Well

First, there's not a huge amount of actual information. In fact there's some unpleasant smear and innuendo, without facts.

Prime example is this: "But, alarmed by something he had been told, Phillips spoke in strict secrecy to some senior club staff. He reported back to Delia Smith. She then spoke to other trusted club employees. Those discussions led to the conclusion that Moxey didn’t “get” Norwich and that led, in turn, to his departure."

Now, what's the "actual information" in there? Nothing. It's playground whispers. "I know something really bad about Moxey, oooo he's done something AWFUL. But I can't tell you what it was. It was just AWFUL". He tells you no facts at all.

That's not journalism, it's just propaganda. It's designed to deflect attention away from the board and onto someone who can't defend himself (not least because we've no idea what supposedly lies behind this smear). It's serving the board.

Any evaluation of any source requires assessment not only of what they're saying but why they might be saying it. So why might Mick be smearing Moxey with a non-specific but poisonous rumour? Hmmm, I wonder.

The fact that he's prepared to do that makes you more than a little sceptical about the worth of any of his piece. It's so obviously written with an agenda.

Posted By: Old Git, Mar 12, 20:21:57