• Current Donation Goals

cc1173

Jose Mourinho Sacked For The Second Time by Chelsea. Joins Manchester United. And now sacked by them too!

Recommended Posts

I have worked inside multiple media organisations and I can confirm what you say. There is no denying your view of the current media. The interesting part of this is how the press/media in democratic societies eventually ends up with the term

"political correctness". The same happens in football. By this I mean there is some "will" in the media. But the conspiracy that the press has tried to make jose go into the united job from day one as a cfc manager is way off the scale. Thats tinfoil hat material. You agree?

I think there has been a concerted effort from them to get him sacked since it was apparent that something wasn't right at the club this season, its very easy to twist the knife while we are on a bad run, amazing how they have gone from painting him as losing it and not being able to turn it round, straight into he is still world class and the players let him down/wouldnt play for him and has put feelers out about when van gaal goes he will take over at utd.

ill break out the tin foil now but seems bit too convenient to me to be a coincidence, might well be just a case that he annoyed them so they bit harder down like a dog with a bone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jose looked every bit the movie star back in 2013.

Last week he looked like a broken man.

I was there today and though everyone's entitled to their view, booing our own players for their perceived role in Jose's departure while seemingly absolving him of any blame whatsoever is typical of the black and white thinking presented by the media. And it helps our opposition, too.

For me, EVERYONE - the board, players and Jose - are to blame.

I loved Jose but he's gone. All I wanted was my beloved Blues to win today. Costa was an utter embarrassment, but it was a much better team performance.

The one positive out of this for me is that the Jose spell is finally broken and when we look for a manager after our next appointment we can look elsewhere and forward instead of back.

The future is Blue and as I've stated before, one season outta the CL won't kill us; we will win the league next year - regardless of who's in charge at Old Trafford.

Love this post. Brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it may be true that an editor and a team of reporters from ONE paper may discuss "angles" for a story (more often a political one), I would seriously doubt that journalists from different tabloids huddle around together and say to each other "yeah... this week let's stick the knife into [insert name of club/manager/player/all three]..." Tabloid journalism is pretty cut-throat, with each paper desperate to get one over a rival by breaking a story no-one else has. That sort of intra-tabloid colusion you hint at just doesn't happen. Cynic isn't the 5 letter word I would use to describe you.

Tabloid journalism is piss poor at the best of times, if you honestly don't think that journos who are all matey with one another don't over a drink say if stick the knife in this week on Jose he might crack and give us a story we can run with for a few days or if we bait wenger with some Jose quotes we could get a few days reports from that, or again if we bait pullis with klopp I reckon we could get a day or two from that.

They make their news happen by being snidey in how they report stuff or how they word questions, they lead people into giving the kind of responses they are after so their jobs become easier, most of the modern reporting is fluffed up opinion pieces with a large dash of bollocks for good measure, you would hope if it were regulated they would be taken to task on it, but as soon as it gets mentioned they scream free press at you, which like I said is for integrity reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that one of uniteds board members publicly saying mourinhos philosophy doesnt fit their club and they are not interested. And why would they change a boring van gaal for an even more boring Mourinho?

You probably do remember that quite clearly.

You are probably thinking of Charlton's comments which then got stretched by the press 3 or 4 years ago.

He is still on the board at Man U but I doubt he has any more influence than Dicky Attenborough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously you don't think that the journos get together in the back of the press room and decide the tone of the story they put out? the people that write the story are the press their superiors only care about the number of copies are sold nothing else, and I'm sure you've heard about the phone tapping malarky why do you think the media scream at the top of their voices that they have to remain a free press! its not because they want/have journalist integrity its like most things in life, to cover up the dodgy crap they have been upto for years, call me a cynic but where there's money involved there's corruption at one level or another, the press is far from being whiter than white.

Yes.

I recall Toby, once here, later at Thechels, telling of press conferences he had attended where the paper press got together afterwards to agree a common version of what happened. Not so much to compare notes, but to write new ones.

The press filter the news. The number one major world wide story of the year was announced very clearly a few weeks ago - nobody mentions it.

It is true of the financial pages, it is true of the international diplomacy pages, it is true of the media pages in the Guardian, it is true of the sports pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OzzyCFC   

I knew he would end up there - but not this flipping week!! I figured it would be in a month or two, or at the end of the season. And certainly not before we play them!

The speed of this does awaken the cynic in me, especially given those 'betrayed' comments. Jose loves Chelsea and would never deliberately or challenge teams to sack him so he could leave for another big club (which he has always dreamed of managing, everyone knows that).

That said, do big clubs really do deals for big managers and make decisions to sack the previous one so quickly? There's something a bit suspicious there - probably from United's side more than Jose's - about the speed this seems to be developing. If he gets the United job this week there will be commentators who say those Leicester comments were designed to ensure he got sacked so he could take the United job which would almost immediately become available after he left Chelsea.

Jose loves us, and wouldn't do that intentionally, or deliberately. I can't believe he would. But the speed of it is a bit suspicious.

More likely, he wanted to stay but knew the United job might well be available if he did go, and United kept Van Gaal this long because they knew Jose might be sacked. No intentional plan, but 'happy circumstances'.

Hahaha never change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

The press aren't planning to have this or that happen. That's giving them way too much respect. The key thing with the press is the need to sell copy. To do that, they need to sell us a story that attracts our attention, that we can believe in and which interests us enough to want to read it. The story has to be generally (though not specifically) believable and sensational. To do that, they rely on the combination of narratives and what I will call "pushing the margin".

Reporters need narratives in order to be believable, The narratives are the set of things that form a collective truth. It acts as a kind of parallel universe to what is actually going on. To a degree, it mirrors reality in the sense that as events change so do the narratives. But the narratives also have large dollops of the unknowable, rumours, gossip and so on. After every event, press conferences, game or whatever, journalists will be reading each other's copy and talking when they meet and so on. This is what DWMH is referring to.They are trying to deduce the collective response to those events is. Many of them actually believe these narratives - at least to start with. They care less as time goes on. To a degree, they share this stuff because they want to avoid other people having an exclusive story they missed but mainly so they don't appear to be idiots who have "lost the plot". Bear in mind, we are not talking about the brightest buttons in the drawer here. Much of this is not conscious. Its just how they work. By the way, if you mention narratives to journalists, they get uncomfortable.

Another thing to realise about journos, is that they are, for the most part, naive and lazy. They are not very selective about who they believe. They will cut and paste something from the web, tidy up the sentences and post it as their copy. Especially if they are late for lunch. Murdoch was right about that. And they will not put in much effort into verification. Many of them spend most their time considering how to get their 6 inch column inserted twice a week rather than things like truth, honesty and decency.

However, while they use narratives to maintain the suspension of disbelief, they also know that they must live at the edge of the received view because that's how they create a USP. Journalists will present the narrative but add a "bit of spice" to "sex the story up" a bit. To do that, they are not above quoting the more deranged football fan or blogger to get an "exclusive". But mostly, the stories are changed as they flow from one reputable news organisation to the next. Sometimes a story starts as a simple reiteration of a narrative and in the fourth retelling is an expose of the sexual or criminal actvities of this, that or the other public name. Its like asking people to play Chinese whispers but with every iteration trying to introduce a double entendre. They know they are unlikely to be sued because of the inadequacy of our legal processes when it comes to libel. This is not limited to tabloid journalism. It really is very insidious.

Moreover, people will, in general, read/listen to the reports that reinforce their existing point of view. This is well-researched now and is probably something to do with the need to conform. They also like their audiences to be incensed by what they read. The morally outrage reader on Tonbridge Wells. But they also like to play on shadenfreude. I am not sure why. I had a discussion with a Guardian journo once about this. He argued that without this there could be no joy in the game. He said it is as much about the failures of others as it is about our successes. The Guardian is not a tabloid. Mind you, I'd argue he should forfeit his right to be called a journalist. But, on reflection, maybe not - he is not atypical. We used to laugh about Chelsea's ineptness - our ability to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory. But now we only like that if its the opposition. If we do it, we are outraged - our players are rubbish or not putting in the effort. All the same, I still read Guardian articles so maybe he is right. Maybe I do like to read how van Gall has lost it. And maybe I am not scrupulous enough to need to verify the story and so maybe I get what I deserve.

BTW, I did a media degree and now work for a large new gathering organisation so I do know a little about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The press aren't planning to have this or that happen. That's giving them way too much respect. The key thing with the press is the need to sell copy. To do that, they need to sell us a story that attracts our attention, that we can believe in and which interests us enough to want to read it. The story has to be generally (though not specifically) believable and sensational. To do that, they rely on the combination of narratives and what I will call "pushing the margin".

Reporters need narratives in order to be believable, The narratives are the set of things that form a collective truth. It acts as a kind of parallel universe to what is actually going on. To a degree, it mirrors reality in the sense that as events change so do the narratives. But the narratives also have large dollops of the unknowable, rumours, gossip and so on. After every event, press conferences, game or whatever, journalists will be reading each other's copy and talking when they meet and so on. This is what DWMH is referring to.They are trying to deduce the collective response to those events is. Many of them actually believe these narratives - at least to start with. They care less as time goes on. To a degree, they share this stuff because they want to avoid other people having an exclusive story they missed but mainly so they don't appear to be idiots who have "lost the plot". Bear in mind, we are not talking about the brightest buttons in the drawer here. Much of this is not conscious. Its just how they work. By the way, if you mention narratives to journalists, they get uncomfortable.

Another thing to realise about journos, is that they are, for the most part, naive and lazy. They are not very selective about who they believe. They will cut and paste something from the web, tidy up the sentences and post it as their copy. Especially if they are late for lunch. Murdoch was right about that. And they will not put in much effort into verification. Many of them spend most their time considering how to get their 6 inch column inserted twice a week rather than things like truth, honesty and decency.

However, while they use narratives to maintain the suspension of disbelief, they also know that they must live at the edge of the received view because that's how they create a USP. Journalists will present the narrative but add a "bit of spice" to "sex the story up" a bit. To do that, they are not above quoting the more deranged football fan or blogger to get an "exclusive". But mostly, the stories are changed as they flow from one reputable news organisation to the next. Sometimes a story starts as a simple reiteration of a narrative and in the fourth retelling is an expose of the sexual or criminal actvities of this, that or the other public name. Its like asking people to play Chinese whispers but with every iteration trying to introduce a double entendre. They know they are unlikely to be sued because of the inadequacy of our legal processes when it comes to libel. This is not limited to tabloid journalism. It really is very insidious.

Moreover, people will, in general, read/listen to the reports that reinforce their existing point of view. This is well-researched now and is probably something to do with the need to conform. They also like their audiences to be incensed by what they read. The morally outrage reader on Tonbridge Wells. But they also like to play on shadenfreude. I am not sure why. I had a discussion with a Guardian journo once about this. He argued that without this there could be no joy in the game. He said it is as much about the failures of others as it is about our successes. The Guardian is not a tabloid. Mind you, I'd argue he should forfeit his right to be called a journalist. But, on reflection, maybe not - he is not atypical. We used to laugh about Chelsea's ineptness - our ability to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory. But now we only like that if its the opposition. If we do it, we are outraged - our players are rubbish or not putting in the effort. All the same, I still read Guardian articles so maybe he is right. Maybe I do like to read how van Gall has lost it. And maybe I am not scrupulous enough to need to verify the story and so maybe I get what I deserve.

BTW, I did a media degree and now work for a large new gathering organisation so I do know a little about it.

Good post and a much better way of saying what I thought without needing a tinfoil hat :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The press aren't planning to have this or that happen. That's giving them way too much respect. The key thing with the press is the need to sell copy. To do that, they need to sell us a story that attracts our attention, that we can believe in and which interests us enough to want to read it. The story has to be generally (though not specifically) believable and sensational. To do that, they rely on the combination of narratives and what I will call "pushing the margin".

Reporters need narratives in order to be believable, The narratives are the set of things that form a collective truth. It acts as a kind of parallel universe to what is actually going on. To a degree, it mirrors reality in the sense that as events change so do the narratives. But the narratives also have large dollops of the unknowable, rumours, gossip and so on. After every event, press conferences, game or whatever, journalists will be reading each other's copy and talking when they meet and so on. This is what DWMH is referring to.They are trying to deduce the collective response to those events is. Many of them actually believe these narratives - at least to start with. They care less as time goes on. To a degree, they share this stuff because they want to avoid other people having an exclusive story they missed but mainly so they don't appear to be idiots who have "lost the plot". Bear in mind, we are not talking about the brightest buttons in the drawer here. Much of this is not conscious. Its just how they work. By the way, if you mention narratives to journalists, they get uncomfortable.

Another thing to realise about journos, is that they are, for the most part, naive and lazy. They are not very selective about who they believe. They will cut and paste something from the web, tidy up the sentences and post it as their copy. Especially if they are late for lunch. Murdoch was right about that. And they will not put in much effort into verification. Many of them spend most their time considering how to get their 6 inch column inserted twice a week rather than things like truth, honesty and decency.

However, while they use narratives to maintain the suspension of disbelief, they also know that they must live at the edge of the received view because that's how they create a USP. Journalists will present the narrative but add a "bit of spice" to "sex the story up" a bit. To do that, they are not above quoting the more deranged football fan or blogger to get an "exclusive". But mostly, the stories are changed as they flow from one reputable news organisation to the next. Sometimes a story starts as a simple reiteration of a narrative and in the fourth retelling is an expose of the sexual or criminal actvities of this, that or the other public name. Its like asking people to play Chinese whispers but with every iteration trying to introduce a double entendre. They know they are unlikely to be sued because of the inadequacy of our legal processes when it comes to libel. This is not limited to tabloid journalism. It really is very insidious.

Moreover, people will, in general, read/listen to the reports that reinforce their existing point of view. This is well-researched now and is probably something to do with the need to conform. They also like their audiences to be incensed by what they read. The morally outrage reader on Tonbridge Wells. But they also like to play on shadenfreude. I am not sure why. I had a discussion with a Guardian journo once about this. He argued that without this there could be no joy in the game. He said it is as much about the failures of others as it is about our successes. The Guardian is not a tabloid. Mind you, I'd argue he should forfeit his right to be called a journalist. But, on reflection, maybe not - he is not atypical. We used to laugh about Chelsea's ineptness - our ability to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory. But now we only like that if its the opposition. If we do it, we are outraged - our players are rubbish or not putting in the effort. All the same, I still read Guardian articles so maybe he is right. Maybe I do like to read how van Gall has lost it. And maybe I am not scrupulous enough to need to verify the story and so maybe I get what I deserve.

BTW, I did a media degree and now work for a large new gathering organisation so I do know a little about it.

At last, some evidence that is The Intelligent Forum. Thanks, Sciatika.

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