Controversial? Red Issue (Man U Fanzine) in the News Again

spen666

The cover shows Muamba receiving treatment after suffering his cardiac arrest on the White Hart Lane pitch with speech bubbles coming from the crowd saying "Is he dead?", "I've Tweeted my condolences just in case" and "Good mourning" under the headline "Grief Junkies run riot".
But a spokesman for the fanzine, which has been published monthly since 1989, has defended the cover despite hostile reactions to it online.
The Red Issue spokesman told the Manchester Evening News that the cover was "in no way" aimed at the player himself.
"It's aimed at the people who latched onto the situation and all their fake sentiments," he said. "The self-satisfaction of so many people on Twitter and other social networks as though their thoughts and prayers were responsible for his (Muamba's) recovery rather than the paramedics and those involved and the player's own fitness.
"You see it more and more. Whenever celebrities become unstuck it's a big issue while there are people being killed in Syria and Afghanistan who are not worth a mention.
"In no way was this intended as a dig at Muamba, why would it be? It was at the circus surrounding it."
The cover appears on an issue of the fanzine which will be on sale ahead of Monday night's Premier League game between Manchester United and Fulham.
The fanzine has courted controversy recently, with issues being confiscated by the police ahead of an FA Cup game against Liverpool in February for containing a spoof Ku Klux Klan hood poking fun at Luis Suarez after he was found guilty of racially abusing Patrice Evra

Daily Telegraph

They certainly have an eye for controversy.

I have to say that I understand where they are coming from with these hysterical outpourings of grief. Its been the same since Diana was murdered whoops sorry I mean erm, killed in Paris

rolf_f

spen666 wrote:

I have to say that I understand where they are coming from with these hysterical outpourings of grief. Its been the same since Diana was murdered whoops sorry I mean erm, killed in Paris

With you on that one spen. People preparing to weep buckets over someone they hadn't even heard of before this all happened.......

Still, it could have been worse - he could have been from Liverpool

tailwindhome

While I don't entirely disagree with the satirical point they are making, characterising a player having a heart attack as a celebrity coming 'unstuck' seems a tad harsh.

The commemorative cover for this years Munich anniversary should be absolutey 'ilarous..

CiB

Looks good to me, and continues the long tradition that Private Eye has carried for all of my life. The reasoning is sound too, having a poke at the professional mourners & the like.

I've said it on here before there really are too many people around who give all the impression that they can't wait to be offended about something and when they strike lucky don't we all know about it?

DonDaddyD

Mmmmmm

I think that Man U Fanzine lacks decency.

But at the same time I think professional mouners lack decency too.

Nothing wrong with paying your respects but the money and time spent on paying respect (laying signed shirts outside Bolton for example) to the player could be donated to help his native African country, which he fled, for example.

That said we can't gauge how much someone is hurt by something or how much they are playing up to it. There are some famous people who, if died, I'd be devastated.

DrLex

CiB wrote:

Looks good to me, and continues the long tradition that Private Eye has carried for all of my life. The reasoning is sound too, having a poke at the professional mourners & the like.

I've said it on here before there really are too many people around who give all the impression that they can't wait to be offended about something and when they strike lucky don't we all know about it?

+1. Also valid point in regard to people wishing to share everything on social media.

iPete

Kony pretty much sums up bandwagon jumpers who want to be outraged by something they know nothing about.

notsoblue

iPete wrote:

Kony pretty much sums up bandwagon jumpers who want to be outraged by something they know nothing about.

I love how the KONY2012 campaign imploded in on itself...

cje

I'm a Liverpool fan and I think they've got it spot-on.

Grief athletics has become our national sport.

SimonAH

It has all got a bit weird - I can't understand what people get out of it?

spen666

I'm pleased to see that I am not alone in decrying this hysterical grief that seems to afflict the nation.

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

I'm pleased to see that I am not alone in decrying this hysterical grief that seems to afflict the nation.

Plenty of people think it.

It's about how tastefully or not you express it right?

CiB

Not really Rick. Why does everything in this life have to be couched so as not to offend someone somewhere? What's wrong with good old-fashioned bad taste jokes that always used to appear straight after any bad news event? Blimey - the haste with which the first Herald Of Free Enterprise jokes, or jokes about Jill Dando, Princess Diana, Hungerford, The Queen Mother, etc etc appeared was generally a sign of how bad the news was. It didn't stop anyone feeling anything less than full & proper remorse or whatever, but it did act as a relief valve for when it started to get a bit too heavy. These days you only have to allow the suggestion that you haven't spent the time since <insert bad news event> happened in floods of tears to be enough to generate a wheelbarrow full of opprobrium for the poor unfortunate not showing 110% grief.

rick_chasey

You can say whatever you want as far as I am concerned. You can even publish what you want.

If you are making a publication, available to the public, you need to be aware that the less tasteful you are about these kinds of things, the more upset some people will be.

The magazine clearly doesn't mind, and likes the (negative) publicity. No-one should be shocked or counter-offended that this cover isn't well received by quite a few people.

CiB

Indeed. And people who do profess to be shocked, or offended, should be politely told to ignore it then, whatever's bothering them. The world doesn't and shouldn't revolve around the self-important 'easily-offended'. Who cares anyway? Offended? So?

rick_chasey

CiB wrote:

Indeed. And people who do profess to be shocked, or offended, should be politely told to ignore it then, whatever's bothering them. The world doesn't and shouldn't revolve around the self-important 'easily-offended'. Who cares anyway? Offended? So?

Think of it this way.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people were moved by the Muamba thing.

The front cover is mocking them.

People, unsurprisingly, don't like to be mocked - especially considering the nature of the event - since they feel their emotions are sincere relating to a serious event.

Having said all that, there is technically a rule brought in by labour that makes 'offending' people an offence.

Something I believe the coalition are trying to get rid of!

notsoblue

CiB wrote:

Indeed. And people who do profess to be shocked, or offended, should be politely told to ignore it then, whatever's bothering them. The world doesn't and shouldn't revolve around the self-important 'easily-offended'. Who cares anyway? Offended? So?

Where do you draw the line though? Should those who are offended by jokes made at the expense of recently deceased people on their Facebook pages just ignore it? e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi ... m-14121631

cje

notsoblue wrote:

CiB wrote:

Indeed. And people who do profess to be shocked, or offended, should be politely told to ignore it then, whatever's bothering them. The world doesn't and shouldn't revolve around the self-important 'easily-offended'. Who cares anyway? Offended? So?

Where do you draw the line though? Should those who are offended by jokes made at the expense of recently deceased people on their Facebook pages just ignore it? e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi ... m-14121631

I think there's a world of difference between hard-hitting satire about the reaction to a footballer's sudden illness and trolling a page set up to commemorate the dead.

notsoblue

cje wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

CiB wrote:

Indeed. And people who do profess to be shocked, or offended, should be politely told to ignore it then, whatever's bothering them. The world doesn't and shouldn't revolve around the self-important 'easily-offended'. Who cares anyway? Offended? So?

Where do you draw the line though? Should those who are offended by jokes made at the expense of recently deceased people on their Facebook pages just ignore it? e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi ... m-14121631

I think there's a world of difference between hard-hitting satire about the reaction to a footballer's sudden illness and trolling a page set up to commemorate the dead.

Well its about people being offended by something isn't it. If Muamba wasn't a footballer, he wouldn't be fair game. Theres something inconsistent about that approach imo.

cje

Muamba isn't fair game. But that cover is in no way mocking Muamba.

veronese68

Rick Chasey wrote:

You can say whatever you want as far as I am concerned. You can even publish what you want.

And they made you a mod?

Back on topic, I don't actually have a problem with that cover. I do think some of the over the top grieving for someone you've never met a little strange. I can understand being a bit sad, thinking that the sport they are involved in may be slightly poorer for their loss. But it can go too far.

rick_chasey

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You can say whatever you want as far as I am concerned. You can even publish what you want.

And they made you a mod?

Hell. Yes.

Jez mon

notsoblue wrote:

cje wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

CiB wrote:

Indeed. And people who do profess to be shocked, or offended, should be politely told to ignore it then, whatever's bothering them. The world doesn't and shouldn't revolve around the self-important 'easily-offended'. Who cares anyway? Offended? So?

Where do you draw the line though? Should those who are offended by jokes made at the expense of recently deceased people on their Facebook pages just ignore it? e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi ... m-14121631

I think there's a world of difference between hard-hitting satire about the reaction to a footballer's sudden illness and trolling a page set up to commemorate the dead.

Well its about people being offended by something isn't it. If Muamba wasn't a footballer, he wouldn't be fair game. Theres something inconsistent about that approach imo.

No one is saying Muamba himself is fair game, he's not the one being mocked here.

I don't find the joke especially funny, not because I find it offensive, although, I do find it in slightly poor taste.

Ben6899

TailWindHome wrote:

While I don't entirely disagree with the satirical point they are making, characterising a player having a heart attack as a celebrity coming 'unstuck' seems a tad harsh.

The commemorative cover for this years Munich anniversary should be absolutey 'ilarous..

The February edition was the one with the Ku Klux Klan mask. Suarez being a racist sadly overshadowed what we should have been remembering.

tailwindhome

Replacing that cover with a picture of the six servicemen killed in Afganistan would provoke an interesting reaction.

cje

TailWindHome wrote:

Replacing that cover with a picture of the six servicemen killed in Afganistan would provoke an interesting reaction.

Well it wouldn't make sense would it?

notsoblue

Jez mon wrote:

No one is saying Muamba himself is fair game, he's not the one being mocked here.

I don't find the joke especially funny, not because I find it offensive, although, I do find it in slightly poor taste.

Well put it this way, I'd be surprised if it would have been published if Muamba had died.

Personally I don't really care that much, or even really know much about the situation. But where there is a chance that you will genuinely hurt or offend people, it doesn't take much to choose not to make the joke at someone's expense just to sell papers. Ultimately though, people can print what they want as far as I'm concerned, but they shouldn't hide behind free speech and make accusations of hypocrisy when people call them out on bad taste.

tailwindhome

cje wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Replacing that cover with a picture of the six servicemen killed in Afganistan would provoke an interesting reaction.

Well it wouldn't make sense would it?

I think it would.

Similar inane bollox on 24 hr rolling news which continued until the Belgian coach crash, which in turn was replaced by Muamba.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

...
Having said all that, there is technically a rule brought in by labour that makes 'offending' people an offence.

Something I believe the coalition are trying to get rid of!

What rule is this?

I presume that by "rule" you are meaning legislation ie law.

I cannot immediately think of an offence of "offending" alone

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

...
Having said all that, there is technically a rule brought in by labour that makes 'offending' people an offence.

Something I believe the coalition are trying to get rid of!

What rule is this?

I presume that by "rule" you are meaning legislation ie law.

I cannot immediately think of an offence of "offending" alone

Was at a talk from an MEP last month and she was saying that there is now a rule in the UK which criminalises deliberately 'offending' people. She quoted the actual rule but I've since forgotten.

tailwindhome

S'pose if McQuaid can sue Kimmage for 'annoying' him then anything is possible