Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.
The Shed End - Chelsea FC Forums

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Is There a Media Campaign Against Chelsea?

Chelsea forever1
in General Chelsea FC

Featured Replies

This is all a bit exhausting. Someone rattles off a couple of hundred words of conjecture- someone else disagrees and fires back with amother 300 word volley- threats to take it outside- there's too many people disappearing up there own backsides for my liking. I thought all this forum malarky was supposed to be fun?

Totally agree RPB it's on the edge of turning into psueds corner

I don't think you should limit it to BD though Zola. Davey Baby has also written just as long posts (which I don't have a problem with, personally) and also been rude (right hand comment).

True, but for some reason I just feel Blue Daze revels in the controversy and loves an argument. If he was indeed been banned before from another forum that maybe tells its own story?

Davey Baby clearly loves the Blues, that much is clear as day and he doesnt seem to pick fights with many folk, and has generally been a quality poster.. One could forgive for feeling a little suspicious about some of the stuff BD has written. Thats all I will say on it.... its the weekend!

Edited by Zola

Sweetie, when I copy and pasted the headline I did so from start to finish, I did not leave anything out. Whether they edited it later to add his name first is irrelvent, when I copied it - that's how it was. Just saying, if I'm going to be corrected and accused of seeking an agenda, I can't leave out what wasn't there.

 

Honey, I apologise. They obviously edited it after you saw it and I think you'd be one of the last people I'd accuse of having an agenda.

 

The point I made is still valid though because with the amount of content on in newspapers and especially on websites which are (clearly and embarrassingly on my part) constantly updated then there is enough for someone to find something to fit any view they have. The people to whom I was referring with the 'agenda' bit know who they are I think and it definitely wasn't you.

 

So yeah, sorry. Poorly worded post.

True, but for some reason I just feel Blue Daze revels in the controversy and loves an argument. If he was indeed been banned before from another forum that maybe tells its own story?

Davey Baby clearly loves the Blues, that much is clear as day and he doesnt seem to pick fights with many folk, and has generally been a quality poster.. One could forgive for feeling a little suspicious about some of the stuff BD has written. Thats all I will say on it.... its the weekend!

 

I don't dislike an argument. I could quite easily say 'isn't Azpi great', 'isn't JT a legend/leader' but that's not fun. What I don't know is whether Willian is that great, and other people present opinions on why he's in the team (because of his hair....kidding, before anyone starts).

 

But I don't like things that seem hypocritical and I do have a tendency to look at both sides of an issue. Sometimes I'll play devil's advocate and I'll say when I am, but I tend to try and be an open and honest guy.

 

But I don't particularly like having my support for this club questioned. See I'll question whether Willian or Cahill should play on here but I'll be the first to start a chant at the Bridge in support of them. I'll disagree with a supporter on the interwebs but I'll be the first to get a round in or even help them get a ticket if I can. The one thing that I believe is that I'm the same off here as I am on here. It's not an act.

 

What exactly are the suspicious bits?

Edited by Blue Daze

You do have a point. As much as I bleat on about objective reporting (too much Aaron Sorkin methinks), 

 

 

It was at this point I fell in love with PloKoon.

 

You do have a point. As much as I bleat on about objective reporting (too much Aaron Sorkin methinks), in reality there is no such thing as a genuinely objective standpoint; everyone is biased one way or another, to different extents, whether they know it or not, and as much as they might try not to be. I suppose to some extent I don't even mind a somewhat biased writer, as long as he or she possesses genuine insight, can relate their bias using humour, and don't simply paint their opinion as fact, without being capable of recognising the limitations of their own perception, a limitation possessed by every single human being in the history of the world.

 

Call me a rhetorical snob, but I just don't like to see paint-by-numbers articles, even if they are praising us, and it very much galls me that the quality writers are now drowned out by a sea of trivial nonsense, designed purely to generate clicks, sales, and hence money. (Huxley wasn't wrong...) For me the entertainment comes from the game itself (and to a lesser extent the banter/celery-throwing with teams I don't like); in my opinion we really don't need a constructed wrestling-style backstory to every game.

 

I suppose I should have phrased it differently - it isn't necessarily calculated, neutral reporting I'm looking for, but quality reporting, and the more that the press caters to the lowest common denominator. Qualitative insight is impossible to measure and impossible to force, but you know it when you see it, and the more we ignore it in favour of nonsense, the rarer it is going to become.

 

This is why I enjoy the tactics writers so much, they for the most part ignore all the sensationalised mess and its limited effect on what happens on the pitch, and concentrate on the actual science of the game. You're never going to learn anything about the nature of football by listening to the endless sea of condemnations and rebuttals which come from the less gifted writers, and those who pretend there is some moral element to top-level football beyond trying with every modicum of effort in a team's psyche and every trick up a player/manager's sleeve to defeat the opposition.

 

The tactics writers (the good ones at least - it's very easy to throw some stats at the wall and pretend that they alone constitute an argument) simply analyse how successful a team was at winning, and describe exactly what it is they did to manage it, but it does require qualitative understanding to manage it, which is why I am so scornful of arguments which are entirely based on whoscored.com. That, for me, is quality football writing - a genuine distillation of 90 minutes of football to acquire the key facts and events of the game, and an appreciation of the footballing narrative, which is wordless.

 

Anyway, I feel like I'm veering away from the point here - my fundamental argument was that I don't believe there is a genuine co-ordinated effort to throw us off our game (which we seem to agree on). If there is a numerical disrepancy between positive articles and negative articles about Chelsea (which there may well be) it is only because it makes them money.

 

I think you are right that José knows exactly what he is doing in terms of creating a narrative, but I'm not sure he particularly cares what it is, I think he just enjoys the cloud cover he gets to actually do his job while the press are squabbling about a complete non-issue that he has created himself. It's why it is so enjoyable when he talks about what he actually did to win the game (e.g. "I played so-and-so because he possesses such-and-such a quality") rather than surreptitiously encouraging a false story which does nothing to help us understand the game. I suppose there's an irony in that if there is a genuine campaign to use the media to a certain team's advantage or disadvantage, it is José himself.

 

Then again, if we are still top at the end of the season, I'm sure I won't be complaining...

 

Fantastic post and I definitely agree. I like a bit of the old 'wrestling back-story' stuff though. There's not a tremendous amount of difference between some of the pantomime stuff that goes on. Football is a TV show nowadays, storylines carry-over, heroes rise, villains fall slip.

 

Do enjoy the likes of Nevin or Neville breaking down tactics though and really adding another dimension to the game whist the likes of Adrian Durham and his TalkSport acolytes can f**k off most of the time. I genuinely think there are some good, honest sportswriters around like Henry Winter, Martin Samuel (occasionally), Jeff Powell and even Neil Ashton once in a while, whom I seriously don't think conceive agendas or storylines that the rest of the media adhere to.

 

The one thing Jose does is make a writer's job easier. Same went for Fergie and Clough. At times they'll love him, then they'll hate him but they'll never want rid of him.

Edited by Blue Daze

 

No word of a lie....the bloke who wrote that and his missus are both Chelsea supporters. 

 

In his defence he also wrote this

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2905219/Jose-Mourinho-giving-youth-chance-form-Kurt-Zouma-French-youngster-heir-John-Terry-s-throne.html

 

and this

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2884839/Cesc-Fabregas-makes-assists-16-Premier-League-games-Chelsea-Jack-Wilshere-entire-Arsenal-career.html

Maybe we could get the United Nations involved to sort out all this forum feuding. Anyone got Kofi Annans number. Course in the old days when a gentlemans honour was offended they'd sort it out with a duel. Maybe some of the posters settle things with the old pistols at dawn on Parsons Green. Either that or a boxing ring in the Goose. Now that would be funny

Maybe we could get the United Nations involved to sort out all this forum feuding. Anyone got Kofi Annans number. Course in the old days when a gentlemans honour was offended they'd sort it out with a duel. Maybe some of the posters settle things with the old pistols at dawn on Parsons Green. Either that or a boxing ring in the Goose. Now that would be funny

Someone has just told me to F orf. I've explained we don't speak to each other like that.

Someone has just told me to F orf. I've explained we don't speak to each other like that.

 

 

What?? On this site??  Set the Duchess on him!  Or failing that send for the Dowager Duchess - Moi!

 

There's the video mate. 40 seconds in.

 

I've watched it about 5 times and I can't tell whose head goes into the other's. That might just be me taking the negative side of the controversy but to me that's a 50-50 square up isn't it?

 

It's like this tweet by Zabaleta after the City game 

 

zabaleta.jpg

 

Well that's because it wasn't half as bad in real time

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adiez2huIZ0

 

 

Also the media made very little of Costa's hands being around his throat from what I recall.

 

 

I'd personally say that Gerrard was clearly the aggressor in leading with his head ( the bit at the end of the video is the most damning). Costa I thought at the time came out of that flashpoint with a little credit in not feigning injury when Gerrards head brushes his face... something I also have to say about McCarthy the other night. Ivans alleged headbutt ...( turned nicely into a bite overnight) was worthy of a yellow only , the precedent having been set in the Liverpool match and if the media accepted that decision by their silence clearly they should have been asking why it wasnt a yellow for Ivanovic and not demanding a red or is that too simplistic?

 

As for the Zabaletta incident in real time it was a nothing incident looking at the tweet even the injured party didn't know it had happened?

Edited by charierre

To be honest, I've started to enjoy the hatred that some journalists and pundits have for this club, Jose is twisting them around his finger and their hatred is assisting our title challenge. I'm done being bothered by the negativity now.

Mate, I want to let you in on something. The night before last he sent me a PM....

hmmm....I don't want to get involved in a bunfight with anyone, I'm pretty new here  :smile:

 

But discussing a pm is not on.  You just don't do it.  Not just netiquette (which it is) but a form of honour.  Unless it's spam or threatening, obviously.

 

I'm not saying he's right or you're wrong or you're wrong or he's right.   A pm is a pm.

hmmm....I don't want to get involved in a bunfight with anyone, I'm pretty new here  :smile:

 

But discussing a pm is not on.  You just don't do it.  Not just netiquette (which it is) but a form of honour.  Unless it's spam or threatening, obviously.

 

I'm not saying he's right or you're wrong or you're wrong or he's right.   A pm is a pm.

 

I'm quite happy with my conduct but if you're not, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. It's all about opinions I guess.

 

I had no intention of saying anything, but then, the day after I received the PM, Blue Daze posted this in response to something Shelly had said ..

 

"Anyway I've apologised to Davey for asking him if he had any working knowledge of the issue he was discussing and I think he's taken that on board so there's no need to continue talking about it."

 

For me, that was disingenuous at best, so I felt compelled to speak. I said my piece and allowed the person concerned and everybody else to have their say and I think that should be the end of the matter.

 

I think it's time to move on and discuss the topic in hand and respect everybody's differing opinions. I think we should show everybody respect even if we don't respect their views, because we all support the same club and because that's generally what we should do in life. We all have a laugh and a joke but when people feel attacked they're likely to strike back.

 

A line should be drawn under this one I feel. I'm not one to hold grudges because as Zola (our Zola not THE Zola) once eloquently put it, "It's not healthy".

 

Wise words from one of our own there.

Getting back to the topic in hand, I'm still amazed at the coverage the "Ivanovic incident" gained.

 

Once I'd seen the footage properly, I said he wouldn't get a ban, because if he did, that would prove beyond any doubt that the FA were being dictated to by the media, and Jose would go for broke.

 

Jose had already, prior to the Everton game in his press conference, had a pop at the FA, citing their inconsistencies in such matters and the fact that, as he sees it, we often get a raw deal in such matters. Again I agree with him on both counts.

 

He would have embarrassed the FA further if they had banned Ivanovic and they knew it, and that's why I feel he's right to speak, because nobody is speaking out on our behalf, or very few anyway, and there should be accountability.

 

I'm glad we have a manager that stands up for us. I'm glad we have a manager that's not scared.

 

Where the media is concerned there's a gross injustice where Chelsea are concerned I feel. We all know, every one of us, that that was never a red card for Ivanovic, and yet the amount of coverage it received was astonishing, and for what, there was no real violent conduct, god only knows what will happen when there is.

 

For me, players can now go into games with Chelsea, knowing if they're aggressive they won't be called out on it (witness Gerrard and Skrtel against us) whereas if we are there will be a rumpus in the media that will go on and on, just as referees know if they make a mistake in our favour there will be a rumpus but if they make a mistake against us there won't quite be the same level of scrutiny.

 

The fact that we had commentators in the major newspapers, and on television, claiming Ivanovic should be banned smacks of an agenda for me.

 

The best thing we can do as fans is maybe accept this is the state of play and not let it anger us or ruin our enjoyment of what is a fantastic season, so far. We are hated, we are the bogeyman as far as the media is concerned, and there seems little we can do about it. Those blaming Jose are misguided IMO because the media have been unrelenting with us for long before Jose joined a second time, but maybe it's getting worse.

 

It's getting worse as we get better.

 

Maybe we should be philosophical about it, it is what it is, we're in a very privileged and fortunate position, and if there are injustices, maybe we should see them as a by-product and laugh at those who are so bitter towards us.

 

It's getting beyond a joke. Maybe we should laugh it off.

 

It would certainly be better for our blood pressure.

I think it's great.  

 

They've been setting us up to fail all season.  Will we go unbeaten, will we win everything.   Quite a high bar, isn't it?

 

It's all sh*t.   It's a straw man.     

 

So there is a campaign, but the media use this with people all the time.  Sports, entertainment and everything else.   Blow up someone's balloon in the eyes of the public, hoping it bursts later on and they can feed on it.  Cantona said it best about the seagulls.

Getting back to the topic in hand, I'm still amazed at the coverage the "Ivanovic incident" gained.

 

Once I'd seen the footage properly, I said he wouldn't get a ban, because if he did, that would prove beyond any doubt that the FA were being dictated to by the media, and Jose would go for broke.

 

Jose had already, prior to the Everton game in his press conference, had a pop at the FA, citing their inconsistencies in such matters and the fact that, as he sees it, we often get a raw deal in such matters. Again I agree with him on both counts.

 

He would have embarrassed the FA further if they had banned Ivanovic and they knew it, and that's why I feel he's right to speak, because nobody is speaking out on our behalf, or very few anyway, and there should be accountability.

 

I'm glad we have a manager that stands up for us. I'm glad we have a manager that's not scared.

 

Where the media is concerned there's a gross injustice where Chelsea are concerned I feel. We all know, every one of us, that that was never a red card for Ivanovic, and yet the amount of coverage it received was astonishing, and for what, there was no real violent conduct, god only knows what will happen when there is.

 

For me, players can now go into games with Chelsea, knowing if they're aggressive they won't be called out on it (witness Gerrard and Skrtel against us) whereas if we are there will be a rumpus in the media that will go on and on, just as referees know if they make a mistake in our favour there will be a rumpus but if they make a mistake against us there won't quite be the same level of scrutiny.

 

The fact that we had commentators in the major newspapers, and on television, claiming Ivanovic should be banned smacks of an agenda for me.

 

The best thing we can do as fans is maybe accept this is the state of play and not let it anger us or ruin our enjoyment of what is a fantastic season, so far. We are hated, we are the bogeyman as far as the media is concerned, and there seems little we can do about it. Those blaming Jose are misguided IMO because the media have been unrelenting with us for long before Jose joined a second time, but maybe it's getting worse.

 

It's getting worse as we get better.

 

Maybe we should be philosophical about it, it is what it is, we're in a very privileged and fortunate position, and if there are injustices, maybe we should see them as a by-product and laugh at those who are so bitter towards us.

 

It's getting beyond a joke. Maybe we should laugh it off.

 

It would certainly be better for our blood pressure.

 

After that excellent post DB, and after a lot of self-restraint on my part regarding this thread, I can’t hold back from adding my own two-pence-worth any longer. For me, a previous oft-repeated post [taken from the Guardian] put the most skewed slant on matters so far, by highlighting Jose’s only miscalculation amidst all those justifiable grievances. Perceptive as the rest of this guy’s post was, it included the following…
 
‘… he [Jose] was wrong when he alleged that there was a conspiracy in the media against Chelsea: conspiracies have to be hidden.’ 
 
Now, if I remember correctly, Jose used the word ‘campaign’, not ‘conspiracy’ and he was right to choose his words carefully. However, where I think he went wrong was to to then allow the mocking ’infamy, infamy, they’ve got it in for me!’ brigade to hijack the quote and let them [the media] run with the rewrite completely unchecked - his self-imposed silence working against him in this instance and playing right into their hands. Misuse of the word ‘conspiracy’ not only gave the media a golden opportunity to scoff at the very idea of a hidden agenda, but it also allowed these self-proclaimed purveyors of truth to slide out of any criticism of themselves [we report everything and hide nothing] and thereafter concentrate on the theme of officialdom being Jose’s primary target. 
 
In effect, nothing could have been further from the truth, indeed from the outset Jose had tried to explain as much with his ‘having sympathy for the referees’ comment, a clear reference to media pressure being put on them to punish Chelsea [as opposed to others in similar circumstances] and one that has been totally ignored by our detractors in punditry and print from start to finish. And talking of finish, this ’drive’ [a better description?] to cast us in a bad light whenever possible will only end when Chelsea fulfil the media’s inflated levels of expectation for the club on all fronts, be they development of youth through the Academy, adopting an attractive style of play, continued adherence to FFP, a repeat of the conquering of Europe in the Champions League, or the winning of domestic trophies on a more regular [ManU-esque] basis. Regrettably, until such time as we have blanket success over this little lot, controversy will always surround the field we are seen to be most at fault in and duly publicised with relish.

 

The fact that we had commentators in the major newspapers, and on television, claiming Ivanovic should be banned smacks of an agenda for me.

 

 

The fact is that there were a range of views which is what the media tends to amass. Some were against a ban, others were in favour of it. What that does is give people something to identify with and support whatever viewpoint thy hold.

 

But that's been my point the whole way through and it's not just based on the evidence I've posted in this thread but also from years of experience of studying the media and working within it. That's not me being a Charlie big-bollocks but honest about how my views are informed.

 

Anyway, I've been lied about by you but I think we should move on. Like we've both said, we're all Chelsea supporters at the end of the day and we can of course have disagreements about certain issues yet still come together every other week to go to the Bridge and sing out hearts out for the club. So I would like to bury the hatchet by offering to buy you a pint at the next Chelsea home game, or even the League Cup final where we can shake hands like men and laugh about the silly disagreements we have had.

 

As for this thread, of course I disagree with the notion but if it raises the ire of others such that they will use it to fire their passions when supporting this club then that's fine. People can believe whatever they wish.

I agree, the same applies to the players, if they feel that there may be a slight agenda, then it can work in their favour.

As for this thread, of course I disagree with the notion but if it raises the ire of others such that they will use it to fire their passions when supporting this club then that's fine. People can believe whatever they wish.

The fact is that there were a range of views which is what the media tends to amass. Some were against a ban, others were in favour of it. What that does is give people something to identify with and support whatever viewpoint thy hold.

 

But that's been my point the whole way through and it's not just based on the evidence I've posted in this thread but also from years of experience of studying the media and working within it. That's not me being a Charlie big-bollocks but honest about how my views are informed.

 

Yes, but here's the thing from my point of view. Those individuals claiming Ivanovic should be banned are only claiming such a ludicrous thing because we're the media's bogeyman. Do you think if it had been any other club there'd have even been discussing it let alone adopting such a ludicrous stance? It's Chelsea so they go to town, discuss it for hour on end, and make ludicrous demands, knowing they can get away with it. You yourself have said the media needs a bogeyman, or a scapegoat, because that's what people want. It's far easier for those individuals you speak of to spout such bile and baloney when they know they're going after public enemy number one, and believe me, we are public enemy number one. An Everton player does to a Chelsea player what Ivanovic did to McCarthy and no way would anyone be saying he should be banned, because that position has no credibility, unless you're incredibly biased. That was never a sending off in a million years.

 

Those individuals will be thinking, "I better not say that, everyone will think I'm a crank, everyone will hate me". With Chelsea, they think, "The public will lap this up", and as a result their perspective is skewed. That's why pundits like Gary Neville are so refreshing and universally admired, because they say what they see, their perspective isn't skewed by bias, or by what people want to hear.

 

Let me give you an example. Remember when Portugal knocked England out of the World Cup at the 2006 WC I think it was. Rooney was deservedly sent off, for stamping on Carvalho's nuts. The Portuguese players surrounded the ref who brandished the red card. Rooney walked off and Ronaldo winked at the Portuguese bench. The media in this country went mad and Ronaldo became the fall guy, as if he were to blame for the fact Rooney had lost his head. He winked, that was Ronaldo's crime, and he was crucified, by the media, the media drummed up the story and Ronaldo became public enemy number one. I repeat, because of the media. The real culprit was Rooney. What had harmed England, the red or the wink? The red, Rooney had cost England not Ronaldo. If an English player had winked in the same scenario everybody would have just laughed and said, "Ooh, isn't he a cheeky chappy?".

 

I mean, it was a bloody wink.

 

So, what happens next game, Portugal play France, in the quarters or the semis, and the game is covered on BBC, and everybody, but everybody in the studio is rooting for France and bitching about Portugal and Ronaldo in particular. France win a penalty, there is contact but not enough to send Henry to ground but he goes to ground anyway. Definite penalty for France says everyone, all the experts in the studio, the commentator, everyone. Later on Ronaldo goes to ground in the box, again, contact, this time he dived, according to everyone, the papers the next day were full of it, what a disgrace he was etcetera. Nobody, but nobody, suggested Henry had gone down too easily for his pen. The media had drummed up the hate, and then they applied one rule for one and another for another. That's how it worked. 

 

I'm sure I don't have to point out the parallels with Chelsea. You see once your team is knocked out, or if they're not playing, you still need someone to support, and that team has become Anyone But Chelsea. The media have drummed up the hate, and now they apply their own special kind of justice, because they know everyone is skewed when it comes to us, they hate us, therefore you can get away with saying ludicrous things, like, "Ooh he winked, let's kill him". This is how it works.

 

They can flog us publicly because they know everyone is baying for blood. We're the bogeyman and they need their scapegoat. You said people need a scapegoat and you said the media provide them with one. For me, that was the only accurate thing you've said in relation to this argument, and you defeated your own argument when you said it, because that backs up our point of view, not yours. That defeats your whole argument in my view.

 

You can say, "Oh it was only individuals saying Ivanovic should be banned", we can say, "Funny how that individual plays for Chelsea, funny how it's always Chelsea isn't it, would they be coming out with such guff if he played for anyone else?". Also, and perhaps more pertinently, there are the headlines in all the newspapers the next day, driving home the same agenda, talking about a nothing incident. Are there such hysterical reactions in relation to other clubs? Really? It was nothing out of the ordinary and it was nothing. Many posters on this thread in recent days have cited similar instances with other clubs which went unnoticed, by and large, by the media. Unnoticed.

 

It reminds me of Ronaldo all those years ago. The media whip up the hate, the public lap it up, they have their bogeyman and the media go to town, taking liberties. That's how the media works and I don't need a degree in media studies to know it. That's not me belittling your degree, or whatever it is you have, truly, well done you for getting it, I mean that, but I still don't think that makes you right on this one.

 

I think the evidence is pretty conclusive, personally. I think there's an agenda against Chelsea in the media, and I think it's plain to see.

Yes, but here's the thing from my point of view. Those individuals claiming Ivanovic should be banned are only claiming such a ludicrous thing because we're the media's bogeyman. Do you think if it had been any other club there'd have even been discussing it let alone adopting such a ludicrous stance? It's Chelsea so they go to town, discuss it for hour on end, and make ludicrous demands, knowing they can get away with it. You yourself have said the media needs a bogeyman, or a scapegoat, because that's what people want. It's far easier for those individuals you speak of to spout such bile and baloney when they know they're going after public enemy number one, and believe me, we are public enemy number one. An Everton player does to a Chelsea player what Ivanovic did to McCarthy and no way would anyone be saying he should be banned, because that position has no credibility, unless you're incredibly biased. That was never a sending off in a million years.

Those individuals will be thinking, "I better not say that, everyone will think I'm a crank, everyone will hate me". With Chelsea, they think, "The public will lap this up", and as a result their perspective is skewed. That's why pundits like Gary Neville are so refreshing and universally admired, because they say what they see, their perspective isn't skewed by bias, or by what people want to hear.

Let me give you an example. Remember when Portugal knocked England out of the World Cup at the 2006 WC I think it was. Rooney was deservedly sent off, for stamping on Carvalho's nuts. The Portuguese players surrounded the ref who brandished the red card. Rooney walked off and Ronaldo winked at the Portuguese bench. The media in this country went mad and Ronaldo became the fall guy, as if he were to blame for the fact Rooney had lost his head. He winked, that was Ronaldo's crime, and he was crucified, by the media, the media drummed up the story and Ronaldo became public enemy number one. I repeat, because of the media. The real culprit was Rooney. What had harmed England, the red or the wink? The red, Rooney had cost England not Ronaldo. If an English player had winked in the same scenario everybody would have just laughed and said, "Ooh, isn't he a cheeky chappy?".

I mean, it was a bloody wink.

So, what happens next game, Portugal play France, in the quarters or the semis, and the game is covered on BBC, and everybody, but everybody in the studio is rooting for France and bitching about Portugal and Ronaldo in particular. France win a penalty, there is contact but not enough to send Henry to ground but he goes to ground anyway. Definite penalty for France says everyone, all the experts in the studio, the commentator, everyone. Later on Ronaldo goes to ground in the box, again, contact, this time he dived, according to everyone, the papers the next day were full of it, what a disgrace he was etcetera. Nobody, but nobody, suggested Henry had gone down too easily for his pen. The media had drummed up the hate, and then they applied one rule for one and another for another. That's how it worked.

I'm sure I don't have to point out the parallels with Chelsea. You see once your team is knocked out, or if they're not playing, you still need someone to support, and that team has become Anyone But Chelsea. The media have drummed up the hate, and now they apply their own special kind of justice, because they know everyone is skewed when it comes to us, they hate us, therefore you can get away with saying ludicrous things, like, "Ooh he winked, let's kill him". This is how it works.

They can flog us publicly because they know everyone is baying for blood. We're the bogeyman and they need their scapegoat. You said people need a scapegoat and you said the media provide them with one. For me, that was the only accurate thing you've said in relation to this argument, and you defeated your own argument when you said it, because that backs up our point of view, not yours. That defeats your whole argument in my view.

You can say, "Oh it was only individuals saying Ivanovic should be banned", we can say, "Funny how that individual plays for Chelsea, funny how it's always Chelsea isn't it, would they be coming out with such guff if he played for anyone else?". Also, and perhaps more pertinently, there are the headlines in all the newspapers the next day, driving home the same agenda, talking about a nothing incident. Are there such hysterical reactions in relation to other clubs? Really? It was nothing out of the ordinary and it was nothing. Many posters on this thread in recent days have cited similar instances with other clubs which went unnoticed, by and large, by the media. Unnoticed.

It reminds me of Ronaldo all those years ago. The media whip up the hate, the public lap it up, they have their bogeyman and the media go to town, taking liberties. That's how the media works and I don't need a degree in media studies to know it. That's not me belittling your degree, or whatever it is you have, truly, well done you for getting it, I mean that, but I still don't think that makes you right on this one.

I think the evidence is pretty conclusive, personally. I think there's an agenda against Chelsea in the media, and I think it's plain to see.

I don't have a degree in media studies and I've stated that I disagree with the notion of an agenda but if it gets you on your feet at home games then believe what you wish. So long as it's clear that I'm not associated with these views then we're all happy.

KTBFFH.

Edited by Blue Daze

Mourinho certainly knows how to create a siege mentality within the dressing room. All this hate and negativity is making our team more fired up, we go into every game like it's a cup final. The media is playing exactly into his hands

 

 

Like Zlatan said, he would go out and kill for Mourinho and that's coming from one of the best and most arrogant footballers around. Just shows what effect Mourinho can have on players

Plokoon makes some great points, I can handle negativity but badly written, sloppy, lazy negativity is beyond the pale. Citing Martin Samuels yet again, I've seen him write articles about us that are critical, but they are always fair, well written and unbiased. See also Neville and Carjacker, they are only human and MUST be biased towards ManU and Liverpool respectively, but they manage to hide it very well when analysing games (not just our games either) Unlike Jaymee Redknapp, or as my dear old Mum who does like to mangle her words calls him, Jeremy Redcapp !

 

I take the point about some journalists getting the hump with Mourinho, but he was no where near us when the JT controversy kicked off,  so maybe its about more than just the current manager. We are a club who polarises opinion like no other, imo, they can't decide if we are knuckle dragging Neanderthal hooligans, or Champagne quaffing hooray Henry's who light our fags with five pound notes.

 

The Media are entitled to write/say what they like as long as it doesn't affect how we are treated by the F.A and Uefa, just as we are entitled to take issue with it, or ignore it and move on as each individual sees fit.

 

As for Neil Ashton he comes across as a whiney little b*tch, and even when he used to feature regularly on Paper view on our clubs own channel, he was thin skinned and defensive when challenged on any of his views, so I think anything he writes can be dismissed as the petulant spite of a person who never seems to have grown up. I don't think he ever got over being told he looks like AVB :wink:

Create an account or sign in to comment
Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.
Background Picker
Customize Layout

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications
Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.