[Politics] Marcus Rashford v The Spectator

[Gwylan]

Marcus Rashford has revealed that the Spectator is set to do a hatchet job on him.

Why? It's not going to end well for the Spectator - it's going to lead to bad publicity and a lot of grief for advertisers. I'm not sure what they hope to achieve with it

 

[HantsSeagull]

Apart from anything else (numerous things) you would think they would be able to read the room, but maybe this is the utter shite their readers want to read rather than face the reality of what the real problem is. The elephant in that same room so to speak.

 

[A1X]

I wonder what it is about the successful, talented young black man with a social conscience which the Spectator so dislikes?

Imagine being so triggered about a footballer who wanted to feed some hungry kids.

 

[B-right-on]

Never read the rag. Wonder who is the target audience if they attack one of the more social conscious footballers in the UK?

All those others who rake in millions of £s and do feck all for social issues, don't get attacked but Rashford does, trying to help people.

Media at its worst.

 

[Gwylan]

I wonder what it is about the successful, talented young black man with a social conscience which the Spectator so dislikes?

When you're a magazine that has written articles in praise of neo-Nazis, it's not hard to answer.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Never read the rag. Wonder who is the target audience if they attack one of the more social conscious footballers in the UK?

All those others who rake in millions of £s and do feck all for social issues, don't get attacked but Rashford does, trying to help people.

Media at its worst.

Should we club together and buy Mouldy a copy and a box of tissues?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Pevenseagull]

I know a number of Rashford loving Spectator readers in their 70s who might find that challenging.

 

[Stat Brother]

I wonder what it is about the successful, talented young black man with a social conscience which the Spectator so dislikes?

His money.

 

[Poojah]

"International footballer has commercial partnerships". Now that's a shocking headline if ever there was one.

It's only right that he should conduct himself as a giant dickhead so as not run the risk of "benefiting" from the remnants of apparently being a genuinely nice guy and making a bigger tangible difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people than any other sportsperson or other 'personality' than I can think of in recent times.

Once we're done stoning Rashford can we please burn Joe Wickes at the stake as well?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I wonder what it is about the successful, talented young black man with a social conscience which the Spectator so dislikes?

Imagine being so triggered about a footballer who wanted to feed some hungry kids.

Who also launched a Book Club donating 50,000 books to kids.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-56798010

 

[Gwylan]

"International footballer has commercial partnerships". Now that's a shocking headline if ever there was one.

It's only right that he should conduct himself as a giant dickhead so as not run the risk of "benefiting" from the remnants of apparently being a genuinely nice guy and making a bigger tangible difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people than any other sportsperson or other 'personality' than I can think of in recent times.

Once we're done stoning Rashford can we please burn Joe Wickes at the stake as well?

Yes, it's bizarre. Since when has the Spectator railed against commercial partnerships?

And could a footballer, however wealthy, distribute thousands of books to kids without entering into a deal with a publishing company?

I genuinely don't understand why the Speccy has done this. It will bring nothing but bad publicity

 

[Geoffbn2]

News print survives through advertising and yes it's targeted to their readership but i wouldn't be surprised if some advertisers decide to reduce their spend or even cancel campaigns. This will probably end badly for the reporter and the publication

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

I really dislike what has happened to this country in recent years with this ridiculous right left divide we now have.

During the Euro’s I went to a pub to watch the England Scotland game with some ‘mates’ I haven’t seen for ages and certainly haven’t watched an England game with for years, definitely before Brexit. Anyway, I won’t be doing it again. Any opportunity they were slagging Rashford off, calling him ‘lunchbox’ (not in the way Linford Christie used to be referred to by it!) and just taking the piss out of him constantly. Alongside the usual other woke, snowflake insults they casually chuck out.

Seriously, why are the right wing so threatened by somebody just trying to do good?! It’s mental.

 

[Eeyore]

The Spectator has a circulation of 100,000 (2021)

Marcus Rashford has a Twitter reach of 4.8m

Fight.....

Is Andrew Neil still chairman at The Spectator ?

Gammons gotta do what gammons gotta do.

I suspect this will be like one of those articles in The Mail Online where a rational person just reads it and shrugs their shoulders.

I won't see it though. I don't wish to look at their pages and increase advertising revenue.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

At least he has done Something, unlike his critics.

Didn't our beloved leader [emoji2961] (aka complete ****) edit that rag once upon a time.

He is 23 ffs. Give him some slack.

 

[Gwylan]

News print survives through advertising and yes it's targeted to their readership but i wouldn't be surprised if some advertisers decide to reduce their spend or even cancel campaigns. This will probably end badly for the reporter and the publication

That's what I mean.

I've spent most of my working life as a magazine editor. My role as an editor is twofold: to find more readers and make a publication that advertisers will want to support. This will do neither.

It may play well with the gammon who read it now (literally dying off) but won't attract new readers. And there will certainly be advertisers who'll pull out of the Spectator.

I don't get it all

 

[lawros left foot]

That's what I mean.

I've spent most of my working life as a magazine editor. My role as an editor is twofold: to find more readers and make a publication that advertisers will want to support. This will do neither.

It may play well with the gammon who read it now (literally dying off) but won't attract new readers. And there will certainly be advertisers who'll pull out of the Spectator.

I don't get it all

It's not aimed at 'ordinary'people though,is it?
It's aimed at elderly right wing Tories who believe that Rashford should tug the forelock and know his place.
They expect a young black man to be either a drug dealer involved in inner city crime,or a feckless work shy layabout with 4 kids by 4 different women all on benefits.

Rashfords challenging of the Government, his empathy and emotional intelligence has scared them, and they need reassurance that their status quo isn't about to splinter, hence this attempted hatchet job on a fine young man who has proved to be a more effective opposition to this Government than Kier Starmers supine Labour Party.

He scares them.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Johnson is the Spectator’s man. Rashford has made Johnson look bad. These people don’t forgive or forget. This will be the first of many I suspect.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Marcus has tweeted a four part answer to the news the Spectator is doing a hatchet job.
It is dignified, classy and straightforward common sense. (I can’t do a link on my Pad)

By far the best reply was this below


Best take down of a Spectator from a United forward since Eric Cantona visited Selhurst Park on January 25th ‘

 

[Pevenseagull]

How very dare he.


Keep it up