Fergie overheard dropping the hammer on a journo

What sort of idiot asks that sort of question anyway?

Somebody's who's trying to make a name for himself and wants the front page story that's who.

There's no surprise that people are trying to ask him about it, it should be fully expected. It's, wrongly or rightly, a big story at the moment that a huge amount of people have been talking about, and the media will be paying it attention. I know if I was there or working at the testimonial tonight my agency would be requesting a lot of pictures of Giggs. It's just how it is, demand for a story, so quotes and pictures are sought after.

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

jc, you know full wsell that the analogy is about bleating after the fact despite knowing the score up front. it wasn't a debate on legalisation ffs

You chose that analogy to illustrate a point. The analogy wasn't relevent and affects the point. If Giggs had done something illegal (as in your analogy) then it'd be a totally different matter. One is about ignoring the consequences of the law, the other is about ignoring the consequences of a bunch of hacks who we should all ignore.

The point is that it's £#%&! all to do with United, £#%&! all to do with football, £#%&! all to do with the match on Saturday and £#%&! all to do with Fergie. Why in the name of Christ anyone thinks Fergie should have to field questions about it is baffling. His team's in the European Cup final and they want to talk about a player's sex life? £#%&! them all to Hades.

What did he actually ask ?

My argument was about this 'specific' Journalist who has been banned by Fergie.
If he's a sports journalist shouldn't he be more interested in Fergies tactics than trying to get a quote for the front page?

Of course the Press will be all over this Giggs story until it blows over & of course 'Celeb Gossip' is nothing new.
It is however more intense than ever - it literally nourishes the soul of the brain dead @#%&!s that buy these magazines & watch programmes about Peter £#%&!ing Andre.

The axis of evil - Piers Morgan/Simon Cowell/Max Clifford


Giggsy should be £#%&!ing ashamed of himself tbh

Originally Posted by wee man

What did he actually ask ?

"How big is Ryan's #@&%!?"

Yes all good points really but he's still a fascist for not allowing a sport journalist, a profession firmly rooted as a corner stone of society, to do his duty to the public by stirring a reaction and generally making himself feel noticed. These people have a hard enough gig as it is making up stories as they go along.
Reading hunter s thompsons great shark hunt atm, gives a good insight into the mentality of sport journalists. Useless £#%&!ing pigs.

Originally Posted by wee man

What did he actually ask ?

'Ryan giggs is the most experienced player, how important is he on saturday?'.

that's all.

Originally Posted by reem

'Ryan giggs is the most experienced player, how important is he on saturday?'.

that's all.

ffs

there is no public benefit to hacks being able to print details of individuals' private lives. unless there is an element of political hypocrisy (a politician who is elected on the basis of 'values' and so on, for example) then there is no justification for publishing crap like this - and the same was true of john terry. there is no free speech argument here, it's simply using other people's pain to draw readers and sell space to advertisers.

Fergie > Kim Jong-il

Originally Posted by JakeB

There's no surprise that people are trying to ask him about it, it should be fully expected. It's, wrongly or rightly, a big story at the moment that a huge amount of people have been talking about, and the media will be paying it attention. I know if I was there or working at the testimonial tonight my agency would be requesting a lot of pictures of Giggs. It's just how it is, demand for a story, so quotes and pictures are sought after.

All this is true, but the press conference is about football, so that's what they should talk about.

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

MJ, i didn't realise it was you who i was quoting or i may not have started with a sweeping statement of equine defecation

it is valid to ask whether one of our top stars might be affected by the enormous media scrum and being plastered all over the front of the newspapers in the run up to the game

and if he is affected then he has nobody to blame but himself i'm afraid

fingers crossed it won't but he clearly was going to great lengths to cover it up and keep his reputation intact

What do they imagine SAF is going to say? "Obviously it's had a huge effect on the lad and his mind isn't right but I'm going to play him anyway"

It's a Heat magazine story and it should be left to the Heat magazine journos to chase it. No proper self-respecting sports journo should be bringing it up in the pre-match press conferences.

Originally Posted by The Return of JC

You chose that analogy to illustrate a point. The analogy wasn't relevent and affects the point. If Giggs had done something illegal (as in your analogy) then it'd be a totally different matter. One is about ignoring the consequences of the law, the other is about ignoring the consequences of a bunch of hacks who we should all ignore.

rubbish

It was giggs that sought the super injunction against the press. he knew what he had done was newsworthy and tried to stop it getting out to protect his reputation and probably his sponsorship and earning power

its backfired on him badly and has exacerbated the whole situation

and it most definitely IS about united because one of our players is the number one news story in tabloid, broadsheet and legal publications in the week before the biigest game of the year. he was officially outed in a debate in the Commons ffs

he is one of my all time favorite players but but trying to brush away culpability and use the 'journos are scum' line is naive and superficial

if ryan had said to himself "if i £#%&! this big brother bint behind my wifes back will the press be interested in that as a story and will it affect my public profile?" what do you think the answer would have been?

Originally Posted by borsuk

there is no public benefit to hacks being able to print details of individuals' private lives. unless there is an element of political hypocrisy (a politician who is elected on the basis of 'values' and so on, for example) then there is no justification for publishing crap like this - and the same was true of john terry. there is no free speech argument here, it's simply using other people's pain to draw readers and sell space to advertisers.

Obviously. It's an indictment of society that there could be any debate to the contrary. Trouble is they've made themselves so powerful by influence that they can ruin any public figure who takes a stand against them. The propoganda mafia.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

All this is true, but the press conference is about football, so that's what they should talk about.

That's true and I completely agree.

However, with the media the way it is now and the fact that there is demand for stories like this (unfortunately) it has become part of sports media. Whenever I'm off to cover a game my agency won't only discuss with me the sporting stories, they will also talk about the stories around it, and if someone has the spotlight on them, I'll be asked to wire in shots of them. It's a shame that the stuff going on around football gets so much attention now. A good example is Peter Crouch, earlier this season I was covering a Spurs match, and at the final whistle I got a text saying he will be in the News of the world tomorrow with stories about an affair, so I had to get in some stock images of him. And they were used.

It's a part of my job I don't like, but its a viscous circle. As long as there's demand (and there still is) it will go on.

Originally Posted by JakeB

That's true and I completely agree.

However, with the media the way it is now and the fact that there is demand for stories like this (unfortunately) it has become part of sports media. Whenever I'm off to cover a game my agency won't only discuss with me the sporting stories, they will also talk about the stories around it, and if someone has the spotlight on them, I'll be asked to wire in shots of them. It's a shame that the stuff going on around football gets so much attention now. A good example is Peter Crouch, earlier this season I was covering a Spurs match, and at the final whistle I got a text saying he will be in the News of the world tomorrow with stories about an affair, so I had to get in some stock images of him. And they were used.

It's a part of my job I don't like, but its a viscous circle. As long as there's demand (and there still is) it will go on.

that's not really true. i mean, people will read what's put in front of them and you can use it to sell papers (advertising) but that's not the same thing as demand. people are not particularly arsed about these things until they're titillated by it, the same way that people don't go out looking for road accidents but as soon as they see one they stand around gawping at it.

there are countries with sensible privacy laws where a person's private life is out of bounds unless there is a genuine issue of the public good, like the example i gave earlier. you don't get people pining after knowledge of how many bastard children mitterand had because the demand is created, not organic.

Originally Posted by florentino ariza

rubbish

It was giggs that sought the super injunction against the press. he knew what he had done was newsworthy and tried to stop it getting out to protect his reputation and probably his sponsorship and earning power

its backfired on him badly and has exacerbated the whole situation

and it most definitely IS about united because one of our players is the number one news story in tabloid, broadsheet and legal publications in the week before the biigest game of the year. he was officially outed in a debate in the Commons ffs

he is one of my all time favorite players but but trying to brush away culpability and use the 'journos are scum' line is naive and superficial

if ryan had said to himself "if i £#%&! this big brother bint behind my wifes back will the press be interested in that as a story and will it affect my public profile?" what do you think the answer would have been?

i see what you're saying, but i think most of it applies to Heat magazine, not sport. As for you saying it affects United because the tabloids are running stories about Giggs, the only true way we could know that is by his performance at the weekend. Asking Fergie won't help and is done only to provoke the 'Heat' side of proceedings. As for Giggs's conduct in his private life and legal proceedings, it's totally irrelevent. Not about sport. As an aside, hasn't the injuction been upheld? Therefore, are they even legally allowed to ask? Obviously the whole injuction is now a farce, but doesn't it still stand nonetheless?

there's nothing 'newsworthy' about one adult having consenting sex with another adult ffs.

Originally Posted by borsuk

there's nothing 'newsworthy' about one adult having consenting sex with another adult ffs.

unless that adult is marlo and the other adult is a 'champ'.