I’m going to say one important thing: while I don’t consider the daily mail to be a bastion of journalistic ethics, disclosure is essentially part of journalism 101. That’s extremely shameful to write an article like that and NOT disclose the fact he consults for Forrest.
I thought it went without saying. His appointment by Forest is unprecedented and quite well known, and not a little controversial. Not sure who would not know who he is.
@@wolfmauler it doesn’t matter. If you’re writing an article criticizing a decision for your employer in a pretty big news site, you should at least disclose it the article (typically at the top) that you work for Forrest. While, yes you can look it up outside, that’s the sort of thing done to be deceptive. Honestly until the Forrest post came up, I didn’t know they hired anyone, though I don’t keep up with Forrest as closely as my team, so I will admit that.
@@RobertoVillegas-vincent404 ok, I understand in principle, I'm just saying it was a pretty poor attempt at deception, seeing as he didn't write anonymously, everyone knows who Clattenburg is, have read articles about and heard countless pundits discuss his hire by Forest, and if you somehow missed it, it would take less than 30 seconds or less to find out. Not a very effective ruse. In fact It is an extremely odd facet of the story for anyone to point out. It would be like a well known cabinet minister or member of parliament writing openly about the pros and cons of legislation they support, or are actively working on, then being accused of skulduggery because they didn't include a bio in the article, spelling out who they are and what they do for a living; it would be obvious.
@@wolfmauler that’s fair. Granted, I should point out I am coming from more of the US side of things, so maybe it’s not the norm to flag anything like that in the UK in terms of text (mainly, conflicts of interest interest like working for someone you’re writing in favor for). It’s not necessarily effective, just sort of an odd omission from a journalistic or ethics standpoint.
Finally Spurs fans accepting the defeat!!! Good luck in Europa league😆 Villa still have 1% chance to win 5th place for England teams in next season champions league. Trust!
PGMOL have not covered themselves in praise this season , so not unsympathetic to calls for them to be brought to book over persistent inconsistencies in their performances. Making professional allegations over match fixing is still something that Forest will have to have some VAR tape proof of, if the choose to take it further ?
Reaped the benefit from a depleted wolves side? 😂 arsenal absolutely dominated from start to finish bar one wolves chance. Arsenal strolled through. Also any mention of a blatant red card that wasn’t given? Of course not 😂
I’m going to say one important thing: while I don’t consider the daily mail to be a bastion of journalistic ethics, disclosure is essentially part of journalism 101. That’s extremely shameful to write an article like that and NOT disclose the fact he consults for Forrest.
I thought it went without saying. His appointment by Forest is unprecedented and quite well known, and not a little controversial. Not sure who would not know who he is.
@@wolfmauler it doesn’t matter. If you’re writing an article criticizing a decision for your employer in a pretty big news site, you should at least disclose it the article (typically at the top) that you work for Forrest. While, yes you can look it up outside, that’s the sort of thing done to be deceptive. Honestly until the Forrest post came up, I didn’t know they hired anyone, though I don’t keep up with Forrest as closely as my team, so I will admit that.
@@RobertoVillegas-vincent404 ok, I understand in principle, I'm just saying it was a pretty poor attempt at deception, seeing as he didn't write anonymously, everyone knows who Clattenburg is, have read articles about and heard countless pundits discuss his hire by Forest, and if you somehow missed it, it would take less than 30 seconds or less to find out. Not a very effective ruse. In fact It is an extremely odd facet of the story for anyone to point out. It would be like a well known cabinet minister or member of parliament writing openly about the pros and cons of legislation they support, or are actively working on, then being accused of skulduggery because they didn't include a bio in the article, spelling out who they are and what they do for a living; it would be obvious.
@@wolfmauler that’s fair. Granted, I should point out I am coming from more of the US side of things, so maybe it’s not the norm to flag anything like that in the UK in terms of text (mainly, conflicts of interest interest like working for someone you’re writing in favor for). It’s not necessarily effective, just sort of an odd omission from a journalistic or ethics standpoint.
Pmgol should be called out publicly. The same mistakes continue to happen.
Finally Spurs fans accepting the defeat!!! Good luck in Europa league😆
Villa still have 1% chance to win 5th place for England teams in next season champions league. Trust!
Wolves were so dead they didn’t try apply pressure from minute 1 also Everton robbed forest
Doing the double over wolves isn’t for every team!!!!!! Haha
Sim imagine if Tottenham were in a relegation battle come on they robbed forest
PGMOL have not covered themselves in praise this season , so not unsympathetic to calls for them to be brought to book over persistent inconsistencies in their performances. Making professional allegations over match fixing is still something that Forest will have to have some VAR tape proof of, if the choose to take it further ?
The inconsistencies is so f ing visible.
Reaped the benefit from a depleted wolves side? 😂 arsenal absolutely dominated from start to finish bar one wolves chance. Arsenal strolled through. Also any mention of a blatant red card that wasn’t given? Of course not 😂