To what ends?

The media doesn't need to have ends it seems and if they do it's to destroy, ask Gazza and others, or occasionally some charitable act. Ultimately they seek to make money regardless of how.

The modern day media has been a bully for a long time and has got away with an awful lot.

Croydon Blue's point about Bates standing up to them is key as that hasn't really happened in modern times as the media is now so huge and so powerful and seemingly unaccountable.

Some think there is a campaign, some don't. The evidence suggests significant disparity between the way teams are spoken of and reported on. If there is not a campaign I wonder how the discrepancy can be explained.

Whether there is a campaign or not there needs to be some accountability as comments like Jose being a cancer and Costa's criminal behaviour are unacceptable and would not be tolerated in another sphere and action would be taken against those saying such things.

no one has ever accused man city for instance of buying success or very little of it, given their capital expenditure. no one rips into them for getting knocked out of europe at the group stages year in year out. At the end day the british media do not like successful people, there is an underlying schadenfreude of if they are successful, they need knocking down a peg or two, and if their a success there's a story.  

I think I might need to apologise to everyone here for the title of this thread, because everyone seem to still complain about it till now.

I never meant to sound like I'm whining like someone said. The name just came out of frustration and disappointment from the media and the pundits at that time.

But I'm also glad that everyone started to realise, that there is a campaign or hidden agenda against chelsea and against Jose, because everyone was against me when I opened this thread at first.( been against the name and the agenda idea)

I love it here and I always like to post, share my views with everyone ,and sometimes I might miss use words and it comes out different I hope you guys understand.

Boris loves a scrap

boris the headhunter, gwan boris!

I think I might need to apologise to everyone here for the title of this thread, because everyone seem to still complain about it till now.

I never meant to sound like I'm whining like someone said. The name just came out of frustration and disappointment from the media and the pundits at that time.

But I'm also glad that everyone started to realise, that there is a campaign or hidden agenda against chelsea and against Jose, because everyone was against me when I opened this thread at first.( been against the name and the agenda idea)

I love it here and I always like to post, share my views with everyone ,and sometimes I might miss use words and it comes out different I hope you guys understand.

As i said if you do not think there is an agenda, then god help you!

I think I might need to apologise to everyone here for the title of this thread, because everyone seem to still complain about it till now.

I never meant to sound like I'm whining like someone said. The name just came out of frustration and disappointment from the media and the pundits at that time.

But I'm also glad that everyone started to realise, that there is a campaign or hidden agenda against chelsea and against Jose, because everyone was against me when I opened this thread at first.( been against the name and the agenda idea)

I love it here and I always like to post, share my views with everyone ,and sometimes I might miss use words and it comes out different I hope you guys understand.

No need to apologise as far as I'm concerned.

Language when written is a difficult thing to get right sometimes. It's important to expose unfairness and this thread is opening up ideas.

To what ends?

The media doesn't need to have ends it seems and if they do it's to destroy, ask Gazza and others, or occasionally some charitable act. Ultimately they seek to make money regardless of how.

The modern day media has been a bully for a long time and has got away with an awful lot.

Croydon Blue's point about Bates standing up to them is key as that hasn't really happened in modern times as the media is now so huge and so powerful and seemingly unaccountable.

Some think there is a campaign, some don't. The evidence suggests significant disparity between the way teams are spoken of and reported on. If there is not a campaign I wonder how the discrepancy can be explained.

Whether there is a campaign or not there needs to be some accountability as comments like Jose being a cancer and Costa's criminal behaviour are unacceptable and would not be tolerated in another sphere and action would be taken against those saying such things.

 

Would it not perhaps be helpful to talk about individuals or individual newspapers or simply individual forms of media rather than treating them as a homogenous lump?

 

'The media' is such a wide, unwieldy term that no-one with any genuine interest in the subject would use it, would they?

Would it not perhaps be helpful to talk about individuals or individual newspapers or simply individual forms of media rather than treating them as a homogenous lump?

 

'The media' is such a wide, unwieldy term that no-one with any genuine interest in the subject would use it, would they?

Indeed they would as most media platforms are owned by one corporation, and generally follow one group strategy, news group i.e sun and sky, DMG media.

Jesus, have a day of for the love of god. Are you not bored of saying the same thing over, and over, and over....we get it, you once wrote a blog and now feel the need to white knight every time someone says something about the media. Well done .

is that it? the liverpool game! what about the paris incident and the aftermath, how comes those 5 blokes were plastered all over the media, yet the spurs fan who assaulted, a blue on the platform at wembley, gets his face blurred out and is described as  a brawl? when it's an assault? why was there no relentless media pursuit  of west ham fans for singing anti-semitic chants on a packed train, why did no one highlight sideshow bob's elbow on costa? the matic tackle? match of the day showing costa sitting on the bench with jose at swansea, when we were 2-0 up when he was still on the pitch? i could go  on the list is endless! if you choose to believe  the media, then more fool you.

You make some good points but I still struggle to believe that the media sit down and try their best to make us look as bad as possible. Generally, the reason we make the news most is because generally, and sadly, our players are involved in the most controversy and we just have to face it. If you were a journalist you'd automatically go for Chelsea just because of the way we are and that's the way it is.

 

We have a manager who is box-office and makes controversy whereever he goes, therefore anything he says is going to be plastered on tv and social media because it's the things people want to see. Our captain racially abused another player and had an affair, Cole also had an affair and shot a student in the face with a gun, our striker has always been a hot head therefore they'll want to put as many bad things out about him to draw viewers. There are just too many controversial things that surround our players for the media to avoid. They're not doing it cynically to make us look bad, they're doing it for their own gain, to improve their news channel, get people purchasing that morning's newspaper. We think there's a campaign against us because the most stupid and controversial things happen to us and therefore get reported.

 

You make a good point about the racism thing and the Spurs fan acting the thug, but that was never going to be main news compared to a racism incident. Sadly violence happens a lot in football, there's no 'Kick Violence out of football' organisation or anything, and the fact that racism has been linked to our fans previously and sadly our captain meant there was obviously going to be a lot said about it.

You make some good points but I still struggle to believe that the media sit down and try their best to make us look as bad as possible. Generally, the reason we make the news most is because generally, and sadly, our players are involved in the most controversy and we just have to face it. If you were a journalist you'd automatically go for Chelsea just because of the way we are and that's the way it is.

 

I agree in part with that, but it doesn't explain the massive disparity in the way our players misdemeanours on the pitch the last few weeks were reported compared to man utds, a much bigger club than us who's players spat at opposition players and grabbed at a ref.

Would it not perhaps be helpful to talk about individuals or individual newspapers or simply individual forms of media rather than treating them as a homogenous lump?

 

'The media' is such a wide, unwieldy term that no-one with any genuine interest in the subject would use it, would they?

No, individuals can be picked off and would be less forthright as lone rangers. Unless any freelancers are constantly trouncing Chelsea and have extremely large bank accounts.

We've been discussing a media campaign.

Indeed they would as most media platforms are owned by one corporation, and generally follow one group strategy, news group i.e sun and sky, DMG media.

 

That is absolutely true, but British print media tends to allow for a number of voices to exist. I absolutely think there are people who dislike us in the media but there are a number of very good writers out there too.

 

Even on Sky you see people taking the opposing sides of an argument so to suggest they're all against us is a bit hard to believe.

No, individuals can be picked off and would be less forthright as lone rangers. Unless any freelancers are constantly trouncing Chelsea and have extremely large bank accounts.

We've been discussing a media campaign.

 

I'm talking about the people who actually write and report in the media. You're talking about a media campaign - so are you suggesting that Henry Winter, Martin Samuel, Barney Ronay and Gary Neville are all orchestrated in a co-ordinated campaign against us?

 

FYI - for the keyboard warrior coward, I'm not going to respond to you. Sorry.

I agree in part with that, but it doesn't explain the massive disparity in the way our players misdemeanours on the pitch the last few weeks were reported compared to man utds, a much bigger club than us who's players spat at opposition players and grabbed at a ref.

You are right and it's annoying, but it's generally just because we're involved in a lot more sh*t, that's it. This week with Evans and Di Maria has been the first time in a long time where you've heard of the United players or manager doing something considered quite bad. Whereas, there's something every couple of weeks for us. Mourinho complaining about refs and mentioning a possible campaign, Costa's stamp on Emre Can and the possibility of one on Skrtel and generally fighting every week, the diving incidents against Hull, us swarming the referee last night and Oscar's rolling around antics, there seems to be something bad about Chelsea circulating every week and it's not the fault of the media because it's Chelsea that generates it

That is absolutely true, but British print media tends to allow for a number of voices to exist. I absolutely think there are people who dislike us in the media but there are a number of very good writers out there too.

 

Even on Sky you see people taking the opposing sides of an argument so to suggest they're all against us is a bit hard to believe.

The british print media are scum.

You make some good points but I still struggle to believe that the media sit down and try their best to make us look as bad as possible. Generally, the reason we make the news most is because generally, and sadly, our players are involved in the most controversy and we just have to face it. If you were a journalist you'd automatically go for Chelsea just because of the way we are and that's the way it is.

 

We have a manager who is box-office and makes controversy whereever he goes, therefore anything he says is going to be plastered on tv and social media because it's the things people want to see. Our captain racially abused another player and had an affair, Cole also had an affair and shot a student in the face with a gun, our striker has always been a hot head therefore they'll want to put as many bad things out about him to draw viewers. There are just too many controversial things that surround our players for the media to avoid. They're not doing it cynically to make us look bad, they're doing it for their own gain, to improve their news channel, get people purchasing that morning's newspaper. We think there's a campaign against us because the most stupid and controversial things happen to us and therefore get reported.

 

You make a good point about the racism thing and the Spurs fan acting the thug, but that was never going to be main news compared to a racism incident. Sadly violence happens a lot in football, there's no 'Kick Violence out of football' organisation or anything, and the fact that racism has been linked to our fans previously and sadly our captain meant there was obviously going to be a lot said about it.

so when the ivanovic incident happened why was they not so keen on honing in on naismith who had TWO hands round ivan's throat?

please answer this?

Giggs, Rooney, Ferdinand, all have done things on a par with many of the things our daft sods have done. Gerrard battered a bloke, barely mnetioned. All forgotten and forgiven very quickly. Utd players dive every week, no mention. West ham fans abuse spurs fans, barely mentioned, forgotten about very quickly.

so when the ivanovic incident happened why was they not so keen on honing in on naismith who had TWO hands round ivan's throat?

please answer this?

 

Because Naismith didn't have his hands around his neck. Stones did.

 

Why didn't the media make a bigger deal of Costa having his hands around Zabaleta's neck?

so when the ivanovic incident happened why was they not so keen on honing in on naismith who had TWO hands round ivan's throat?

please answer this?

Because it's us, our players are so so controversial unfortunately. They're eager, they're passionate and they want to win which means they do anything to win and sometimes they do really stupid things They weren't so keen on making Everton look bad because it's us who is in a controversial incident every couple of weeks or so, we draw the most attention because of our at times daft behaviour, it gets them ratings and more appreciation

I don't remember one of our players making a near career ending tackle recently, or any other player who is fouled as much as Hazard is, or any other player denied penalties as much as Costa, or being called criminal. Even if all team players' misdemeanours were equal, tit for tat, they are not reported, or discussed in the same way.

I don't remember one of our players making a near career ending tackle recently, or any other player who is fouled as much as Hazard is, or any other player denied penalties as much as Costa, or being called criminal. Even if all team players' misdemeanours were equal, tit for tat, they are not reported, or discussed in the same way.

well said, have to question the loyalty of some so called chelsea supporters, like i said i have neither the time or inclination to list the constant disparity, between our players misdemeanors and other clubs players  in the media. people so called CHELSEA supporters bring up the same old sh*t! JT is a racist. as far as i am concerned he was found not guilty by a court. he had an affair with an ex team mates girlfriend, parked in a disabled bay big deal.

I don't remember one of our players making a near career ending tackle recently, or any other player who is fouled as much as Hazard is, or any other player denied penalties as much as Costa, or being called criminal. Even if all team players' misdemeanours were equal, tit for tat, they are not reported, or discussed in the same way.

 

Didn't the media come down very much on our side with the tackle on Matic and weren't there plenty of people criticising Atkinson's performance? In fact if you read someone like Martin Samuel then you'll find he's taken our side in quite a lot of the instances people are referencing. Same goes for someone like Henry Winter.

 

 

well said, have to question the loyalty of some so called chelsea supporters

 

 

Nah, you really don't.

well said, have to question the loyalty of some so called chelsea supporters

No, not really. There is no lack of loyalty in coming to terms with the fact that the players who you still love and admire have made stupid mistakes, if I didn't acknowledge it I'd be lying to myself

well said, have to question the loyalty of some so called chelsea supporters, like i said i have neither the time or inclination to list the constant disparity, between our players misdemeanors and other clubs players  in the media. people so called CHELSEA supporters bring up the same old sh*t! JT is a racist. as far as i am concerned he was found not guilty by a court. he had an affair with an ex team mates girlfriend, parked in a disabled bay big deal.

Going slightly off track, but also slightly linked. I read the court report for JT and don't understand how the FA could justify a different outcome over the 'racism' incident. Similarly, I read the Ched Evans court report. These things are in the public domain, but that isn't promoted by those writing the stories. Some folk are aware of them, but I think where there is a court report it should be shown as a link in any article.