[Archived] Guardian article on Kean - unbelievable!

[Pedro]

Maybe by saying that Kean having "Churchillian gravity" means he's a bald, little, fat ######.

[BiggusLaddus]

Bald, check

Fat, check

Likes his booze, check

Inspirational leader?

Kean's style of leadership would be like Churchill, if Churchill had decided that the best way to recover from his cock up at Gallipolli was to blame the sea fire being slightly the wrong shade of green and then doing the exact same thing over and over again.

[elwaxo]

theres often something missing or unsaid in mainstream journalism... this is the same!

[Rovermatt]

Indeed. A prominent football agent (let's just say, for the sake of argument, that his name is 'Jerry Alexander'. That's not his real name, nor - I hope - is he anything to do with the same JA who wrote this article, but you get my drift) recently had his solicitor write to an inconveniently proactive supporters group whose members were concerned over the direction of their club under the stewardship of its Pakistani owners (we'll call that club 'Melchester Rovers' and the owners 'Crankies'. Again, you get my drift).

In this communication, the solicitors, on behalf of 'Jerry Alexander', warned the supporters group not to countenance even mentioning the name of 'Jerry Alexander' - regardless of the context - in upcoming meetings it was having with some of the most important figures in the English footballing establishment.

The Guardian is perhaps correct to be leery of incurring the wrath of 'Jerry Alexander'.

[FourLaneBlue]

It isn't "yellow journalism". Monday sports match reports from a Saturday by their nature have moved on from an event that happened 2 days previously and have always had a different angle. It's basic journalism, and a it's good journalism.

You are the one missing out by not reading an alternative view. It's known as broadening your mind.

Yes it is, and if you had read my that post of mine that you quoted you would have seen that I have read it. You know, it was that bit you actually spent time cutting out of the quote you used. As for reading, it seems you might have missed the first version before the softened rewrite. Mind you, what is still there is bad enough.

I'm not sure how portraying Rovers fans as "verbal terrorists" is good journalism. Seems like scandal-mongering to me to use such a perjorative term. .I'm not sure how equating Kean with a revered war leader that inspired our nation is good journalism when he has, in truth, acted dubiously on occasions and told a load of crap on many others. Seems like desperate sensationalism to me, and invoking such a figure is a rhetorical device that any decent GCSE English student learns. He'll be equating the Rovers fans with Hitler next...

I don't mind having another angle in a match report. In fact, I welcome it. Yet this is an attack on Rovers fans, a further villification no doubt inspired by forces who want to promote Kean's image at the expense of the Rovers fans. Great research there, wonder who he spoke to? However, it seems your assertion that this is good journalism is based on it having created a storm and having people read it. A match report may well have an angle, but one that relates to the game in hand. Context is all. As for the widespread deletion of posts that were nowhere near as provocative as the original article...well, I guess that's good journalism as well.

As for the match report, using it to further the goals and PR campaign of an employee of a football club and, perhaps, its owners against the good of the club and community of those of many who would be expected to read it...nah, that's just unprofessional and unethical.

[Rovermatt]

Irritatingly, The Guardian's mods have deleted my post above along with some, though not all, replies. I've had another pop just for badness. Utter gibberish of course. I'll store it here however.

Imagine, if you will, that a prominent darts agent (let's just say, for the sake of argument, that his name is Jason Abstract. That's not his real name, nor is he anything to do with the same JA who wrote this article) recently had his solicitors make contact, telepathically, with an inconveniently proactive supporters group whose members were concerned over the direction of their ping-pong club under the stewardship of its Dothraki owners (we'll call that club Melchester Ramblers and the owners Mankies).

Imagine if, in this communication, the solicitors, on behalf of Mr Abstract warned the supporters group not to countenance even mentioning their client's name - regardless of the context - in upcoming meetings it was having with some of the most important figures in the Martian darts hierarchy.

The Guardian would be correct, perhaps, to be leery of incurring the wrath of Jason Abstract.

Fortunately all of the above is simple make believe. Like Santa, the Easter Bunny or Steve Kean's P45.

[jim mk2]

further the goals and PR campaign of an employee of a football club and, perhaps, its owners against the good of the club and community of those of many who would be expected to read it...nah, that's just unprofessional and unethical.

It's his opinion and an alternative point of view to the one generally seen on here about Kean and Venky's but because you disagree with what the writer is saying, or the way that he said it, doesn't make it bad journalism.

[philipl]

Bad journalism is producing blatant untruths the most casual piece of research can be used to challenge or rectify.

Both versions of that Guardian article contain at least one statement that completely fails in having any substantiation whatsoever.

Good journalism does not set out to denigrate or villify a community or segment of society gratuitously.

That article is by any objective measure a piece if rank bad journalism.

Somebody realised version 1 had to be rapidly back-pedalled on so they cowardly slipped a 50% re-write in but the re-write remains abusive and inaccurate.

The journalist responsible has produced an appalling piece of work and is going to have to answer to the PCC for it.

[FourLaneBlue]

It's his opinion and an alternative point of view to the one generally seen on here about Kean and Venky's but because you disagree with what the writer is saying, or the way that he said it, doesn't make it bad journalism.

I never said it did. You said that.

I said it was bad journalism for different reasons.

[broadsword]

It's his opinion and an alternative point of view to the one generally seen on here about Kean and Venky's but because you disagree with what the writer is saying, or the way that he said it, doesn't make it bad journalism.

Quite right.

The total lack of any resemblence to the truth, and a seeming desire to rubbish people who don't deserve it, whilst deifying people who do, make this a rank piece of incredibly poor journalism.

[Kelbo]

Bad journalism is producing blatant untruths the most casual piece of research can be used to challenge or rectify.

Both versions of that Guardian article contain at least one statement that completely fails in having any substantiation whatsoever.

Good journalism does not set out to denigrate or villify a community or segment of society gratuitously.

That article is by any objective measure a piece if rank bad journalism.

Somebody realised version 1 had to be rapidly back-pedalled on so they cowardly slipped a 50% re-write in but the re-write remains abusive and inaccurate.

The journalist responsible has produced an appalling piece of work and is going to have to answer to the PCC for it.

I think the PCC should also ask a question, which is my opinion of this piece of untruths, did you recieve any payment from any source other than the Gaurdian for writing such an article!!

[dave birch]

Journalism is the reporting of facts.

Anything else is an opinion, and as such, is as valid as every post on this website since inception.

The content of this persons "opinion" shows the amount of investigation and verification this person undertook.

I'm sure he'd be very pleased with having to do a rewrite, as that would tend to show some kind of error in the original piece.

A poor piece of writing IMO.

[philipl]

I think the PCC should also ask a question, which is my opinion of this piece of untruths, did you recieve any payment from any source other than the Gaurdian for writing such an article!!

The PCC form does not really allow for such a question to be posed.

However, if we get into mediation which I am encouraging the PCC to head towards....

[dave birch]

The PCC form does not really allow for such a question to be posed.

However, if we get into mediation which I am encouraging the PCC to head towards....

The problem is that these guys have been there and done that a million times.

They know the way these commissions work, and they'll use that to their advantage.

Look at the number of successful complaints.

[thenodrog]

I think the PCC should also ask a question, which is my opinion of this piece of untruths, did you recieve any payment from any source other than the Gaurdian for writing such an article!!

JA "No I did not".

PCC Chairman "OK then. Thanks for clearing that up".

Hardly a court of law is it Kelbo?

The PCC form does not really allow for such a question to be posed.

However, if we get into mediation which I am encouraging the PCC to head towards....

Why don't we stop beating about the bush and fight fire with fire? Why not have a whip around and simply 'buy' some journo to do a story for us?

[M-K]

This is ridiculous, and plays right into the negative image of Blackburn fans portrayed in the article.

The PCC isn't there to pat you on the head and return your dummy to the pram because some nasty man wrote mean words about your favourite football team. Absolutely nothing will happen as a result of this complaint, other than maybe some other journalists see how incredibly easy we are to wind up.

[Mattyblue]

'negative image'? What that fans are sick and tired of being smeared and subjected to out and out lies? 'Shut up and know your place', ay?

[Rovermatt]

My post above has now been removed by The Guardian mods. Very shady.

[M-K]

My post above has now been removed by The Guardian mods. Very shady.

Your post on Jerome Anderson from the top of this page? As a general rule of thumb in publishing, if you have even the slightest doubt about the legality of something you're about to print, the most sensible thing to do is not to print it. You know that too, otherwise you'd have mentioned JEROME ANDERSON by name and voiced your suspicion, implied by your post and others that were removed, that noted football agent JEROME ANDERSON is behind the whole sorry saga at Blackburn Rovers.

But you can't do that because, well, you're going to get modded / sued.

[M-K]

Ho ho ho. Apparently 'Jason Abstract' is okay here.

If the Guardian think it's prudent to delete it, you probably should do the same here too.

edit: the legal basis for this is if the 'right minded reader' can tell who you're talking about or the meaning of what you may be implying.

[K-Hod]

It's obvious to anyone that the guardian writer who's written that is on the wind up. There's blatant lies about us heading south under the trust, when the opposite was true.

Not bad journalism? Please.

[Rovermatt]

Ho ho ho. Apparently 'Jason Abstract' is okay here.

If the Guardian think it's prudent to delete it, you probably should do the same here too.

edit: the legal basis for this is if the 'right minded reader' can tell who you're talking about or the meaning of what you may be implying.

I'm aware of the legal basis. In any case, the true story has been reported on this MB multiple times without censure.

[M-K]

I'm aware of the legal basis. In any case, the true story has been reported on this MB multiple times without censure.

Well I just mentioned the guy by name right here and my post was erased.

[SouthAussieRover]

Jerome

[Rovermatt]

Well I just mentioned the guy by name right here and my post was erased.

I see. Has the issuing of a letter to Glen M et al not been referenced here quite a few times?