How Do You Make Murray Smell Of Roses?

How do you make Murray smell of roses? That is the task of the British media.

First say how nice he smells and get everyone to agree. Easy just ask all the players in the locker room if he is nice and deserves to win a slam. They will say yes to both questions. (tick!).

Then get rid of any bad smells. Neil Harman demonstrated admirably how to go about this here https://www.606v2.com/t35987-interesting-twitter-conversation-about-some-of-murray-s-on-court-behaviour (tick!).

Then finally make those that do smell like flowers smell a little less pleasant. This will be guaranteed to make Murray smell extra sweet. The DM demonstrates how to do this in an article yesterday. I won't provide a link as you really don't want to go there as it does really smell unpleasant. Instead I'll provide just a small sample... Andy Murray defied an act of blatant gamesmanship from world No 1 Roger Federer in China on Saturday to claim an appointment in the final of the Shanghai Masters ... (tick!)

Now doesn't Andy smell nice?

This isn't really a criticism of Murray, but of the media isn't it? I find it hard to argue with it on that basis.

But I don't think it reflects on Murray.

Ridiculous generalisations.
You've taken a few examples from the media and made it represent the whole press.
I have seen many negative articles on Murray, as well as many positive ones.

As for Federer yesterday, yes that was clear gamemanship.

It Must Be Love

Federer was just being used. It was not about him. Other players have and will be used for the same purpose.

bogbrush

But Murray does benefit from smelling of roses don't you think?

Well that's part of the medias objective. The other is to tell their audience what they want to hear and main in viewing figures.

Murray is a subject of the Illuminati, member of NATO and an anti freedom activist.

Hawkeye has convinced me.

bogbrush wrote:Well that's part of the medias objective. The other is to tell their audience what they want to hear and main in viewing figures.

But if the media's objective is to tell their audience what they want to hear then they have to decide what that is? Personally I would prefer a more objective account from the media otherwise it begins to resemble fiction rather than fact. Not sure what you mean by that bit about "viewing". At a guess are you saying if Murray smells of roses more people will watch tennis in this country?

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Well that's part of the medias objective. The other is to tell their audience what they want to hear and main in viewing figures.

But if the media's objective is to tell their audience what they want to hear then they have to decide what that is? Personally I would prefer a more objective account from the media otherwise it begins to resemble fiction rather than fact. Not sure what you mean by that bit about "viewing". At a guess are you saying if Murray smells of roses more people will watch tennis in this country?

You're being unrealistic if you think national media report objectively.

And people watch to see what they wish to see, and that goes for what they're told too. Why do you think politicians tell people what they hope to hear?

bogbrush

Sigh... I suppose I am just idealistic. But sometimes there is something real to be seen. Or at least I hope there is. The trick is to try and judge for yourself and understand the reasons for the media telling us what they do.

It is obvious they are trying to paint Murray in the most positive light, we don't need a David Icke clone telling us what we already knew it's hardly a revealing article you put up here.

Personally I don't care if it was gamesmanship or not (he didn't break any rules did he, at worst bought himself some time.. Hardly cheating is it) and I especially don't care how the media report it.

I think it's naive to expect a British media outlet not to have some bias towards a Brit. This is replicated across the world by every nation when it comes to their own sportsman.

Move along, nothing to read here.

Just pointing out that if we are told something smells of roses that the reality might be quite different. Also although the British media may well focus on British players (personally I don't agree with that) don't we expect them to report in an unbiased way? Or am I being naive even to hope for such reporting?

For example I've watched Federer enough to doubt he would resort to "blatent gamesmanship". It would be news if he did. But I know enough about how Murray is reported to understand that no such thing happened. But this is how the match is reported. It is odd to say the least. And maybe even odder that we are just meant to accept it and "move along".

It can hardly be gamesmanship when players are not accustomed to playing in the rain, any of the elite players would be stupid not to get the umpire to check the rain in a trailing position. The main issue should be why the umpire didnt stop it before Federer questioned.

It was Murray trying to capitalise in the rain and he cheated by wanting to play on.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:It was Murray trying to capitalise in the rain and he cheated by wanting to play on.

Which rule did he break? I can provide a link to the rules of tennis, if you want.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

It was Murray trying to capitalise in the rain and he cheated by wanting to play on.

Around 6 drops fell in the space of 10 minutes.
I'm surprised Murray didn't get his raincoat and wellies on.

hawkeye wrote:Just pointing out that if we are told something smells of roses that the reality might be quite different. Also although the British media may well focus on British players (personally I don't agree with that) don't we expect them to report in an unbiased way? Or am I being naive even to hope for such reporting?

For example I've watched Federer enough to doubt he would resort to "blatent gamesmanship". It would be news if he did. But I know enough about how Murray is reported to understand that no such thing happened. But this is how the match is reported. It is odd to say the least. And maybe even odder that we are just meant to accept it and "move along".

Ok, don't move along then. Carry on fighting the great injustice (that few seem to care about) of media outlets around the world showing a bit of bias towards their own countrymen. Good luck with it.

Let us know how you get on.

Don't understand why the OP has posted the same link she posted yesterday.