Why you shouldn't believe the media

A nice get out clause by The Metro there. 'According to reports'..... my arse.

If its the truth theres no need for that. There'd also be a source of information and very likely quotes. Nothing whatsoever. More sensationalist bullshit done to discredit Tan and try and drag our club through the gutter.

I either heard this on the radio, or read it somewhere else, in the last few days.

I believe that 8 is a lucky number in Malaysia. And Tan is Malaysian. So obviously he wants players with some association with 8.

It's a solid bit of journalism. Well, until you consider that there are other lucky numbers, like 7, 9, and 6.

But you know, who's got time to actually research?

A co-presenter with Jason Cundy on Talk Shite radio was discussing the situation and insisted he would only refer to Tan as Vincent Plum, ridiculed him throughout whilst praising Malky, and constantly criticised him for 'changing the club's nickname'.
The problem is that we all know this is tripe but on a national station, non local listeners might think he knew what he was talking about. Pathetic stuff.

Cyncoedslumdog wrote:A co-presenter with Jason Cundy on Talk Shite radio was discussing the situation and insisted he would only refer to Tan as Vincent Plum, ridiculed him throughout whilst praising Malky, and constantly criticised him for 'changing the club's nickname'.
The problem is that we all know this is tripe but on a national station, non local listeners might think he knew what he was talking about. Pathetic stuff.

Another problem is how members of BU always get air time and ridicule the owner, because of that the press believe most fans want Tan out.
Whilst I do think that there is not one fan who supports City who can be totally happy with everything he has done, the vast majority however, know we would not be in the Premier League if it wasn't for the money he has invested.

The thing is, you can't only apply that logic when it backs your viewpoint. I refer you back to the article you posted that apparently backed your view that there had been a huge overspend in the summer. It provides evidence, but says nothing whatsoever about it being Malky or Moody's fault. Quite the opposite, it even says it's sources found no evidence that they were to blame. It didn't stop you from declaring yourself right however.

I think this particular article is nonsense as well. But I'm just making the point that the critiscism can be applied to virtually all sources, not just the ones that disagree with you.

Red614 wrote:The thing is, you can't only apply that logic when it backs your viewpoint. I refer you back to the article you posted that apparently backed your view that there had been a huge overspend in the summer. It provides evidence, but says nothing whatsoever about it being Malky or Moody's fault. Quite the opposite, it even says it's sources found no evidence that they were to blame. It didn't stop you from declaring yourself right however.

I think this particular article is nonsense as well. But I'm just making the point that the critiscism can be applied to virtually all sources, not just the ones that disagree with you.

Agreed. I didn't say I was right however. I said its what I believed as I believe all involved had a part in the events that unfolded. I am however, not trying to belittle or denounce anyone like some of those in the media are doing. Im just trying to put out some possible theories. They're quite clearly on a witch hunt against Tan as that now seems to be the 'in thing' to do.

There taking rumours as if its factual and then using it to belittle Vincent Tan. I was taking rumours and I dissected them and used them to weight up an argument. Nowhere have I denounced Malky or Moody or Tan. If anything, the only person I have and will admit to criticising is Cornelius and thats because he has the ability of a donkey.

Widespread media don't release their sources because they want to keep them private. It's a competitive business, based on who has the best exclusives. If you take that story and for a moment pretend it was real, if they said their source was a Malaysian newspaper, any other British tabloid releasing the story would use the same source. If you keep it hidden? Every other paper in the country is forced to use the metro as their source, raising their exposure.

And because the general demographic of readers don't really look into it, they get away with it. If I told someone on the street that I'm a scientist and that I've just read that heart disease is caused by eating crayons, they'd probably accept it. If I said the same thing in the lab, the first thing they'd ask for is where I read it. It's not to say me and my colleagues are smarter than the public, it's just that we are in an environment which is much more reliant on evidence rather than trust.

Red614 wrote:Widespread media don't release their sources because they want to keep them private. It's a competitive business, based on who has the best exclusives. If you take that story and for a moment pretend it was real, if they said their source was a Malaysian newspaper, any other British tabloid releasing the story would use the same source. If you keep it hidden? Every other paper in the country is forced to use the metro as their source, raising their exposure.

And because the general demographic of readers don't really look into it, they get away with it. If I told someone on the street that I'm a scientist and that I've just read that heart disease is caused by eating crayons, they'd probably accept it. If I said the same thing in the lab, the first thing they'd ask for is where I read it. It's not to say me and my colleagues are smarter than the public, it's just that we are in an environment which is much more reliant on evidence rather than trust.

......so that's what happened to poor old Trash........ 

TDA wrote:

Red614 wrote:Widespread media don't release their sources because they want to keep them private. It's a competitive business, based on who has the best exclusives. If you take that story and for a moment pretend it was real, if they said their source was a Malaysian newspaper, any other British tabloid releasing the story would use the same source. If you keep it hidden? Every other paper in the country is forced to use the metro as their source, raising their exposure.

And because the general demographic of readers don't really look into it, they get away with it. If I told someone on the street that I'm a scientist and that I've just read that heart disease is caused by eating crayons, they'd probably accept it. If I said the same thing in the lab, the first thing they'd ask for is where I read it. It's not to say me and my colleagues are smarter than the public, it's just that we are in an environment which is much more reliant on evidence rather than trust.

......so that's what happened to poor old Trash........ 

Either that or he was a victim of those ricin-laced pieces of cheese I left out to deal with the rat problem we had a while back...

For legal reasons, I'm going to back the crayon theory.

Red614 wrote:

TDA wrote:

Red614 wrote:Widespread media don't release their sources because they want to keep them private. It's a competitive business, based on who has the best exclusives. If you take that story and for a moment pretend it was real, if they said their source was a Malaysian newspaper, any other British tabloid releasing the story would use the same source. If you keep it hidden? Every other paper in the country is forced to use the metro as their source, raising their exposure.

And because the general demographic of readers don't really look into it, they get away with it. If I told someone on the street that I'm a scientist and that I've just read that heart disease is caused by eating crayons, they'd probably accept it. If I said the same thing in the lab, the first thing they'd ask for is where I read it. It's not to say me and my colleagues are smarter than the public, it's just that we are in an environment which is much more reliant on evidence rather than trust.

......so that's what happened to poor old Trash........ 

Either that or he was a victim of those ricin-laced pieces of cheese I left out to deal with the rat problem we had a while back...

For legal reasons, I'm going to back the crayon theory.

That's no way to talk about our friends from CCMB............

I've felt sympathy for Tan in the last few days (something I never thought I'd say!). The made up storied of birth-dates, 'keepers scoring goals, etc is just made up nonsense.

The good thing is, you can safely say that without fear of abuse on this board.

Worryingly, I feel the same way gloves.

I can feel his ego rising by the minute, but I think Blueminati is to blame. I didn't agree with all of it, but what did sink in has made me sit back and think a little.

At this point in time, I still want Tan to go. What's changed is I don't think it's a lost cause anymore. Depending on his actions from here on in, there is a way back for him. It may be slow and take half a decade, but there's a glimmer of light if he handles himself well.