a Chelsea fan?!

Apparently, imagine how much more of a dick he would be if he didnt like us.

Apparently, imagine how much more of a dick he would be if he didnt like us.

true. oh well. f**k em all!

Knew this was an enigma thread before I even looked.

 

Martin Lipton saying that Man City were considerably weaker when they played us etc, then one of the other journos talking about how our "young team" is all a myth, blah, blah, blah.

Both of which are true.

I know I say this EVERY time one of these treads is started (every week) and I know im in the minority in thinking this but I just find the whole concept of 'the media hates Chelsea'' so worn and tiring and ultimately, false. Fans of every club think there is an agenda against them and that's a fact.

People obsess about it too much. If it really bothers people that much then turn it off. Don't watch, read or listen, you will enjoy life at lot more.

Why worry, as long as they are our No. 1 all is well with the world.

isn't Martin lipton a Chelsea fan?!

i thought he was a spurs fan?

Both of which are true.

I know I say this EVERY time one of these treads is started (every week) and I know im in the minority in thinking this but I just find the whole concept of 'the media hates Chelsea'' so worn and tiring and ultimately, false. Fans of every club think there is an agenda against them and that's a fact.

People obsess about it too much. If it really bothers people that much then turn it off. Don't watch, read or listen, you will enjoy life at lot more.

My sentiments exactly. Besides, even if it were true: so what? Does anyone lose any sleep over it?

Edited February 9, 201412 yr by Valerie

I know I say this EVERY time one of these treads is started (every week) and I know im in the minority in thinking this but I just find the whole concept of 'the media hates Chelsea'' so worn and tiring and ultimately, false. Fans of every club think there is an agenda against them and that's a fact.

 

So when Chelsea get criticised heavily for a draw against West Ham and United are given excuse after excuse for losing against Stoke you don't think there is some form of bias ?

 

When a lot of the media hoped a team from their own country would fail to win the CL so that "football would win" you don't feel like there is an agenda, even sometimes ?

i thought he was a spurs fan?

he's definitely the lead Chelsea correspondent for the mirror and 90% of his interactions on twitter are with Chelsea fans

My sentiments exactly. Besides, even if it were true: so what? Does anyone lose any sleep over it?

Quite clearly they do. Why, I have no idea.

People obsess over it. I just don't get it. It's nonsense. How many of these threads do we get?!!

I watched Sunday Supplement today and there was plenty of praise for Chelsea. Picking out two examples from journos of a supposed bias that were actually truthful is a bizarre way of backing up you're argument!

he's definitely the lead Chelsea correspondent for the mirror and 90% of his interactions on twitter are with Chelsea fans

Lipton is a spurs fan, 100%.

I think he's decent, always tries to see both sides of the story and is very interactive with supporters.

He gets a bad name from chelsea fans I think because of the Gigi Salmon flip flop thing on Chelsea TV news a few years ago which was an embarrassing abomination that Im staggered the club chose to air. I'm even more staggered that some chelsea fans seem to think it was a victory for the man over journalists.

If Lipton is a Chelsea fan, then so is John Aldridge.

 

Try this if you have any doubts:

 

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Tottenham-1-5-Chelsea-Martin-Atkinson-gives-ghost-goal-as-Blues-rout-sets-up-final-clash-with-Liverpool-article890897.html

Both of which are true.

I know I say this EVERY time one of these treads is started (every week) and I know im in the minority in thinking this but I just find the whole concept of 'the media hates Chelsea'' so worn and tiring and ultimately, false. Fans of every club think there is an agenda against them and that's a fact.

People obsess about it too much. If it really bothers people that much then turn it off. Don't watch, read or listen, you will enjoy life at lot more.

Couldn't agree more. Seems like everyday I come on here there's a journalist being mentioned because he said something "mean" about Chelsea and most of the time I have no idea who the guy even is. It's like people go out their way to look for it or something.

 

There's just as much praise for Chelsea and as there is criticisms, it's just that criticisms are what sell papers and are easier to find.  

 

So when Chelsea get criticised heavily for a draw against West Ham and United are given excuse after excuse for losing against Stoke you don't think there is some form of bias ?

 

When a lot of the media hoped a team from their own country would fail to win the CL so that "football would win" you don't feel like there is an agenda, even sometimes ?

We weren't criticised heavily. That's an exaggeration. If you want to see heavy criticism go back and read what was said during AVB's reign. 

 

Nothing wrong with wanting the best team to win, you are just interpreting it as them wanting Chelsea to fail. When we won it we got the praise and recognition we deserved so what's the problem? 

Bjd I know its a bugbear of yours anf I agree I think its odd that some people get really wound up by it. Doesnt really bother me and we shpuld take it as a compliment really. But you cant honestly believe there are no journalists with a bias against us. That sun sporrs editor even once admitted in his paper that he hates everything about us. Take the mirrors darren lewis the past couple of week. Hammered us for drawing with west ham saying we were now out of the title race and slagging mourinho off. This morning he is saying it was a bad day at the office for arsenal and doesnt mean anything as they have too many good players and a great manager.

Bjd I know its a bugbear of yours anf I agree I think its odd that some people get really wound up by it. Doesnt really bother me and we shpuld take it as a compliment really. But you cant honestly believe there are no journalists with a bias against us. That sun sporrs editor even once admitted in his paper that he hates everything about us. Take the mirrors darren lewis the past couple of week. Hammered us for drawing with west ham saying we were now out of the title race and slagging mourinho off. This morning he is saying it was a bad day at the office for arsenal and doesnt mean anything as they have too many good players and a great manager.

 

Of course, the other side of the coin is that some of them ignore us completely, even when it is part of their remit to give unbiased news coverage. Gary Richardson on the BBC is a classic example - specifically 5 Live this morning, when he uttered the word ‘Chelsea’ just once (on naming the teams Liverpool still had to play at home) and didn’t mention Hazard’s name at all in a sixty minute show!! Yes, we were told who scored all the goals against the Arse. Yes, we were reliably informed Liverpool were title contenders and on the way back under Rodgers. Yes, City’s squad was stronger than both those teams. But no, no confirmation of which club was at the top of the Premiership, or how they got there. It is joke journalism at its finest - go and listen to their podcast if you doubt such a high level of comedic content could be part of BBC Sports News broadcasting or even, as Richardson laughingly calls it, ’good sporting chat’.

For every one good journalists there are a hundred bad. I couldnt care less what clubs they have a biased towards most of them know sweet fa about the game.Roman,Jose and Chelsea will do for me and that is that.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that some of them ignore us completely, even when it is part of their remit to give unbiased news coverage. Gary Richardson on the BBC is a classic example - specifically 5 Live this morning, when he uttered the word ‘Chelsea’ just once (on naming the teams Liverpool still had to play at home) and didn’t mention Hazard’s name at all in a sixty minute show!! Yes, we were told who scored all the goals against the Arse. Yes, we were reliably informed Liverpool were title contenders and on the way back under Rodgers. Yes, City’s squad was stronger than both those teams. But no, no confirmation of which club was at the top of the Premiership, or how they got there. It is joke journalism at its finest - go and listen to their podcast if you doubt such a high level of comedic content could be part of BBC Sports News broadcasting or even, as Richardson laughingly calls it, ’good sporting chat’.

Think you need to focus on whats important my friend. This really shouldn't be bothering you quite as much as it clearly does. Don't listen. Don't read. Don't watch. No one is asking you to do any of these things. Go for a walk instead, youll feel all the better for it.

Edited February 9, 201412 yr by bjd

Of course, the other side of the coin is that some of them ignore us completely, even when it is part of their remit to give unbiased news coverage. Gary Richardson on the BBC is a classic example - specifically 5 Live this morning, when he uttered the word ‘Chelsea’ just once (on naming the teams Liverpool still had to play at home) and didn’t mention Hazard’s name at all in a sixty minute show!! Yes, we were told who scored all the goals against the Arse. Yes, we were reliably informed Liverpool were title contenders and on the way back under Rodgers. Yes, City’s squad was stronger than both those teams. But no, no confirmation of which club was at the top of the Premiership, or how they got there. It is joke journalism at its finest - go and listen to their podcast if you doubt such a high level of comedic content could be part of BBC Sports News broadcasting or even, as Richardson laughingly calls it, ’good sporting chat’.

I never ever listen to that show, as I can't stand Gary Richardson. Another reason is that he frequently invites Patrick Collins on.

These are the same nimrods who a week ago were nonchalantly predicting that the indestructible behemoth that is Citeh would hammer us. As if they were playing Yeovil and not the club who were a mere 3 points behind them, have won more than anyone else in the last decade and were being managed by the manager who has won more than anyone else in the last decade. It's not nice being made to look stupid.

 

Whatever anyone says about paranoia blah blah, clearly there are a number of hacks out there with a serious axe to grind against us and several of our players. Lipton (who generally isn't that bad), Ashton (who is) and a couple of others were on a Chelsea podcast a while back, and basically admitted that they're pissed that Roman doesn't talk to them. Why they feel Roman should be obliged to talk to them, they didn't elaborate. But then some were pissed when Bates treated them with the contempt they deserve, and some are no doubt pissed they have to write about a team they loathe constantly winning things.

The thing is, when these journalists say man city were weakened and what not, then they come out pre match and say chelsea will conclusively get beat; there's no credit given at all for our performance. Lipton says we could of been 5 goals up within 20 mins, then in the next breath says man city were severly weakened. So he gives credit, then pretty much takes it away from us. Forgetting to mention that we don't have a competent striker ourselves, leaving us weakened too.

the journos were hoping that mourinho's return would be a failure. the fact that it is a success isn't a story worth printing