Should media outlets that lie and condemn us in articles to boost there revenues be banned from being used and aired on MO?

[Peckham Lion]

Just testing the water here chaps. By using certain media outlets to create threads means that outlet will get clicks that boost there revenues. I find it hard to swallow us giving publicity to anyone that drags us through the mud and shit stirs. There's plenty of other outlets that can be used for Millwall stuff.

It's not like we're gonna put them out of business but it gives them less oxygen and means we're taking a moral stand against those print shit about us purely for financial gain.

 

[Wippa]

As I said on the other thread, in hindsight, I get why you’re riled and I agree with you. I’ve edited my initial post and deleted the link

 

[Peckham Lion]

As I said on the other thread, in hindsight, I get why you’re riled and I agree with you. I’ve edited my initial post and deleted the link

Yeah it did rile me mate and I appreciate you acknowledging that and your edit mate.

 

[Wippa]

Yeah it did rile me mate and I appreciate you acknowledging that and your edit mate. The gutter press have spent years dragging our name through the mud, printing lies all whilst profiteering from using us by writing there headlines. Fuck em all.

Yeah mate, I make you right.

 

[CanningTownMFC]

Nothing more than teasing us into responses.

 

[Edward Alistair]

Millwall banning them shouldn't make any difference to them or their sales so why have they taken the attitude that they have?
We have got under their skin to give them to behave in a petty and unprofessional manner.

It did produce a hypothetical discussion at a time when we have little to talk about and took my mind off knowing that when I go back to work I have to work longer hours now that us taxpayers need to fund another pension.

 

[Millwalljohn]

To be fair some of it isn't lies, however, censoring freedom of speech or thoughts/opinions... isn't that just stooping down to their level? Surely we are made of sterner stuff than that! We should still have the choice of whether we want to read something or not even if it is just twisted truths otherwise if we keep burying our heads in the sand, we'll never have the chance to put others right with our points of view?... Anyone with half a brain knows what lazy journalists are like. All they do is keep harping on what happening yesteryear... it's nothing new.

 

[coldblower]

I doubt any of them would notice one way or the other

 

[Peckham Lion]

To be fair some of it isn't lies, however, censoring freedom of speech or thoughts/opinions... isn't that just stooping down to their level

Were you defending there rights to freedom of speech when they were claiming our keeper deliberately done the Palace player? Freedom of speech isn't a license to print lies.

I suggested giving the mail a swerve for moral reasons. Taking a stance against company that dragged our name through mud. It has fuck all to do with censorship but plenty to do with having some morals. The club have banned the mail. I didn't see your complaints and defence of the mails rights to freedom of speech.

Simply the mail shat on us and lied. Why should we be giving them free publicity and traffic after that? I find it strange that someone who doesn't trust or use main stream media now is complaining about censorship.

 

[Edward Alistair]

To be fair some of it isn't lies, however, censoring freedom of speech or thoughts/opinions... isn't that just stooping down to their level? Surely we are made of sterner stuff than that! We should still have the choice of whether we want to read something or not even if it is just twisted truths otherwise if we keep burying our heads in the sand, we'll never have the chance to put others right with our points of view?... Anyone with half a brain knows what lazy journalists are like. All they do is keep harping on what happening yesteryear... it's nothing new.

It isn't lies but to link someone who is looking for a Championship club with a facebook post and not to do any investigation into what might be a story is the level of sites like Football League World.
I think this story and 'the worst grounds in England' article just embarrass the mail more than anything else.

 

[Peckham Lion]

To be fair some of it isn't lies, however, censoring freedom of speech or thoughts/opinions... isn't that just stooping down to their level? Surely we are made of sterner stuff than that! We should still have the choice of whether we want to read something or not .

Read the fucking thread title and read my post again. I am asking a question and asking for thoughts and opinions. I put in a poll so to gauge opinion. You're either thick, paranoid or just plain shit stirring. Where is the censorship in any of that?

 

[Lions21]

If clicks give revenue to media outlets who are justifiably banned by the Club then I see no reason why we should help the scum on here. I understand there are not many of us to make a difference but it’s the principle.

 

[Kryan Bing]

I've not voted one way of the other because I don't know if it bothers me that much, if I'm honest. Mainly, because the link in question popped up all over social media, not just on here.

I like the idea that you can get up the noses of some of these wanker journalists, without crossing the line that is, and not getting the site into some sort of grief. The fact that the club banned them must irk them, and we all know too well that human curiosity will draw a lazy journalist to nosy around MO looking for gossip they can't sniff out elsewhere, because they haven't the journalistic skills to do so... That's what makes them comical cannon fodder for the likes of us and are not respected as serious sports journalists. Unlike the late Brian Glanville and certain others.

The amount of clicks the ten bob Daily Fail got from MO would have generated pennies and not pounds. The real earnings (if that much) would come from the big platforms the article turned up on.

But saying all that, I know it will piss off others, so no complaints from me if the links from future articles are banned. Someone moaned about freedom of speech and all that stuff, but anyone can go on the major SM platforms and spout as much freedom of speech related bollocks as they like.

 

[King of The Jungle]

I'm not in favour of banning things in most cases, but I understand completely the motivation and desire to do so.

But, ultimately, I have to say no. I wouldn't ban anything, but I would strongly counter and condemn bullshit.

 

[King of The Jungle]

And also I am similar to Kryan above in that it doesn't really bother me that much ultimately.

 

[Peckham Lion]

Someone moaned about freedom of speech and all that stuff,

And jumped to conclusions at the same time. I simply asked the question because I was curious to see if posters had strong opinions on the matter. The poster who has form for twisting things jumped straight in with claims of free speech being curtailed and censorship of peoples thoughts and opinions.

The first line of my opening post was -- just testing the water here chaps---- How he managed to translate that Into what he did is fucking baffling.

 

[HappyLion]

I am not overly bothered. However there are a couple of sites that I wont put a link for. I just cut & paste the relevant bit about wall.

FLW & daily fail are the two I avoid putting links up for. One site is click bait central and the other is run by some bitter twats who need to get a life.