BBC Match report (wow)

I noticed that as well. But not only that, there was a clear negative agenda in parts of the report. For example, the alleged ‘penalty’ incident when Brophy tried his luck, the report suggests it should have been a pen. Or, reporting that the red card against Killie was ‘incredulous’, and their goalie used ‘minimum force’.
What interests me is that this report smacks of two different people writing it. In general, most of the report is written quite positively and then suddenly, it changes in mid-stream at odd points to make these green-tinted smarmy comments. Possibly a sub-editor inserting said comments?
 
It's the way it's all matter of fact, it's like an opinion piece (anti-Rangers) opinion piece. Not the balanced reporting of facts they're mandated to provide. Scum
 
No doubt they'll be changing it in a few minutes, once enough people have seen it
 
If it wasn't a red appeal it and see what the compliance officer has to say about a deliberate elbow to the face

That tube craigan spent an age talking about excessive force last night, that's for an actual legal tackle not when you deliberately elbow and opponent in the face

Fuckin dick
 
Stanley said:
I noticed that as well. But not only that, there was a clear negative agenda in parts of the report. For example, the alleged ‘penalty’ incident when Brophy tried his luck, the report suggests it should have been a pen. Or, reporting that the red card against Killie was ‘incredulous’, and their goalie used ‘minimum force’.
What interests me is that this report smacks of two different people writing it. In general, most of the report is written quite positively and then suddenly, it changes in mid-stream at odd points to make these green-tinted smarmy comments. Possibly a sub-editor inserting said comments?
Click to expand...

I noticed yesterday that the report was credited to someone different from the one that was doing the live reporting, so that may well be the case.
 
Stanley said:
I noticed that as well. But not only that, there was a clear negative agenda in parts of the report. For example, the alleged ‘penalty’ incident when Brophy tried his luck, the report suggests it should have been a pen. Or, reporting that the red card against Killie was ‘incredulous’, and their goalie used ‘minimum force’.
What interests me is that this report smacks of two different people writing it. In general, most of the report is written quite positively and then suddenly, it changes in mid-stream at odd points to make these green-tinted smarmy comments. Possibly a sub-editor inserting said comments?
Click to expand...
Ready two papers...Brophy 'hauled back'...????
 
Stanley said:
I noticed that as well. But not only that, there was a clear negative agenda in parts of the report. For example, the alleged ‘penalty’ incident when Brophy tried his luck, the report suggests it should have been a pen. Or, reporting that the red card against Killie was ‘incredulous’, and their goalie used ‘minimum force’.
What interests me is that this report smacks of two different people writing it. In general, most of the report is written quite positively and then suddenly, it changes in mid-stream at odd points to make these green-tinted smarmy comments. Possibly a sub-editor inserting said comments?
Click to expand...
Two different tim's writing it
 
“Editorially fair”

giphy.gif
 
Honestly, its getting past a point where it can be ignored and hoped that it will just disappear.

it's absolutely clear to me that we are being governed, by various outlets, to a completely different standard to anyone else and I'm not sure I can see a real way around it? Until the top men in the SFA have changed, and there's different directives from the top down then I believe this is what life will be like as a Rangers fan in the foreseeable future, and quite frankly that infuriates me.

What's "incredulous" about last nights game is the fact the media are making the keeper out to be the VICTIM! The Victim? Really? How anyone can spin that as a direct elbow to the face as anything but that, describing it basically as a tickle to the face - and then in the same breath claim that Morelos "Stamped" on McKenna's nutsack, as opposed to what really happened, is fucking beyond me.

The whole situation is an absolute farce, and I feel almost helpless, like we just have to sit back and watch it unfold in front of us, with the odd complaint here and there but nothing actually able to get done.
 
Stanley said:
I noticed that as well. But not only that, there was a clear negative agenda in parts of the report. For example, the alleged ‘penalty’ incident when Brophy tried his luck, the report suggests it should have been a pen. Or, reporting that the red card against Killie was ‘incredulous’, and their goalie used ‘minimum force’.
What interests me is that this report smacks of two different people writing it. In general, most of the report is written quite positively and then suddenly, it changes in mid-stream at odd points to make these green-tinted smarmy comments. Possibly a sub-editor inserting said comments?
Click to expand...

Lying bstsrds
 
Stanley said:
I noticed that as well. But not only that, there was a clear negative agenda in parts of the report. For example, the alleged ‘penalty’ incident when Brophy tried his luck, the report suggests it should have been a pen. Or, reporting that the red card against Killie was ‘incredulous’, and their goalie used ‘minimum force’.
What interests me is that this report smacks of two different people writing it. In general, most of the report is written quite positively and then suddenly, it changes in mid-stream at odd points to make these green-tinted smarmy comments. Possibly a sub-editor inserting said comments?
Click to expand...
I’ve thought this about a few articles. I wonder if some of the stuff journos are accused of is actually down to editors either adding, changing or removing parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top