Journalists? Revealed: the depths of behaviour we are dealing with, every day

By Sir Hardly Anyone

We have long known that 97% of the transfer stories journalists report are nonsense.  We know that their eternal kow-towing to referees, and also that their all-powerful organisation the PGMO, holds god-like status to journalists and won’t ever be criticised in any way whatsoever, despite its nonsense fake statistics and refusal to answer any serious questions.

Now we can see just how stupid some journalists can be.  Invited by a couple of pranksters to talk about an interview with two members of the royal family which had not yet been broadcast, and not yet been seen by anyone, four senior journalists all willingly agreed.

The four included the Queen’s former press secretary CNN’s royal commentator, along with the editor in chief of Majesty magazine.

These journalists willingly gave comments on a film they had not seen, as if they had actually seen it, expertly delivering meaningless meanders around nothingness – comments that were bland enough to sound ok whatever the members of the royal family said.

Ingrid Seward, for example, proclaimed that the Duchess of Sussex, “to my mind this was an actress giving one of her great performances – from start to finish, Meghan was acting.”  And this remember was without having seen the interview, or having any information of what was in it.

One of the pranxters commenting on the way the journalists had so willingly jumped at an opportunity to hoax their own readers said, “To me, it’s like asking a football commentator to give me 90 minutes of voice-noting on [a match they haven’t seen]. It’s such a ludicrous premise.  These people charge news organisations for their views, and their views do shape public opinion.”

When asked about his role in the video, Fitzwilliams a self proclaimed royal expert and commentator, said  the comments had been “used out of context”, but added, “This sort of pre-record, filing material in advance, is frequently done for various news stories, obituaries etc so journalists have instant comment in the event of breaking news. There is nothing whatever dishonourable in it,” he added.

Of course we know that these are not football correspondents, but actually, royal correspondents are generally thought to have a higher level of integrity than football correspondents.  So if they were duped just think of how easy it is for football correspondents to be tricked.

In fact, every day, day after day, with the fake news that PGMO offers, such as its claim that their referees are 98% accurate, and that (despite the clear evidence that shows otherwise) there is no bias for home teams when fans are in the ground.

This whole basic claim that there is nothing amiss in football is the hoax that the media pulls on fans every day, day after day, and is so widespread no one ever questions it.

We are not being given comments and insights into reality, but a preordained approach to football in which it is agreed way in advance what is and what is not real.  The one thing about the royal correspondent Fitzwilliam is that he has told it like it is.

And yet it is the work of journalists that sets out the way we see the world.  Including for example the notion that there is nothing seriously wrong, or even different, about the way refereeing is organised in the Premier League. Or that there is nothing amiss with the media giving publicity to the world cup and players being involved, when vast numbers of migrant workers have died building the stadia, and many more have been employed as slave labour to get the grounds built.  Or that there is clear evidence that the voting for the world cup to be in Qatar was rigged.

That comment that “This sort of pre-record, filing material in advance, is frequently done for various news stories, obituaries etc so journalists have instant comment in the event of breaking news,” really does confirm what we have so often said on Untold about football.

You can’t believe a word of what is in the media.

The Arsenal History Society publishes a video of a historic match every day.  You can find an index of many of the historic videos is here

The slavery files & the FA

8 Replies to “Journalists? Revealed: the depths of behaviour we are dealing with, every day”

  1. Another ranting article. Can’t you just write about football. Doesn’t it embarrass you that this is all you can write about?

  2. Andrew you really are very droll, and I love your comments. The notion that I might write something, publish it and all the while be embarrassed about it is just so weird it takes quite a bit of getting used to. I don’t think even Shakespeare created a character who did that. So I am seriously thinking about how I could add a character to my next bit of fiction who does exactly that: writes and is immediately embarrassed.

    But no, I think if I wrote something and was embarrassed by it, I wouldn’t publish it. After all, what would be the point. And actually that includes writing that I am paid for (which of course is not the case here).

    So that’s interesting enough as it is – but I really do love the fact that you so obviously dislike this blog, and yet you keep coming back for more. Even though you must know by now what you are going to get. It’s truly odd, but fascinating, so I think I might slip into the novel not only a person who writes and then is embarrassed by his creations, but goes on writing, but also a person who really doesn’t like what he reads and yet keeps on going back.

    These are great characters and will enhance the book. The working title is “The Personality Shop”. I’ll let you know how it goes.

  3. Andrew Banks

    Fake news and it’s insidious nature is one of the biggest, if not the biggest factor behind the media’s relentless descent into the gutter.

    Calling these frauds out for the pathetic liars they should be done more often not less.

    The fact you seem prepared to be taken for a fool every day of your life suggests it is you who should be embarrassed.

  4. it is not exactly earthshaking stuff -i remember george best saying he did not read the press because he knew the back pages were rubbish and wondered whether the front pages were the same. seems to me these people are not exactly mainstream commentators and probably did it because money was offered. but how can var not give a penalty -refs can make mistakes but when you have the chance to look at it again

  5. Ron

    But the point is VAR or the PGMOL, along with certain ex referees (Foy for one) are saying it wasn’t even an mistake !

    And THAT is the sickest part of this because, yes as you say refs can make mistakes and in Mariners defence he may well not of seen it from where he stood, but for VAR to not give it was ridiculous, but worse even than that for the PGMOL to defend it with this ‘proximity’ crap is frankly a disgrace.

    The Law clearly states if the arm is in an unnatural position and makes you bigger and it gets struck by the ball it IS handball. Nowhere is there anything about mitigating circumstances such as proximity or reaction time.

    That is a complete and utter sham to defend the indefensible.

  6. And just look at the penalty given by Mr Dean against Callum Chambers. It stinks to high heaven.

  7. You know it was a nailed on penalty when concede it was a ‘clear and obvious error’ by VAR.

    Those guys usually spend so much time on the fence the splinters get splinters

Comments are closed.