Radio Stoke Censorship

[anarchicalan]

I rang P & G as soon as the game finished and got straight through.

First question - who do you support?

Second question - positive or negative?

Once I'd said negative, they said they'd "try to get back to me".

At 5.40 I rang again to complain that only positive comments wre being aired and that wasn't a fair reflection of opinion, especially for a publicly owned company. They said that wasn't the case and they's "try to get back to me again".

So I listened in hope. They let a couple of negative comments on, but cut them off as soon as their point was made, yet the positive callers were allowed to waffle on for ages.

Needless to say, I didn't get on.

This is appalling and smacks of the BBC being in collusion with SCFC to portray only a positive image.

I'm all for keeping my team in the limelight, but this is most insidious. If you think I'm wrong, before you openly criticise me as a conspiracy theorist, have a listen to P & G.

This happens far too often. They either have all the negative stuff first so they end on a positive SCFC message, or they minimise the negativity with dismissive "thanks for your comments" and no further discussion.

I'm tired of being censored by my public SERVANTS, those who - because I pay a licence fee like most people - are my EMPLOYEES.

Honest opinions appreciated. However, if you merely wish to slag me off, please be thoughtful enough to do it on another thread with a less serious point to make.

[swipers]

And your point was ?

[walrus]

What did you want to be negative about anyway? Sure we got stuffed, but we were playing the champions of Europe away in the Premier League and we're still fourteenth in the table!

[Deleted]

Out of interest Alan, what were you going to say?

I do agree with your grievance entirely though.

[anarchicalan]

Ah, the voice of reson from Slangking, who ignored a polite request thinking it makes him hard.

Ah well, he's more to be pitied than scolded.

The point I wanted to make was actually a direct quote from Acres himeslf - who seemed to ooze his Man Utd supporter credentials as every opportunity.

I wanted him to replay his commentary and count the number of times that he, Nige and Glaggy used the phrase - "and Stoke have lost it again".

For me, there lies the problem with our team and Mr. Onetactic's philosophy. We play percentage football and in this division, that percentage is mighty small, especially away.

I didn't expect to get anything from this game, including stuffed 5-0.

Just in case anyone is in any doubt about this thread, it's about CENSORSHIP, not whether you agree with me about the team.

edit - that should be GLEGGY, not Glaggy, sorry Nigel, one of my all time favourite players.

[daverichards]

well next time says its positive then, and when you get on air, blind side them with a negative comment , oh and put a timer on see how long you last

[Pugsley]

Sounds like R Stoke is becoming like this board.

[anarchicalan]

Dave, had I known that would be the second question, I'd have been prepared.

Surely they don't have the right to ask it, but I'm also aware that if I'd questioned it, I would still not have got on.

Since we've been in the premiership, the reporting has been very one-sided.

If you add the fact that I told Acres off last time I was on air - because he was ignorant and interupted me (as he does with so many callers) - then I suspect I won't be allowed on ever again.

Censorship of opinion is a terrible crime and the BBC are quick to report it going on in China, Russia etc, whilst practising the same (albeit smaller scale) abuse themselves.

[Batfink]

I thought you were going to talk about the bloke who said 'dicked'.

I kind of wish you had; It made me chuckle.

[anarchicalan]

Slangking - your last comment defeated itself.

You and I are part of "the whole world", yet both of us predicted we would stay up, as did many others.

You really do need to aspire to a better thought process.

Perhaps you could state your opinion about the THREAD SUBJECT.

You see, according to your way of thinking, you'd be banned from comment on this thread because you disagree with me. In fact, you'd be banned from this board because you disagree with me.

Now, if that's what you believe, then you're a fascist.

That's not an insult from me, it's simply the correct terminology for someone who holds such a cripplingly narrow viewpoint.

Please use a dictionary to check the definition, and be so kind as to check my real opinion before commenting again about anything I've said.

This is a polite request. Do you think you're capable of a polite response? I'd like to think you are, but I expect to be disappointed.

[anarchicalan]

Even if I was retarded, does that make my right to an opinion invalid?

Basically what you're saying is that only those who YOU regard as intelligent enough to debate, and agree with YOUR opinion about EVERYTHING can ever be allowed a voice.

How magnamimous of you!

[kkkkken]

Can't understand why there needs to be any negativity. We have 14 points , maybe 7 points more than we all expected for so far.
2 winnable games coming up .

Surely you negative PHW's by now should be seeing the bigger picture, rather than judging by one game ,we have just come off a decent run of results.

We are in the 1/4 finals of the Mickey Mouse cup , were not in the bottom 3 of the Premiership.

What was you expecting in all seriousness in our first since back in the top flight?.

Any of you who are using Hull City as a rule of thumb are pretty naive .

Anyone would think we were have been heading in the wrong direction the last few years

[anarchicalan]

ken - this is a thread about censorship.

I respect your opinion and I'm equally pleased that we're doing better then many predicted. I've never used Hull as a rule of thumb - check if you wish - but my point is merely that we lose possession too easily, too often.

The REAL point of this thread is that Radio Stoke P & G don't allow a balanced viewpoint regarding SCFC. I'd be just as scathing if it was the other way round and only negative comments were being aired.

[Batfink]

But there were negative viewpoint on, so how do you know that they were not just ensuring a balance between positive and negative viewpoints?

[anarchicalan]

Batfink - the positive views had a minute or so each, the negative views didn't air until AFTER I rang to complain and they were on for 10 seconds without discussion.

Hardly balanced in my opinion.

[kkkkken]

I know . I was just saying why do you have to be negative ? . You seem to be intelligent and that's what i don't understand .

Now Fromafar he's from another planet and though i do not agree with censorship , he ought to be censored .

[jemma1989]

I agree that some people on this board are too positive, and that radio stoke only concentrate on them.

I am feeling so annoyed right now, not that we got stuffed 5-0, but that there wasnt even any alternative. We were clearly not going to have much of the ball, but when we did have the ball we either went over the top (which didnt work with ric being outnumbered) or through the middle, (which didnt work because we dont play players who actually make things happen with the ball) the alternative would have been to go wide, however we had no wingers on. He then was about the put micheal tonge on (closest thing to a winger) then changed his mind to bring wilko on for griff. (I cant criticise this as I dont know whether or not griff was injured) but if he wasnt, what a pointless substitution!!!

we need to start having some variation in the midfield, and we need wingers (which most people know already)
hurry up lenny!!!!

[anarchicalan]

This is about a FOOTBALL programme using censorship as a tool to suppress valid opinion about my FOOTBALL team.

Furthermore, you could exercise your right not to read my pissing and whining. I'm not forcing you to read, let alone respond. This was YOUR choice, and I respect YOUR choice, and the right to hold YOUR opinion, yet your wish is to silence mine.

Yet so far, you haven't answered one of my questions.

I've given you ample opportunity, an opportunity you would deny me. You can hardly accuse me of being unfair, so if it's not too much trouble, would you care to comment on the topic instead of merely slagging me off?

Or is having a valid opinion on something that should matter to both of us too much to ask for?

[trebor63]

Why would anyone that hasn't been to a match want to phone a radio station about his thoughts on the match that he hasn't seen? Surely you can only repeat whatever the commentary team said cos thats the only insight in to it you have!

I think radio stations should only take calls from people that have been to matches when they want comments about the match in question

[anarchicalan]

Ken - I'm not always negative.

My point is that once I'd said I was going to make a negative comment, they denied me the opportunity, which is intrinsically wrong.

(As for "seem to be intelligent", thank you for the slightly back-handed compliment.)

[anarchicalan]

trebor - that's exactly what I was going to do. See above.

As for your comment that you have to go to a game to have an opinion and should remain otherwise silent, then why do we even bother to register to vote? Most of us have never been to the Houses of Parliament and we hold opinions based on what we see and hear without actually being there.

Censored once again!

[trebor63]

Nov 15, 2008 19:32:11 GMT anarchicalan said:

trebor - that's exactly what I was going to do. See above.

To be honest I wasn't referring to any particular thing I meant in general I really can't understand why people are phoning from a point of virtual ignornace.

I rarely hear Radio Stokes PnG cos by the time we leave Delilahs its over! But on talksport the other week they had about five or six calls on Stoke and Arsenal and not a single one had been to the match!

[anarchicalan]

You make a good point trebor, but many of us can't afford to go to away games. I apprecaite we were at home to arsenal, but many listen from hospital, or from long distances due to work, or simply because even going to home games is too expensive these days.

They too are entitled to comment, surely?

[bayernoatcake]

Was Fuller going to get a slagging?

[anarchicalan]

Bayern, I can't blame Fuller, especially as my main comment was about our losing the ball too easily. No matter how good he is, he can't score if we don't pass accurately enough to give him at least a glimmer of a chance.

[bayernoatcake]

Fair comment!

[anarchicalan]

Broll - don't you feel it's better to have a little wailing and gnashing now, rather than a massive outpouring at some future date?

I still think we'll stay up, and today's result - whilst disppointing in its manner of capitulation rather than its actual score - isn't such a big deal when regarding the bigger picture.

I simply would have liked the chance to state my case.

[trebor63]

Nov 15, 2008 19:43:27 GMT anarchicalan said:

You make a good point trebor, but many of us can't afford to go to away games. I apprecaite we were at home to arsenal, but many listen from hospital, or from long distances due to work, or simply because even going to home games is too expensive these days.

They too are entitled to comment, surely?

I understand money is an issue for many of us (me included) and football is waaaaayy too expensive and obviously we can all have opinions on who should and shouldn't play and we don't haev to go to every match to have that debate but personally I wouldn't dream of phoning upto talk about a specific match if my only view of that match was someone elses opinions!

Nigel Johnson (or whoever) might say Fuller was fantastic today and surely then that would have to be your opinion too! But if you'd actually seen it you might not agree, if you see what I mean!

[Titan Uranus]

I understand money is an issue for many of us (me included) and football is waaaaayy too expensive and obviously we can all have opinions on who should and shouldn't play and we don't haev to go to every match to have that debate but personally I wouldn't dream of phoning upto talk about a specific match if my only view of that match was someone elses opinions!

Nigel Johnson (or whoever) might say Fuller was fantastic today and surely then that would have to be your opinion too! But if you'd actually seen it you might not agree, if you see what I mean!

agree trebor

been saying this for a long time

how can anyone make a judgment on a player or performance if they haven't actually seen it!!!

the supporters who listen on the radio or internet can only be guided by the commentators and at the end of the day it is their view on the game.

I find it incredible that people can make comment on performances when they haven't seen the game.

[anarchicalan]

Trebor - Yes, I do see what you mean.

However, the simple statement Acres and Nigel made "and Stoke lose the ball again" was all I wanted to comment upon. That's hardly something unique in Stoke's recent history.

Edit - Acrchiesdad, a general opinion is surely valid, even when I haven't seen the game. To comment on a particular incident would be ridiculous, but having an overall impression from the commentary does give rise to some salient points, or even questions which deserve an answer.

I do understand what you're saying though. The fact remains that those who attended were also censored if their opinions were negative; either by not being given air time or by the very dismissive "thanks for your comment, moving on" attitude of John "I'm so wonderful" Acres.