Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The ghost of Michael Theoklitos

Media Bashing - The new(ish) Pink'un Message Board hobby

Recommended Posts

There is one thing that''s been annoying me lately with threads on this message board.Actually, there has been a few. However the odd drama queen making up transfer rumours has been discussed enough. And, the standard message board "racial and homophobic" conversations will go on for this, and many other message boards, thus continuing to prove Godwin''s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin''s_law).It''s not these ones I want to discuss.I want to discuss the constant bashing of media outlets and pundits for them having the audacity to make a slight error, or (gasp!) disagree with your opinion.In recent weeks I can split these up into the following 3 categories.1) Pundit not agreeing with your opinion.Main whipping boy for this is Mark Lawrenson for his weekly predictions on the BBC website. I mean how dare he even suggest we''ll get beaten away at Sunderland? And, for this brazen prediction, he gets branded "a nob". Pundits are in a no win situation. They get paid to have an opinion. Just sometimes that opinion may be; a) not correct, or b) wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. That''s what punditry is, an opinion. Would you prefer to listen and read a heap of experts sitting on the fence and not giving any opinion or insight at all, just so they don''t offend any fans of any club? Of course not.2) Norwich not getting the coverage / credit they deserve."Always" being last on MOTD (we''ve only been on last once from the 8 or 9 times I''ve watched). Or, the recent thread about Swansea are getting all the credit, and us getting none. Even if that was the case, why do people care so much? We flew under the radar last year while the world talked QPR and Leeds. Correct me if I''m wrong, but that turned out OK didn''t it? We know how well we''re doing, and I personally don''t care if no one else but us knows. If we hold onto Lambert, and we keep progressing, they''ll know soon enough.Another classic in this category is "Sheerer only talking about us for 5 seconds on MOTD. What an idiot." etc. I''m not too sure how many people are aware of the time between 3pm kick-off and the screening of MOTD, but I have a secret for you. There is a good chance the pundit talking about our game on MOTD, actually didn''t see the game!3) An error in a story / coverage.People like to pick out any slight error in any piece of coverage and post it, calling the news outlet "stupid" in the process. Why? Whenever you''re reading an article from a national media outlet, there is a very good change that you''re going to know the ins and outs of NCFC a lot better than the author. That’s because NCFC is your passion, and it''s the writer’s job to know about all of the clubs in The Football League, not just one.We live in a world now where news is by-the-minute. The internet has changed the news world forever, and as a result, I''m guessing there is a fair chance slight errors happen in news articles. You know what? I don’t care! I don’t need to have that plastered on this message board every time someone accidently suggests we picked up Steve Morrison from Stevenage, and not Millwall. I know the truth, and so do you. The news outlet doesn''t need to be called stupid, and we can all get on with our lives.I''m pointing this out, as I just wish people weren’t so petty to constantly point all of this out. None of the incidents, opinions or mistakes above makes any pundit or news outlet "an idiot" or "stupid". As someone currently not living in The UK, I can tell you - you actually don''t know how good you''ve got it. The coverage of football in the UK, in my opinion, is better than any other sport in any other country (perhaps unless you like American sports, which I don''t). This is something I think a large number on here take for granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most all of that O/P, although I am uncertain that you will be in  accord with the slant that I wish to add to your theme.

 

I am a great supporter of Sky and love the existence of Sky Sports. I sometimes get the impression that I am the only football supporter in the country who would agree with me.

 

Never in the dim and distant days when the Cup Final was virtually the only live game televised and then just MotD eventually came in and then later still Anglia TV did a local highlights game on a Sunday afternoon, did I ever think that the day would come when we got such a feast of live soccer, even the BBC and ITV channels have it now.

 

It''s not all been positive of course and many blame the Sky influence on the current plight of the game as it has led to a rarified Premier League and high transfer fees and wages. This however is not so much Sky''s fault as most think. IMHO. They are extremely generous, but the clubs decide how to spend their money and if high wages are distorting the transfer market, the that''s more the clubs fault than Sky''s. Portmouth are not in trouble because of Sky, but because of the reckless way they spent their money The authorities have also stood by watching it happen instead of bringing in the kind of legislation that is coming in soon about clubs living within their means, but too late IMO. The clubs decide to pay the high signing on fees, not Sky, and the onset of agents has contributed a lot too this as well.

 

Greater TV exposure leads to more lucrative sponsorship, more advertising around grounds and greater shirt sales etc. both here and around the World, particularly in Asia. Sky''s exposure abroad has led to the profile of our game being raised throughout the World, along with others such as ESPN, which feed off Sky. Asia is a particularly lucrative area for many of our clubs. Manchester United in most, Liverpool in Thailand and even Norwich have some support in Malaysia because of the Proton connection. I travelled around the whole of this area when I sold my business and was amazed at the site of football boards advertising Premiership games outside bars fronm Singapore to Malaysia to Thailand to Hong Kong. On my visit to Bangkok .on getting a taxi from the airport to my hotel the driver asked me where I was from. When I told him England he went "Ah Liverpool" and then peeled off the names of all the LIverpool players for the past fifteen years or so. We ended up driving into the centre singing "You''ll Never Walk Alone" He knew the words better than I did.

 

Lower league clubs benefit too as the Premiership passes on some of it''s money. They can all get the occasional TV bonus. Would many of these small clubs survive on their low gates otherwise? 

 

Times change and our perceptions of watching the game has changed too. No longer thousands standing cramped in open stands in the pourring rain. Now we sit in smart stadia with decent restaurants and bars and acceptable toilets. Sky money has helped bring all this about. Football has changed and changed fast and has moved to as much  being a TV game for couch potatoes sipping cheap lager as it has one which commands the attendances of old . Many of us now switch to streams on our laptops when Norwich are away these days for example, thanks mostly to Sky''s blanket broadcasting of the game somewhere abroad, usually Scandinavia or in the Med, area. We ourselves can now even watch the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian leagues.

 

Also, gates over here have held up well, partly to to TV exposure and the equally high profile that it has now here too. Far people now watch the game, but in a different way, either in the ground or in the home., Far more people watch movies now, but in a different way too. Either in the smart multi-plex as opposed to the old Odeon, or in the home.

 

Having said all that I still get to the occasional game when I can, nothing like live, and if I still lived in the area then I would probably be an ST holder. I could still watch a couple of Sky games on a Sunday if I wished, and maybe a couple of others during the week.

 

I realise that some of Sky''s influence has been detrimental to our game in some ways, including attracting over-wealthy owners distorting the whole scene and perhaps the distribution of money is distorted as well, but there are many plusses. Times change as I said. So what if it''s not always every Saturday at three O''Clock now, because if it''s more spread out then there''s more to watch, even if it''s only Stelling on a Saturday keeping track of our rivals and ITFC because we are being televised on Sunday (at great profit.)

 

In some way Norwich may help justify some of my points over the course of this season and next. Determined not to pay massive transfer fees or pay over-high wages they are hoping to pay off some of the debt, partly brought about by costly ground improvements, and are doing rather well. If we become wealthy and successful with all the new money will the Sky-haters perhaps relent a bit?

 

 

NOW I AWAIT THE FLACK.

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post, and an even better user name.Its just the biased nature of fans I think. We were game of the week more times than any other team on the football league show over a two year period, yet the minute a game of our didnt get great coverage the usual comments would come out.Same with match of the day, I think we do alright out of it. They line the games up based on neutrals interest, and naturally Norwich are not that attractive for the neutrals in comparison to some of the other teams out there. That said we get our fair share, we are nearly always complimented, and Holt/Ruddy/Lambert have received a great deal of plaudits.You could easily replace media with the word ''Referee''. A ref can give us all the decisions, yet as soon as one goes against us we start calling his parentage into question and calling him all the names under the sun. Also its a message board, a lot of people come on it to moan. You only have to look at the activity after a convincing win (Eg Bolton) to that after a convincing defeat (EG Sunderland). Or the amount of threads we used to see in the 2006-2009 era compared to now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]There is one thing that''s been annoying me lately with threads on this message board.

Actually, there has been a few. However the odd drama queen making up transfer rumours has been discussed enough. And, the standard message board "racial and homophobic" conversations will go on for this, and many other message boards, thus continuing to prove Godwin''s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin''s_law).

It''s not these ones I want to discuss.

I want to discuss the constant bashing of media outlets and pundits for them having the audacity to make a slight error, or (gasp!) disagree with your opinion.

In recent weeks I can split these up into the following 3 categories.

1) Pundit not agreeing with your opinion.

Main whipping boy for this is Mark Lawrenson for his weekly predictions on the BBC website. I mean how dare he even suggest we''ll get beaten away at Sunderland? And, for this brazen prediction, he gets branded "a nob". Pundits are in a no win situation. They get paid to have an opinion. Just sometimes that opinion may be; a) not correct, or b) wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. That''s what punditry is, an opinion. Would you prefer to listen and read a heap of experts sitting on the fence and not giving any opinion or insight at all, just so they don''t offend any fans of any club? Of course not.

2) Norwich not getting the coverage / credit they deserve.

"Always" being last on MOTD (we''ve only been on last once from the 8 or 9 times I''ve watched). Or, the recent thread about Swansea are getting all the credit, and us getting none. Even if that was the case, why do people care so much? We flew under the radar last year while the world talked QPR and Leeds. Correct me if I''m wrong, but that turned out OK didn''t it? We know how well we''re doing, and I personally don''t care if no one else but us knows. If we hold onto Lambert, and we keep progressing, they''ll know soon enough.

Another classic in this category is "Sheerer only talking about us for 5 seconds on MOTD. What an idiot." etc. I''m not too sure how many people are aware of the time between 3pm kick-off and the screening of MOTD, but I have a secret for you. There is a good chance the pundit talking about our game on MOTD, actually didn''t see the game!

3) An error in a story / coverage.

People like to pick out any slight error in any piece of coverage and post it, calling the news outlet "stupid" in the process. Why? Whenever you''re reading an article from a national media outlet, there is a very good change that you''re going to know the ins and outs of NCFC a lot better than the author. That’s because NCFC is your passion, and it''s the writer’s job to know about all of the clubs in The Football League, not just one.

We live in a world now where news is by-the-minute. The internet has changed the news world forever, and as a result, I''m guessing there is a fair chance slight errors happen in news articles. You know what? I don’t care! I don’t need to have that plastered on this message board every time someone accidently suggests we picked up Steve Morrison from Stevenage, and not Millwall. I know the truth, and so do you. The news outlet doesn''t need to be called stupid, and we can all get on with our lives.

I''m pointing this out, as I just wish people weren’t so petty to constantly point all of this out. None of the incidents, opinions or mistakes above makes any pundit or news outlet "an idiot" or "stupid". As someone currently not living in The UK, I can tell you - you actually don''t know how good you''ve got it. The coverage of football in the UK, in my opinion, is better than any other sport in any other country (perhaps unless you like American sports, which I don''t). This is something I think a large number on here take for granted.

[/quote]

[quote user="BW"]great post, best post in ages and you sir are totally right.[/quote]

Oh my god, LOL this is too much!

 

And yes absolutely right OP, think we need to take a step back here and look at what ''little'' media coverage has done for us, we, as you say have gone under the radar and this can only be a good thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think I must come from a totally different generation, these days watch very little football on TV, not got sky sports do have access to live steams and admit to watching most of the Norwich games this season. To me the football experience was far better years ago standing on the terraces being able to turn up pay your money and walk onto the Barclay at 2 30 for a 3pm kick off or 7 30 for a 7 45 kick off.Have had season tickets watch Norwich in the late 90`s but alas prices and children mean these days I can`t afford to get up as much as I would like to but that is due to supply and demand of tickets over the past 10 seasons and shows what a great fan base this football club has.

Like you said Sky have got many things right with there coverage of the game soccer Saturday is a great example of how to make coverage entertaining (bbc and itv take note) but as for some of the kick off times over the weekend and Monday`s it doesn`t help the football fan at all does it? Manchester Utd fans having to get to Norfolk for a dinnertime kick off on a Sunday being a prime example (mind im sure there is a decent service from Liverpool Street ;) )

We can`t go back to how thing were I know and this is progress some might say but deep down personally I miss the way football was shown and broadcast in the 70`s and 80`s and only having the odd game important game shown live. What was wrong with listening to the great Peter Jones(no radio Norfolk in those days) painting the picture of a game on radio 2 on Wednesday night so much more entertaining than the commentators running wax lyrical about the average players that play in this country today !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O/P. I think I have  appeared to hi-jack your thread with a long rant which was slightly off your own points.

 

I realised this, especially when I saw my post''s length and apologise. It was a late, sleepless night and I had resorted to a few cans.

 

Can Pete reverse the trend and make this into two separate threads and call mine "Sky Bashing" or something to that effect? I think both threads will have a longish shelf-life.

 

I would be grateful, thanks.

 

Sorry again Ghost of  M.K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the main I tend to agree with our phantom friend from down-under. It never ceases to amaze me the number of members of fora such as this who spend such inordinate amounts of time and effort whinging and arguing over such trivial matters; ones that they can do nothing about. In these sort of cases, however, it''s always fair to point out, firstly that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and secondly, that if you don''t like something on the web, TV, radio,  etc then there''s always the option to switch it off ,or not to read it.

 

I''ve never subscribed to Sky, even when I lived in the UK, not least as I don''t want to swell the Murdoch coffers any more than they are already.  I''d certainly agree, in fairness, that the coverage of football by Sky is of a very high standard, but let''s not forget that this superior coverage comes at a price, and it''s simply not fair to compare it with what are basically FTA services such as the BBC or ITV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when you think the shambles of BBC punditry could not get any anti-norwich up comes this weeks predictions!!!!  kermit the frog and miss piggy are saying we are going to lose to swansea 2-0, FFS do they not know anything, are they completely unaware that we totally outplayed them in our last meeting and currently sit higher in the table than them.  what a green little prick! I dont pay my licence fee for uninformed and biased predictions like this, no doubt the pig has sheep ancestors or something! total garbage, im off to eat a bacon sandwich to make me feell better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Son Ova Gunn, are you unaware of Swansea''s fantastic home form? I would actually be shocked if we beat Swansea, a draw maybe if we play very well, but Swansea are brilliant at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

In the main I tend to agree with our phantom friend from down-under. It never ceases to amaze me the number of members of fora such as this who spend such inordinate amounts of time and effort whinging and arguing over such trivial matters; ones that they can do nothing about. In these sort of cases, however, it''s always fair to point out, firstly that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and secondly, that if you don''t like something on the web, TV, radio,  etc then there''s always the option to switch it off ,or not to read it.

 

I''ve never subscribed to Sky, even when I lived in the UK, not least as I don''t want to swell the Murdoch coffers any more than they are already.  I''d certainly agree, in fairness, that the coverage of football by Sky is of a very high standard, but let''s not forget that this superior coverage comes at a price, and it''s simply not fair to compare it with what are basically FTA services such as the BBC or ITV.[/quote]

 

I find this an interesting post because if you delete the first sentence, that paragraph sums up my response to the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Well, Kermit the Frog has predicted Swansea to beat Norwich 2 - 0. I hope everyone will be giving this horrible little frog plenty of abuse.[/quote]

 

Can''t stand him.Knows nothing about football.

 

What an absolute MUPPET......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah gingerpele, im aware of swansea''s home record, the post bashing the predictions of two puppets has supposed to come across tounge in cheek in reponce to the original post. sorry, guess it was both unfunny and invisible looking at later posts. For what its worth i agree, a draw would be a point gain definately rather than 2 lost, but i though we get in trouble around here for predicting anything other than a norwich win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Well, Kermit the Frog has predicted Swansea to beat Norwich 2 - 0. I hope everyone will be giving this horrible little frog plenty of abuse.[/quote]

 

Can''t stand him.Knows nothing about football.

 

What an absolute MUPPET......

[/quote]

 

It just annoys me so much when people don''t give these experts the respect they deserve, I mean he''s been asked by the BBC to give his view and all he gets is abuse just because people don''t agree with his opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can''t understand the ''I won''t have Sky as i don''t want to contribute to Murdoch''s coffers''.

Do you think Sky gives value for money for the various packages on offer? If you do and you can afford it, then great.

At least you have a choice with Sky - take it or leave it.

I wish I had that option with the BBC. An organisation that uses licence money to take advantage of commercial enterprises that have to make a profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gingerpele"]I''m actually surprised Lawro has gone for a draw in that game to be honest....[/quote]

 

Don''t worry - all is well with the World - Merson has predicted a 3-1 win to Swansea - Phew!!!

 

OP - all very well you having your rant, much of which I agree with, but can you in all honesty say that Lawrenson & Shearer are the bees knees when it comes to football punditry?   Hmmm? Yep, I thought not.

 

Now if you bring on unbiased pundits like Garth Crooks, then I would be 100% supportive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When a Motd analyst gives a bland or clearly wrong opinion then us fans should be able to vote at the end of the programme to relegate them to the football league show for the following week.

So say Lawrenson says something really stupid on Saturday night about us then everyone can press red button to relegate him.

Then the following week we might get Steve Claridge or Leroy Rosenior in his place.

It would keep Lawrenson and Shearer and co sharp and would also apply to the presenters.

Imagine how much incentive Claridge would feel if he knew if he gave really good analysis on FLS that the following week he could be on MOTD watching better football and in bed one and a half hours earlier.

Can''t see this idea failing ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, OK, CF. Maybe I''ve been a little harsh on the frog''s football expertise . But I hope you are not suggesting that my assertion that he is, in fact, a Muppet is incorrect ?

 

I think that all this anti animal punditry stems from jealousy over that bl**dy octopus''s efforts during the World Cup a couple of years back.

But, as alluded to above, the tentacled one''s accuracy rate is/was somewhat higher than that of Merson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]I get the impression that this thread has gone in the directly opposite direction to what the O/P intended.  [/quote]

I think you maybe correct, although kermit the frog and miss piggy appearing as guest predictors on the same afternoon as a thread saying we should be so hard on the scores being forcast by the great BBC is just priceless. I will also predict they get a better score than lawro :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]I get the impression that this thread has gone in the directly opposite direction to what the O/P intended.  [/quote]

 

I wonder if, perhaps, irony is lost on you Broadstairs.

 

My suspicion was, and still is, that Theoclitos'' Ghost was originally making a serious point about recurrent themes/threads on the forum.

 

Some of the more recent posts however concerning Kermit, Miss Piggy, Octopuses, and Merson are, I''d bet, of the tongue in cheek variety ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make your own decisions and come to your own conclusions, then whatever anyone else says about anything at all is of no consequence...It''s all pap to fill empty spaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]There is one thing that''s been annoying me lately with threads on this message board.

Actually, there has been a few. However the odd drama queen making up transfer rumours has been discussed enough. And, the standard message board "racial and homophobic" conversations will go on for this, and many other message boards, thus continuing to prove Godwin''s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin''s_law).

It''s not these ones I want to discuss.

I want to discuss the constant bashing of media outlets and pundits for them having the audacity to make a slight error, or (gasp!) disagree with your opinion.

In recent weeks I can split these up into the following 3 categories.

1) Pundit not agreeing with your opinion.

Main whipping boy for this is Mark Lawrenson for his weekly predictions on the BBC website. I mean how dare he even suggest we''ll get beaten away at Sunderland? And, for this brazen prediction, he gets branded "a nob". Pundits are in a no win situation. They get paid to have an opinion. Just sometimes that opinion may be; a) not correct, or b) wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. That''s what punditry is, an opinion. Would you prefer to listen and read a heap of experts sitting on the fence and not giving any opinion or insight at all, just so they don''t offend any fans of any club? Of course not.

2) Norwich not getting the coverage / credit they deserve.

"Always" being last on MOTD (we''ve only been on last once from the 8 or 9 times I''ve watched). Or, the recent thread about Swansea are getting all the credit, and us getting none. Even if that was the case, why do people care so much? We flew under the radar last year while the world talked QPR and Leeds. Correct me if I''m wrong, but that turned out OK didn''t it? We know how well we''re doing, and I personally don''t care if no one else but us knows. If we hold onto Lambert, and we keep progressing, they''ll know soon enough.

Another classic in this category is "Sheerer only talking about us for 5 seconds on MOTD. What an idiot." etc. I''m not too sure how many people are aware of the time between 3pm kick-off and the screening of MOTD, but I have a secret for you. There is a good chance the pundit talking about our game on MOTD, actually didn''t see the game!

3) An error in a story / coverage.

People like to pick out any slight error in any piece of coverage and post it, calling the news outlet "stupid" in the process. Why? Whenever you''re reading an article from a national media outlet, there is a very good change that you''re going to know the ins and outs of NCFC a lot better than the author. That’s because NCFC is your passion, and it''s the writer’s job to know about all of the clubs in The Football League, not just one.

We live in a world now where news is by-the-minute. The internet has changed the news world forever, and as a result, I''m guessing there is a fair chance slight errors happen in news articles. You know what? I don’t care! I don’t need to have that plastered on this message board every time someone accidently suggests we picked up Steve Morrison from Stevenage, and not Millwall. I know the truth, and so do you. The news outlet doesn''t need to be called stupid, and we can all get on with our lives.

I''m pointing this out, as I just wish people weren’t so petty to constantly point all of this out. None of the incidents, opinions or mistakes above makes any pundit or news outlet "an idiot" or "stupid". As someone currently not living in The UK, I can tell you - you actually don''t know how good you''ve got it. The coverage of football in the UK, in my opinion, is better than any other sport in any other country (perhaps unless you like American sports, which I don''t). This is something I think a large number on here take for granted.

[/quote]

[quote user="BW"]great post, best post in ages and you sir are totally right.[/quote]

Oh my god, LOL this is too much!

 

And yes absolutely right OP, think we need to take a step back here and look at what ''little'' media coverage has done for us, we, as you say have gone under the radar and this can only be a good thing!

[/quote]

Pea''s you seem to be developing a strange complex about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"I wonder if, perhaps, irony is lost on you Broadstairs?"

 

Sadly it must be, especially when it is so subtle, funny and long-drawn out.

 

In this instance I think more serious replies would have been appreciated better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BroadstairsR"]

 

 

In this instance I think more serious replies would have been appreciated better.

[/quote]

 

To be fair, BS, the first 7 postings (including one from you and one from me) were "serious" replies to Theo''s original point.  After that , there were a few more ironic ones, but  , to my mind Theo got a good range of reasoned responses . Indeed by this forum''s standards, to go 7 posts without being hauled over the coals, insulted, or treated sarcastically, is pretty good going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with alot of the earlier posts.   You can''t help but have opinions.  

 

I think there are too many people who forget that TV pundits are paid alot of money for their ''opinions''.  What riles most people is that when they comment on a match they obviously haven''t seen, they often do it in such a way that shows they have done no research either.    This is the lack of quality that is there in the media these days.  

 

When there are mistakes in the press about names of players, stats etc its the same thing - a lack of quality.

 

If a poster on this board says something out of ignorance or has bad grammar, spelling etc - its the same thing - a lack of quality. 

 

I''m not surprised BW thinks this was a great op - he is one of the main culprits in the lack of quality.   I''m no angel either but this is a message board about opinions - if people want to complain, they should be allowed to complain.  If you don''t like the complaint - say so and why you don''t like it, but don''t say ''thou shalt not complain about pundits, media or any one else''.    They are there to be shot at - and so are we.

 

At the end of the day it''s about quality.  If what you say makes sense and is based on suitable analysis/research etc thats fine,  but I for one shall carry on being annoyed when I see people who are plainly being paid alot of money  saying things that are either not true or accurate.   That applies to posters on here as well - although they will not be being paid alot of money for their posts (at least I hope not!).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theo, let me tell you one thing, we expect the highest standards in our media here in the UK, the fact that your Aussie press is obsessed with tits and bums is no reason to expect our high standards to be allowed to drop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...