It's lovely how media are hyping this up so much despite it's nowhere near as severe. Players like Charlie Adam do that almost every other match and even worse than this, Van Persie elbowed recently no fuss was made about it. Clearly double standards. 

It's clear to anyone there is quite an obvious agenda against Chelsea this season.

I was someone who never bought into any of this stuff before but after this season it really is hard to think it's all just a coincidence. I mean it was bad enough the ‘outcry’ when Costa appeared to trod on the opponent and when you compare this to what Aguero done to Luiz or what Toure and Rooney got away with it’s outrageous.

Maybe the above could have been explained and brushed off but a few weeks later we have the media printing down right lies about Ivan apparently ‘biting’ the Everton lad….I mean come on!

Now the media are taking cheap shots at how we celebrated a last minute win in a crucial match and also saying Jose and Chelsea are a bad advert for the EPL? It was only 2 years ago the same people were choking to get Mourinho back into English football.

I suspect a good few more digs at us as we come closer to the title. Make no mistake the media HATE it when we win anything.

Do people really read the news for objective, neutral reporting? Even if you put aside the normal reporting of news stories, most of the stuff people complain about will be editorial or opinion pieces written by featured writers. If you read an article by Joel Stein in Time then that's the opinion of Joel Stein primarily isn't it? So when people talk about the Mail article by Neil Ashton, that's surely his views but you'll also find articles by other journalists.

 

My point throughout this discussion is that the idea of an orchestrated campaign against us would be patently absurd and simply unworkable. You always have prevailing narratives and we don't help ourselves with that. Jose is box office whether he's happy or moody and if you get a reaction from someone when he's moody that people want to read about, then of course you're going to poke him to get that same reaction.

 

Is it lazy? Yes, but it's also entertaining. We can't moan about narratives that we create and this thread is a prime example of that. This thread came a few weeks after Jose said this.

 

“That’s a campaign, that’s a clear campaign,” he said at the time. “People, pundits, commentators, coaches from other teams, they react with Chelsea in a way they don’t react to other teams. They put lots of pressure on the referee and the referee makes a mistake like this. We lose two points, Fàbregas earns a yellow card. In other countries where I worked before, tomorrow in the sports papers it would be a front-page scandal because it is a scandal.

He's not an idiot. He wanted people talking about this and he's got it. He drew attention to our decisions and since then some have gone our way (the Ivanovic decision, the Cahill dive) and some haven't. I think it's absurd to expect to have it both ways though. The media has no responsibility to treat all stories the same, give all clubs the same prominence or demand their featured writers have objective, neutral viewpoints. It's an entertainment business. 

The quote there from José highights another problem in the media. Where does he say that the FA or refs are part of that campaign? And yet the media (I know I'm generalising. What I mean is  high profile pundits and columnists) give the impression he has accused the refs and the FA of being part of the campaign, and they even say the decision not to charge Ivan is proof there is no campaign, when the campaign he is complaining about is the one that gives vastly more attention to our players than to other  clubs' players, which has been in full swing since Tuesday night.

 

Yes, it's true, Redknapp, Savage, Ashton, Taylor etc are not 'the media'. But they and their like DO set the agenda/ the narrative, and that is overwhelmingly hostile to Chelsea. for reasons very well highlighted in Plokoon's long post above.

The quote there from José highights another problem in the media. Where does he say that the FA or refs are part of that campaign? And yet the media (I know I'm generalising. What I mean is  high profile pundits and columnists) give the impression he has accused the refs and the FA of being part of the campaign, and they even say the decision not to charge Ivan is proof there is no campaign, when the campaign he is complaining about is the one that gives vastly more attention to our players than to other  clubs' players, which has been in full swing since Tuesday night.

 

Yes, it's true, Redknapp, Savage, Ashton, Taylor etc are not 'the media'. But they and their like DO set the agenda/ the narrative, and that is overwhelmingly hostile to Chelsea. for reasons very well highlighted in Plokoon's long post above.

 

Jose has clearly stated he believes there is a campaign by the FA. Loads of times. Why else does he answer with things like "I better not reply to that question as I might get charged" ?

The quote there from José highights another problem in the media. Where does he say that the FA or refs are part of that campaign? And yet the media (I know I'm generalising. What I mean is  high profile pundits and columnists) give the impression he has accused the refs and the FA of being part of the campaign, and they even say the decision not to charge Ivan is proof there is no campaign, when the campaign he is complaining about is the one that gives vastly more attention to our players than to other  clubs' players, which has been in full swing since Tuesday night.

 

Yes, it's true, Redknapp, Savage, Ashton, Taylor etc are not 'the media'. But they and their like DO set the agenda/ the narrative, and that is overwhelmingly hostile to Chelsea. for reasons very well highlighted in Plokoon's long post above.

 

Do you know why we get more attention? Because people want to read about us. We're box office, we all know that about Jose, we all revel in it....and then we moan about it??

 

He called Wenger a 'specialist in failure', something no other manager would do. He's fantastic to watch when he's in a good mood and he's compelling viewing when he's in a bad mood so of course he's going to get more attention. Do you want to watch another Brendan Rodgers interview where he talks about commitment?

 

 

Yes, it's true, Redknapp, Savage, Ashton, Taylor etc are not 'the media'. But they and their like DO set the agenda/ the narrative, and that is overwhelmingly hostile to Chelsea. for reasons very well highlighted in Plokoon's long post above.

 

They contribute to it, but you've mentioned four people there who work across two different commercial television networks, one state broadcaster and two national dailies with wildly opposing readerships.....and said they set the narrative. It's not a collaborative effort which is my point.

 

Do you know the other entity that sets the narrative? Jose Mourinho. You'll find the language of Jose littered throughout this thread, people echoing/repeating his words near verbatim because he has the biggest pulpit of them all. 

The Mail's main sport headline today:

'Chelsea are like the Dog & Duck at chucking out time and their yobbish, boorish behaviour will taint any title triumph... why can't Mourinho and Co just show some dignity and win with class?'

You can't even make that sh*t up . And before I'm told not to read the Mail... it's one of the better newspaper websites, mainly because it's free.

You wouldnt eat a sh*t sandwich if it was offered for free, why give the Mail any attention

I think there is a relatively simple way to statistically determine whether there is a media campaign based against Chelsea or not. It would be simple statistics, but time consuming to gather the required data unless someone wrote some software for it. All that would be required is to analyze (say the last 3 years) worth of articles based on Chelsea, in comparison to rivals such as Man U, Arsenal, and to a lesser extent Liverpool (Simply for their perceived positive press). Input common positive terms into the algorithm such as "resilient", "determined", "impressive", "attacking" and negative terms such as "arrogant", "defensive", "disgrace" and so on so forth. Use multiple websites such as Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph and so on. Then just calculate the percentage of negatively slanted articles versus the positive ones. Simple if you have the programming skills for it, which I don't or i would do it myself.

There isn't an agenda against Chelsea. There probably is an agenda against Mourinho. No coincidence that when we had Hiddink, RDM, Ancelotti in charge, these sort of things didn't happen (bar the Barca game and the sh*t ref!!).

 

I've always said with Mourinho, he's the best coach and we wouldn't swap him, but we have to accept that because of how he is, this will always come as part of the package.

I think there is a relatively simple way to statistically determine whether there is a media campaign based against Chelsea or not. It would be simple statistics, but time consuming to gather the required data unless someone wrote some software for it. All that would be required is to analyze (say the last 3 years) worth of articles based on Chelsea, in comparison to rivals such as Man U, Arsenal, and to a lesser extent Liverpool (Simply for their perceived positive press). Input common positive terms into the algorithm such as "resilient", "determined", "impressive", "attacking" and negative terms such as "arrogant", "defensive", "disgrace" and so on so forth. Use multiple websites such as Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph and so on. Then just calculate the percentage of negatively slanted articles versus the positive ones. Simple if you have the programming skills for it, which I don't or i would do it myself.

 

As a programmer what you are asking for is not that simple at all actually. You are talking of a context search which would be extremely difficult to code from scratch (You would need to use a context search engine). Then you need to grab all the articles and feed them in to a database.

 

Using your 'simple' theory the sentence "Ivanovic was determined in attacking and throttling the opposition player" would be one positive and "Chelsea could almost come over as arrogant, but their defensive performances this year have been excellent" would be a negative. Then you have articles which may be quoting what Chelsea staff may be saying about other teams which you would not want to attribute either way.

 

It is actually extremely difficult, even with prebuild context engines, to determine 'slant' of articles.

^^ Fair point. This is why I'm not a programmer. Back to the drawing board dammit.

There isn't an agenda against Chelsea. There probably is an agenda against Mourinho. No coincidence that when we had Hiddink, RDM, Ancelotti in charge, these sort of things didn't happen (bar the Barca game and the sh*t ref!!).

 

I've always said with Mourinho, he's the best coach and we wouldn't swap him, but we have to accept that because of how he is, this will always come as part of the package.

Interesting and there is something in what you've said I think. Our current society doesn't seem to like, or value truth and open, honest talk; the vacuous vagueries of the likes of Brenda are prefererred it seems.

There isn't an agenda against Chelsea. There probably is an agenda against Mourinho. No coincidence that when we had Hiddink, RDM, Ancelotti in charge, these sort of things didn't happen (bar the Barca game and the sh*t ref!!).

I've always said with Mourinho, he's the best coach and we wouldn't swap him, but we have to accept that because of how he is, this will always come as part of the package.

What's the saying, if you can't handle him at his worst then you deserve him at his best. Or something.

Do you know why we get more attention? Because people want to read about us. We're box office, we all know that about Jose, we all revel in it....and then we moan about it??

 

He called Wenger a 'specialist in failure', something no other manager would do. He's fantastic to watch when he's in a good mood and he's compelling viewing when he's in a bad mood so of course he's going to get more attention. Do you want to watch another Brendan Rodgers interview where he talks about commitment?

 

No one is moaning about us getting attention, just the amount of it that is outright hostile.

 

Wenger started that little spat by saying Jose was scared of failure and also pushed him on the touchline, both of which escaped comment. For all his professor image, Wenger has a long history of hypocrisy, myopia, petulant behaviour, pot shots at officials and being a sore loser, yet he gets receives nothing like the same amount of press hostility.

What's the saying, if you can't handle him at his worst then you deserve him at his best. Or something.

 

No, that's not the saying at all - you just made that up!

You only have to look at the touchline antics of a certain manager who had his hands round a players throat yet received nothing more than a warning...

If that were a Chelsea employee what do you really think would have happened?

Whether it's a bias against Mourinho or not it's still affecting the whole club. If a manger bias is making decisions go against the club then surely that becomes the club being targeted?

It’s become so bad that we as a club are being criticized because we won a game of football and celebrated it with the players and fans…. They are calling it a ‘siege’ mentality and it’s harming the English game. Rewind a year ago when Liverpool were gunning for the title and beat City in a late winner…the players celebrated with the fans and done a wee huddle. If I recall that was reported as passionate Liverpool and a never say die attitude.

It’s so obvious what is going on and that’s why Jose isn’t entertaining the same buffoon’s who write and report on us.

What's the saying, if you can't handle him at his worst then you deserve him at his best. Or something.

 

That's what my ex always said to me, when she was having a moan.

Crock of sh*te 

No one is moaning about us getting attention, just the amount of it that is outright hostile.

 

Wenger started that little spat by saying Jose was scared of failure and also pushed him on the touchline, both of which escaped comment. For all his professor image, Wenger has a long history of hypocrisy, myopia, petulant behaviour, pot shots at officials and being a sore loser, yet he gets receives nothing like the same amount of press hostility.

 

Trying to view this as if I was a neutral (and that ain't easy!), both Wenger and Mourinho are very intelligent, articulate individuals and both can be charming and both can throw their toys out of the pram. With Mourinho however, it does tend to go that little bit further when it all goes pear-shaped. It's hard to describe, but at times his whole demeanor turns sour and that's why I think he get's (some of) the media's backs up and they have turned against him and love to see him fail.

 

Folk who learn to both win and lose gracefully wll escape this sort of thing, but that is never going to be Jose. He IS a Winner and when things turn bad - so does he!

Well I for one am willing to hold my hands up and admit I was completely wrong. I read a thread on that talkchelsea forum where they slagged blue daze right off, really went to town on him and said they were so pleased he had left and they would no longer have to put up with his pompous, arrogant, hypocritical know it all posts. I felt sorry for him, and thought theres no way he can be that bad, surely. I was  wrong. So very very wrong.

 

Mate, I want to let you in on something. The night before last he sent me a PM. I didn't respond to it and I have since blocked all future PMs from him, so even if he has sent me more I haven't received them. I'm sure he has sent me more but I'm also sure he would deny it.

 

The PM, as you can imagine, was full of his own importance, full of inaccuracies, full of name-calling and full of swearing. 

 

He had taken umbrage with some of the things I had called him on this thread. As SP said yesterday, he likes dishing it out but when a little bit comes his way he can't take it. He had taken umbrage on this thread to me calling him deluded, would you believe, he found that insulting, the poor sensitive soul. This is the "man" (and I use the word loosely) who immediately upon me first claiming there was an agenda against Chelsea in the media (which there is) posted a link to a David Icke website, in order to try and belittle me, he also called me a name in that post, for no other reason than my opinion differed from his. These are his tactics of choice, to put people down, to belittle them, to try and humiliate them, people who just want to talk about football, who want to share opinions, who aren't interested in winning arguments but are interested in getting their points across and hearing others. People who just want to have fun, in other words. Blue Daze has another idea of fun. He wants to put people down and he wants everyone to agree with him, and he will argue all day incessantly, insisting on the final word, always, and indulging in his favourite pastime of self-aggradising. Don't argue too stringently though or he will lose his rag, he's got a bit highly strung with me a couple of times and I've called him out on it. You'll know when he's highly strung because he starts swearing a lot, trying to throw his weight around, losing his veneer of cool as soon as somebody gets to him, which is remarkably easy to do.

 

The staggering thing is that he has so much time on his hands, considering he's such a high flyer in the media, and considering the fact he has a "missus". Personally I think his missus is his right hand but that's another matter. I should really leave the name-calling to him.

 

So what prompted Blue Daze to send me a PM? Well, the thing that had really touched a nerve, interestingly enough, is the fact that I had claimed he was showing off because he had a bit of "insight" (his word) into the media. He didn't like that. I can only assume it rung true, or else he'd have laughed it off. He had asked me a question, about my experience of the media, and I'm perfectly happy with him asking me questions. He can ask me questions all day. He has nothing to apologise for on that score. I wasn't inclined to answer and that got his goat. I wasn't playing the game his way you see. My opinions on the media differ from his but for some reason he felt so threatened that he had to impress upon me that he knew far more about the media than I ever will, and of course he did it in the usual unpleasant manner, bigging himself up, putting others down, you know the drill.

 

Anyway I'll conclude because I've given him far too much time. I called it as it is the other night, once things had deteriorated. He made an assumption about me and I made an assumption about him, the assumption being that he has an overwhelming need to prove himself on an internet forum because of an overriding sense of inferiority. I think he has grave emotional and psychological issues, and unfortunately that means people have to pay the cost. He wants to put them down to make himself feel bigger. He wants to big himself up to make others feel small. This was the one that really riled him, but as I told him at the time, if you go around with his kind of attitude, you're just going to have to take it.

 

Finally, he called me a keyboard warrior, in this PM, claiming I wouldn't dare say any of these things to his face. I guess we'll call that one projection. I've been on this website a while, off and on, and there are some great posters, many of them in fact, and I have lots of arguments with all of you, arguments about football I hasten to add because we all feel passionately about our great club. Rarely, if ever, have I felt the need to insult anyone. Sometimes of course I've had to bite my tongue but with this guy, because of that PM, I'll say my piece.

 

Thank you very much.

No, that's not the saying at all - you just made that up!

Sorry, it's don't deserve him at his best. Marilyn Monroe's famous statement

The simple fact is that newsrooms are made up of human beings, each with a different set of views. 

 

Yet they all have the same editor/paper owner.

Mate, I want to let you in on something. The night before last he sent me a PM. I didn't respond to it and I have since blocked all future PMs from him, so even if he has sent me more I haven't received them. I'm sure he has sent me more but I'm also sure he would deny it.

 

The PM, as you can imagine, was full of his own importance, full of inaccuracies, full of name-calling and full of swearing. 

 

 

And here is the PM in full, entitled 'To Stop us from boring other members'

 

Not quite sure what your problem is but I simply asked for your experience in a field you were remarking upon.

If that's too personal then say so. If you don't want to divulge such info then that's understandable. 

But to say I'm trying to show off because I might have a bit of insight into something is f**king pathetic.

The insults from behind your keyboard that you probably wouldn't say to someone's face are entirely unnecessary when we're all Chelsea supporters and just have slight disagreements at the end of the day.

So that's basically it. Rather than carry it on in that rather pathetic thread just talk to me here and feel free to insult me here.

 

Why not just be honest?

 

 

 

The staggering thing is that he has so much time on his hands, considering he's such a high flyer in the media, and considering the fact he has a "missus". Personally I think his missus is his right hand but that's another matter. I should really leave the name-calling to him.

 

 

Never said I was a high-flyer, that's you either projecting some stuff or simply lying. Also why bring my 'missus' into it? 

 

 

So what prompted Blue Daze to send me a PM? Well, the thing that had really touched a nerve, interestingly enough, is the fact that I had claimed he was showing off because he had a bit of "insight" (his word) into the media. He didn't like that. I can only assume it rung true, or else he'd have laughed it off. He had asked me a question, about my experience of the media, and I'm perfectly happy with him asking me questions. He can ask me questions all day. He has nothing to apologise for on that score. I wasn't inclined to answer and that got his goat. I wasn't playing the game his way you see. My opinions on the media differ from his but for some reason he felt so threatened that he had to impress upon me that he knew far more about the media than I ever will, and of course he did it in the usual unpleasant manner, bigging himself up, putting others down, you know the drill.

 

 

Actually as you could've guessed from the title, it was the fact that our little 'spat' was taking up this whole thread so I said that if you wanted to continue it then do it in private rather than bore everyone else. You apparently can't do that and neither can dkw.

 

That's fine if you need an audience (which apparently you do for this little chat with dkw as well) but does everyone else need to see it? If you think it's in the public interest then fine...go nuts.

 

 

Anyway I'll conclude because I've given him far too much time. I called it as it is the other night, once things had deteriorated. He made an assumption about me and I made an assumption about him, the assumption being that he has an overwhelming need to prove himself on an internet forum because of an overriding sense of inferiority. I think he has grave emotional and psychological issues, and unfortunately that means people have to pay the cost. He wants to put them down to make himself feel bigger. He wants to big himself up to make others feel small. This was the one that really riled him, but as I told him at the time, if you go around with his kind of attitude, you're just going to have to take it.

 

 

So we can cross psychologist of the list then.

 

As it is I'm not some internet hardman or keyboard warrior who says stuff on the internet he wouldn't say to someone's face. I'm a fairly normal bloke who has a decent job and you took that to be 'willy-waving' and showing off. In what world that could be taken as self-aggrandising behaviour I don't know but we clearly have different perspectives.

 

 

 

Finally, he called me a keyboard warrior, in this PM, claiming I wouldn't dare say any of these things to his face. 

....

 

 

 I've been on this website a while, off and on, and there are some great posters, many of them in fact, and I have lots of arguments with all of you, arguments about football I hasten to add because we all feel passionately about our great club. Rarely, if ever, have I felt the need to insult anyone. Sometimes of course I've had to bite my tongue but with this guy, because of that PM, I'll say my piece.

 

Thank you very much.

 

You're right there are great posters here. 

Davey that could of at least been a private message you little bugger. 

 

Also Arsene Wenger which was just brought up last page, I couldn't agree more, the amount of criticism he has been let off with over the years is shocking. Especially compared to Mourinho, I can't believe so many people felt sorry for Arsene after Mourinho had a pop at him, he was completely defended, if the french git doesn't want anything at him, then he shouldn't give it quite simple. What on earth was he commenting on Mourinho for anyway? Deserved it if anything, I laughed at his response, he really did like all that sympathy didn't he.

Davey that could of at least been a private message you little bugger. 

 

Also Arsene Wenger which was just brought up last page, I couldn't agree more, the amount of criticism he has been let off with over the years is shocking. Especially compared to Mourinho, I can't believe so many people felt sorry for Arsene after Mourinho had a pop at him, he was completely defended, if the french git doesn't want anything at him, then he shouldn't give it quite simple. What on earth was he commenting on Mourinho for anyway? Deserved it if anything, I laughed at his response, he really did like all that sympathy didn't he.

 

I think the likes of Patrick Collins and Mick Dennis (to use Shelley's examples) hold him in high regard, but the media have certainly brought up the eight years without a trophy stuff in the past. I think the issue there is that Arsenal fans have never really gotten on his back like they have in the last 18 months so now the pressure is starting to build. Not to keep bringing up narratives, but I think that one might change depending on how their run-in goes.

 

What is fairly interesting is the role social media and Youtube channels play in these narratives now. That fat northern bloke who criticised Moyes at United got massive attention and that actually became a major component of the story. Then you had the twitter spat over the banners, and it becomes this symbiotic relationship with social driving the news and the news then leading the social.

 

That's one of the reasons I think a coordinated agenda is so hard to believe in nowadays. 

Now he is spending money it becomes more of a big deal if he doesn't win things.

 

He has gotten a lot of stuff his way though and I kind of admired him for it that he didn't crack under the pressure and negativity he had during the years, despite a big part of it being his fault of course. Only he set Arsenal back taking the risk with his philosophy and it still didn't really pay off.

 

Very overrated manager, they should have been challenging this season yet they've actually sunk lower.

Now he is spending money it becomes more of a big deal if he doesn't win things.

 

He has gotten a lot of stuff his way though and I kind of admired him for it that he didn't crack under the pressure and negativity he had during the years, despite a big part of it being his fault of course. Only he set Arsenal back taking the risk with his philosophy and it still didn't really pay off.

 

Very overrated manager, they should have been challenging this season yet they've actually sunk lower.

 

My view of Wenger is that he's like an old tree and the club has been built around him. He's got branches in literally every aspect of the club in a way no other manager has (Fergie came close) and that club is now built on his ethos as much as anything else in their almost-130 year history. That's why he's so hard to sack, because if you remove him so many facets of the club will be affected.

 

But that stadium and the infrastructure was also largely built because of him which is why there's a fair amount of respect for him. But you're right that now they have money to spend the targets are higher and that's why certain sections of the media will increase the scrutiny on him.

Edited February 13, 201511 yr by Blue Daze