Media

[Tyler]

read a piece in the paper yesterday which asked whether rafa was risking exhausting torres by starting him in five/six consecutive games

same journo who had harped on about the rotation policy and how players needed to play regularly

 

all you could do was smile

papers really are adult comics and are not to be taken seriously

[psl]

Why does everyone on here talk about them all the time then?

[KD07]

Cause we're adults and we like comics.

[David Hodgson]

Why does everyone on here talk about them all the time then?

 

Yep. I think the stark view of all things media related on this forum is 'comical', ironically.

 

Firstly that there exists an anti-LFC media conspiracy. Something that is taken as a given here, yet there is absolutely no evidence for it's existence.

 

Guessing things and presenting them as fact is the supposed crime of much of the media - over sensastionalising, and mindlessly speculating. Yet that is exactly how conclusions are reached about the media on this (and other) forums.

 

We don't know that journo x presenting a story in any one of today's papers is making something up, or has a superb source. Yet people will glibly dismiss every organ and every writer as a fraud.

 

There are many stories in the media that prove to have been without foundation. There are also countless stories that prove to have been well sourced, well researched and totally credible. There are others which may be true at one particular moment, but later events will suggest there was never a basis for the original story or assertion.

 

People will demand quotes to a story for it to be even remotely entertainable. Why ? People lie and distort when quoting to a significant degree. Quotes are often presented entirely out of context or are made to serve the interest of the party being interviewed.

 

Not advocating a policy of broadly trusting the media, but there has to be some balance. The 'challenge' in analysing the information emanating is to discern which is credible and which isn't. That seems obvious, but it seems increasingly it's being assumed that nothing is credible, especially when the news is 'bad'.

[Cobs]

funny - on here of late i think it actually seems more like it's assumed that everything is credible, especially when the news is 'bad'.

[David Hodgson]

funny - on here of late i think it actually seems more like it's assumed that everything is credible, especially when the news is 'bad'.

 

Ah, all a question of perception then. Look at the thread about today's papers and tell me there's a willingness to accept 'bad news' from the media.

[Guest Ant]

Yep. I think the stark view of all things media related on this forum is 'comical', ironically.

 

Firstly that there exists an anti-LFC media conspiracy. Something that is taken as a given here, yet there is absolutely no evidence for it's existence.

 

Guessing things and presenting them as fact is the supposed crime of much of the media - over sensastionalising, and mindlessly speculating. Yet that is exactly how conclusions are reached about the media on this (and other) forums.

 

We don't know that journo x presenting a story in any one of today's papers is making something up, or has a superb source. Yet people will glibly dismiss every organ and every writer as a fraud.

 

There are many stories in the media that prove to have been without foundation. There are also countless stories that prove to have been well sourced, well researched and totally credible. There are others which may be true at one particular moment, but later events will suggest there was never a basis for the original story or assertion.

 

People will demand quotes to a story for it to be even remotely entertainable. Why ? People lie and distort when quoting to a significant degree. Quotes are often presented entirely out of context or are made to serve the interest of the party being interviewed.

 

Not advocating a policy of broadly trusting the media, but there has to be some balance. The 'challenge' in analysing the information emanating is to discern which is credible and which isn't. That seems obvious, but it seems increasingly it's being assumed that nothing is credible, especially when the news is 'bad'.

 

 

Very well said.

 

I mentioned this in another thread, it's all so very tedious.

[Gomez]

Yep. I think the stark view of all things media related on this forum is 'comical', ironically.

 

Firstly that there exists an anti-LFC media conspiracy. Something that is taken as a given here, yet there is absolutely no evidence for it's existence.

 

Guessing things and presenting them as fact is the supposed crime of much of the media - over sensastionalising, and mindlessly speculating. Yet that is exactly how conclusions are reached about the media on this (and other) forums.

 

We don't know that journo x presenting a story in any one of today's papers is making something up, or has a superb source. Yet people will glibly dismiss every organ and every writer as a fraud.

 

There are many stories in the media that prove to have been without foundation. There are also countless stories that prove to have been well sourced, well researched and totally credible. There are others which may be true at one particular moment, but later events will suggest there was never a basis for the original story or assertion.

 

People will demand quotes to a story for it to be even remotely entertainable. Why ? People lie and distort when quoting to a significant degree. Quotes are often presented entirely out of context or are made to serve the interest of the party being interviewed.

 

Not advocating a policy of broadly trusting the media, but there has to be some balance. The 'challenge' in analysing the information emanating is to discern which is credible and which isn't. That seems obvious, but it seems increasingly it's being assumed that nothing is credible, especially when the news is 'bad'.

 

 

People believe journalist and news papers that have proven themselves to be credible, and we dismiss those that have proven to be sensationalists or out and out bullsh*tters. No one can read every artical or every newspaper, so people have differing views on who is credible based on their own experience.

 

Those in between are treated with suspicion until proven otherwise. The vast majority of Liverpool news (and news on the other big clubs) is nothing more than rumour mongering, title-tattle, or lazy journalism (zonal-marking, Rafa rotates, Fergison rests players etc) FFS I was flicking around and caught some hack on Sky saying Liverpool are a one man team and rely on Torres too much. How on earth are you meant to respect that level of journalism? And that is sadly the norm rather than the exception.

[John am Rhein]

The media is no longer relevant. They are anti-LFC in the sense that they are anti everything but themselves.

[floyd]

Just watch the hatchet job these will do on us today. Obviously Gary Mac excluded.

 

Grand Slam Sunday - The Debate

 

12:30pm -

13:00pm

 

Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool & Manchester United go head-to-head today. Four former players, Martin Keown, Ruud Gullit, Gary McAllister and Ray Wilkins discuss their former clubs' prospects, with Richard Keys.

[Gomez]

The media is no longer relevant. They are anti-LFC in the sense that they are anti everything but themselves.

 

The print media is no longer relevant in that they can only provide us with news that is at best 24 hours old, so they resort to providing us with opinions instead.

[Guest RedLegend]

Just watch the hatchet job these will do on us today. Obviously Gary Mac excluded.

 

Grand Slam Sunday - The Debate

 

12:30pm -

13:00pm

 

Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool & Manchester United go head-to-head today. Four former players, Martin Keown, Ruud Gullit, Gary McAllister and Ray Wilkins discuss their former clubs' prospects, with Richard Keys.

 

You can be sure if we don't win today chimp Keys' first question will be "is that Liverpool out of the title race now Ray?".

[Marvin]

There may or may not be an anti LFC agenda. However I am convinced there is an anti Rafa agenda.

[Guest GrandpaSimpson]

You can be sure if we don't win today chimp Keys' first question will be "is that Liverpool out of the title race now Ray?".

 

Valid question, with an obvious answer.

[Hieronymus Bosch]

I mentioned this in another thread, it's all so very tedious.

I think there's a distinction between hacks and pundits (which I guess most of us would describe those rabble-rousing ex-footballers on TV). Perhaps the anti-Liverpool argument (regarding the press) can be slightly tedious - though reporters should always be held to account for shoddy journalism - but I can't see anything wrong with complaining about the myriad failings of uncharismatic, ill-informed TV pundits. (This is probably the most tedious post ever, but hey-ho...)