Kingcider Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 It's been quoted in another thread,but anyone who believes the Post is not biased only has to look at today's rag.TOTAL DISREGARD,and then the lie that it will cost an extra £100 to stay in your seats,West Stand - no one been in there for a season !.Followed by quotes about a rip off and a few in favour at the end,stolen from otib as 'balance' .The blue few get a back page headline about how they are going to do a Swansea,and inside a big spread about how the UWE stadium will achieve that.No bias !!!! Bo**ocks,as another poster put it they are having a w*nk fest over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unan Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I'm just glad it's such an abysmal paper, it'd be far more annoying if they wrote anything actually worth reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 How does it take two and a alf pages to answer the headline " Can Rovers do a Swansea?" Surely just a simple........NO would suffice ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbored Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 BBC Bristol just as bad. We very rarely get DAB coverage and quite often are hardly mentioned on the sports coverage , Swindon even get mentioned before us sometimes. I find it quite baffling really as we are the biggest sports team in the area yet get really poor support from our so called impartial broadcaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 The usual bias paranoia. You cannot judge bias based on one edition of the newspaper. For every occasion Rovers have the back page, there will be another when we do. Last season we had entire pull-out sections devoted to our JPT final and promotion. As for "BBC Bristol hardly mention us"....seriously? What a ridiculous claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTone Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Bias Posted as requested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverRed Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I see what you did there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 The Bristol Post sport home page right now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeyed Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 11 minutes ago, Turbored said: BBC Bristol just as bad. We very rarely get DAB coverage and quite often are hardly mentioned on the sports coverage , Swindon even get mentioned before us sometimes. I find it quite baffling really as we are the biggest sports team in the area yet get really poor support from our so called impartial broadcaster. Is this not because we are normally on FM which is available to more people (within the vicinity of Bristol)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted March 31, 2016 Admin Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Don't touch the paper as it is not even fit for fish n chips later They are only using big headlines to make their rag appear more interesting than it really is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malaggro is back Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I think part of the problem is that we should have loads more coverage that the sags. We are in the Championship. They are not. We are pulling full houses each week of over 15,000. They are not. As the senior team in the city we should have more coverage. We are more successful and we are supported by more fans. Do we think that when Forest were winning European Cups and titles that County commanded the same column inches in the Nottingham papers? I think not. That those horse punching longfaces from up the Gloucester Road ever equate to the same or more coverage than City is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 28 minutes ago, Kingcider said: It's been quoted in another thread,but anyone who believes the Post is not biased only has to look at today's rag.TOTAL DISREGARD,and then the lie that it will cost an extra £100 to stay in your seats,West Stand - no one been in there for a season !.Followed by quotes about a rip off and a few in favour at the end,stolen from otib as 'balance' .The blue few get a back page headline about how they are going to do a Swansea,and inside a big spread about how the UWE stadium will achieve that.No bias !!!! Bo**ocks,as another poster put it they are having a w*nk fest over them. Just read the article you are referring to. It states:- "But some fans have been shocked to discover that if they want to move back to near their old seats, in the revamped and renamed new West Stand, it will cost them more than £100 extra next season." Which is absolutely true, and something that a number of former Williams STH have said themselves on this very forum. There is no mention of "staying in your seat" in the article at all and there is recognition that the stand is new. The article raises an issue that has been discussed at length on this forum and I don't see any problem with it. Like I said, red-tinted paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeyed Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 minute ago, ChippenhamRed said: There is no mention of "staying in your seat" in the article at all and there is recognition that the stand is new. The article raises an issue that has been discussed at length on this forum and I don't see any problem with it. To be fair, the headline is " Bristol City season ticket holders face hike of £100 - or moving seat" which definitely implies it is £100 to stay in your seat, but the article does explain the issue clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Red Rich Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I think both sets of fans complain about bias, for the record I don't believe they are bias but are just totally incompetent with the drink driver one of the very worst 'journalists' out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 13 minutes ago, BigTone said: Bias Posted as requested ....hope you remembered to put a couple of 1st class stamps on Tone? ... Here's a couple for ya.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 19 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: The usual bias paranoia. You cannot judge bias based on one edition of the newspaper. For every occasion Rovers have the back page, there will be another when we do. Last season we had entire pull-out sections devoted to our JPT final and promotion. As for "BBC Bristol hardly mention us"....seriously? What a ridiculous claim. Bang on 10 minutes ago, Malaggro is back said: I think part of the problem is that we should have loads more coverage that the sags. We are in the Championship. They are not. We are pulling full houses each week of over 15,000. They are not. As the senior team in the city we should have more coverage. We are more successful and we are supported by more fans. Do we think that when Forest were winning European Cups and titles that County commanded the same column inches in the Nottingham papers? I think not. That those horse punching longfaces from up the Gloucester Road ever equate to the same or more coverage than City is a disgrace. Beating Bolton 6-0 and winning a European Cup is essentially the same thing anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malaggro is back Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, Robin1988 said: Bang on Beating Bolton 6-0 and winning a European Cup is essentially the same thing anyway. And losing away to Carlisle........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brent Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Bad news always sells more. There's few things more tragic than Bristol Rovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, Malaggro is back said: And losing away to Carlisle........ In the same week we had three or four full-length articles [online at least, won't catch me buying the rag] from an interview with Mark Ashton, despite not playing for two weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingcider Posted March 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 22 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: The Bristol Post sport home page right now.... However I was talking about the paper edition,copy of which I read whilst sat in the coffee shop at AG in the sunshine,does not match the online version or answer the headlines,all very well saying that it explains it later.They should not post headline lies.Are they paying to take quotes from OTIB ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 16 minutes ago, Buckeyed said: To be fair, the headline is " Bristol City season ticket holders face hike of £100 - or moving seat" which definitely implies it is £100 to stay in your seat, but the article does explain the issue clearly. It's a marginally sensationalist headline, although if you're a Williams STH looking to get back as close as you were before, it's basically undeniable that you either pay more or more elsewhere. Certainly not the biased lie-fest the OP would have you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: Certainly not the biased lie-fest the OP would have you believe. I have seen them time and time again, refer to Rovers as a 'football team'. Enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedLionLad Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Who needs to buy/read the Bristol Post when everything they 'report' was all over the Internet the day before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingcider Posted March 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 15 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: It's a marginally sensationalist headline, although if you're a Williams STH looking to get back as close as you were before, it's basically undeniable that you either pay more or more elsewhere. Certainly not the biased lie-fest the OP would have you believe. But,as MarkB29 says on the post website comments ,it is not the 'same seat ' no wooden slats,great view,no pillars,excellent catering etc.Why can they do an article saying how wonderful the UWE will be but slag us of .Why can they not do an article on how good the revamp is and what a wonderful new stand we have a chance to sit in ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 The Evil Post hate BCFC. Understand this, and get over it. FFS. Uncle TFR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelton’s Love Gravy Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Personally I don't think the Bristol Post is biased against BCFC, and I generally enjoy reading it. And I like Andy Stockhausen. In fact he is something of a hero of mine and I have a number of photographs of him on my bedroom wall. Sadly none of these are signed though, and I would like to get some signed pictures from him. I would also like to see him actually sign the photos, holding my favourite pen in his skilled, journalistic hands. Does anyone know where he lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hunt-Hertz Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 12 minutes ago, Nicky Morgan's Organ said: Personally I don't think the Bristol Post is biased against BCFC, and I generally enjoy reading it. And I like Andy Stockhausen. In fact he is something of a hero of mine and I have a number of photographs of him on my bedroom wall. Sadly none of these are signed though, and I would like to get some signed pictures from him. I would also like to see him actually sign the photos, holding my favourite pen in his skilled, journalistic hands. Does anyone know where he lives? I scanned that as "holding my favourite penis...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathredwood Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 45 minutes ago, RedLionLad said: Who needs to buy/read the Bristol Post when everything they 'report' was all over the Internet the day before? Or all over OTIB shortly after.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedLionLad Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, nathredwood said: Or all over OTIB shortly after.... Yes......Two way traffic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Kingcider said: But,as MarkB29 says on the post website comments ,it is not the 'same seat ' no wooden slats,great view,no pillars,excellent catering etc.Why can they do an article saying how wonderful the UWE will be but slag us of .Why can they not do an article on how good the revamp is and what a wonderful new stand we have a chance to sit in ? http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-City-s-Ashton-Gate-set-latest-new-look/story-26573391-detail/story.html http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/pictures/look-Ashton-Gates-45-million-redevelopment/pictures-28430288-detail/pictures.html http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/DAVE-PAYNE-COLUMN-Ashton-Gate-great-stadium-8211/story-27962748-detail/story.html Here's a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.