Gingernuts wrote:As I posted in the cricket forum in response to whufc's multiple thread spamming:Gingernuts wrote: The Advertiser advocated for the project until it was approved, and now will milk every minor talking point over the next 4 - 5 years until it is built. It has been a clear and blatant change of tact from them on this project.
I'm saying this is a pretty obvious strategy by The Advertiser - nothing sells a chip wrapper more than controversy over a public project. There may indeed be some robust discussion about the footbridge, as their has been about the car parking.
However in my opinion the deliberate antagonistic tones of reporting in the Addie since the YES vote are about nothing more than drumming up their own business in our wonderful monopolised one paper town.
Am I the only one that thinks the Advertiser's obvious change in tact on it's reporting of this project is a orchestrated strategy by them to sell their chip wrapper? Surely other people can see this?
I dont agree the different threads offer different point of views. The Cricket thread is generally coming from people who are more involved in cricket rather than football while the AFL thread is generally people who have the AFL's interests at heart first.