Author Topic: Acceptable Sources and Unacceptable Sources when posting Media Stories.  (Read 71676 times)

Offline Hinesy

  • RAWK Editor. 57'sy. Caramel log dealer and comma chamaeleon
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,247
RAWK has a policy of accepting certain media sources when starting threads on news heard or written about the club.

This list is not exhaustive but gives clear guidence to what's allowed and not.

Twitter sources are not allowed unless from an official site and really, unless its the madness of the Transfer Forum, you shouldn't be starting a new thread based on a tweet anyway.

Clearly as Jon Hall's thread in this board states, quoting from the Sun will get you banned/muted at least and is just a no-no.


This is the list as posted in the Transfer Forum when open:


I really shouldn't need to say this, but, the following sources will be instantly deleted:
  • The Sun

The following (not an exhaustive list) could be summarily locked:
  • Daily Mail
  • The metro
  • Daily Express
  • Daily Mail
  • The Star
  • The Daily Star
  • Daily Mail
  • Talk Sport
  • Daily Mail
  • community.footballpools.com
  • Daily Mail
  • TeamTalk
  • Daily Mail
  • Tribal Football
  • Daily Mail
  • Sportsnetwork
  • Daily Mail
  • Goal.com
  • Daily Mail
  • fansfc.com
  • Daily Mail


Don't post anything from KopTalk, because Duncan Oldham claims copyright on it. Besides, why on earth would you want to read it?

The BBC Transfer Gossip page, and it's equivalent in the quality papers does not magically launder the story. A Sun story is a Sun story, even if the BBC report that the Sun are reporting something.

So what can you post?

liverpoolfc.tv is clearly definitive (apart from the press round up)
The Echo / Daily Post (unless it is reporting other papers' stories)

Beyond those two, I am afraid you need to think. Read the story. Does it have any quotes? A story quoting a named source is stronger than a story with an unnamed source, which is better than a story without a source. Where is the story printed? The Guardian has more credibility than the Star for instance. Is the story realistic? We are not going to buy Messi, he is not for sale, we couldn't afford him if he was. In summary, is the story credible? If it isn't, don't post it, because it will be locked.




I'd like to add
Talksport Radio to that list.

Also the Times has a paywall so quoting reports from there is likely to infringe copyright and get us into trouble.

thanks.
Yep.

Offline Hinesy

  • RAWK Editor. 57'sy. Caramel log dealer and comma chamaeleon
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,247
Re: Acceptable Sources and Unacceptable Sources when posting Media Stories.
« Reply #1 on: September 4, 2012, 06:11:58 PM »
This is in the Feedback Section but probably would do as well to be in here.
Yep.

Offline jonah545711

  • Kemlynite
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Here to win YNWA
Re: Acceptable Sources and Unacceptable Sources when posting Media Stories.
« Reply #2 on: September 6, 2012, 05:53:17 PM »
LFC.Tv or Liverpoolrumours.com  ::) LOL
"Seeds are bought at a young age and developed in the Liverpool way" Our best seeds of late have been bought young and developed!!

Offline EddieC

  • Kemlynite
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Acceptable Sources and Unacceptable Sources when posting Media Stories.
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2012, 05:15:01 PM »
So the Mail's off-bounds then?

:P

Offline princeoftherocks

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,062
  • black sheep scouse
Re: Acceptable Sources and Unacceptable Sources when posting Media Stories.
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2012, 05:53:33 PM »
and if I overhear something on the street corner?
dios esta buena

Offline Dr. Beaker

  • Veo, to his mates. Shares 50% of his DNA with a banana. Would dearly love to strangle Frankengoose. Lo! Be he not ye Messiah, verily be he a child of questionable conduct in the eyes of Ye Holy Border Guards.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,014
  • I... think I am, therefore...I....maybe.
I have this shoeshine bloke I regularly go to, he's pretty good.
Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect.

Offline away day travel

  • Boys Pen
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Acceptable Sources and Unacceptable Sources when posting Media Stories.
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2014, 03:47:31 PM »
Sky Sports only, tends to be my "who to believe" rule!

Offline Hinesy

  • RAWK Editor. 57'sy. Caramel log dealer and comma chamaeleon
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,247
Re: Acceptable Sources and Unacceptable Sources when posting Media Stories.
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2014, 04:55:29 PM »
Sky Sports only, tends to be my "who to believe" rule!

Really?! Skysports is mainly bollocks.
Yep.

Offline KOP1975

  • Feb 5: “Hurt the pockets of the club not the team on the pitch as the team needs all the help it can get right now.” Feb 7: “i never want to see Sakho-shit ever play for us again. He needs to be binned big time.” <— 'Helping' the team....?
  • Main Stander
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Y N W A
Re: Acceptable Sources and Unacceptable Sources when posting Media Stories.
« Reply #8 on: November 6, 2015, 08:22:24 AM »
how about Indykilla on Twotter?  :tosser
Y.N.W.A
JFT96

Offline The Mule

  • Kalgan's finest
  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Hello mods/staff was going start a thread about a Telegraph article which happens to quote and make reference to The S*n. Given the magnitude about what this is about it is almost certainly going to be discussed by reds at some stage but wanted to clear it here first.

Below is/was my intended post:

Apologies if already posted but I was interested to know what people's thoughts on the below were? Is this the final lethal injection to the domestic game, even the game as we know it? Or, is this a perfectly sensible direction to take for a club like ours in order to secure our future among the elite given how increasingly competitive the Premier League (and therefore how difficult Champions League qualification) has become?

**Warning: The below is a link to a Telegraph article which shows and references the back page of The S*n. Due to the potential magnitude of the implications (I'm sure this is going to be discussed among reds at some point) and the fact that this is a Telegraph article, I thought it would be ok to post. Sincere apologies in advance if I'm wrong about that.**

[link removed]
« Last Edit: March 2, 2016, 09:19:10 AM by SP »
"Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker."

Offline SP

  • Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,076
  • .
If the story has legs it will be reported without sourcing the Sun. We just do not allow Sun stories, even indirectly.

Thanks for asking first though.

Offline The Mule

  • Kalgan's finest
  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Noted, Cheers.
"Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker."

Offline ChaChaMooMoo

  • Not a cow. Cant dance. Why this name?
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,325
  • We climbed the hill in our own way.
Just a quick heads up. Football stats website WhoScored have partnered with The S*n

https://twitter.com/MrAcconci/status/756054871447658496

Please unfollow them and don't use their website/stats anymore. Squawka are a better alternative  :wave