We all know the terrible way that the media treat football in this country but this is actually disgraceful and worse than I thought they would ever go. In a totally unrelated attack they attach the fact he is a football fan to it to diminish the game, incredibly disrespectful to the people that died to use a terrorist attack to attack a sport.

Total BS

Fuck msm. Let's just lock it into fox and get a streaming partner. We don't need these    - oops, I just ate my own poop...s

FMD 

Fuck me

I hope they're our FTA partner!!!!!!!

The actual story linked with the tweet treats him being a Manchester United fan as being a good thing in his life before he became a radical Muslim who then went on to be a suicide bomber. However the tweet has horribly implied he became a suicide bomber because he was a soccer fan, total disgrace.

Cut them off. Irrelevant knuckle draggers. I wouldn't even know how they reported if I didn't see things up here, I pay them no attention usually. Think beyond the square Davo.

They know damn well the average reader makes their mind up from the headline

Agree with Savic. Would never have seen it otherwise. They know their audience, bob and Mary will be outraged as expected whilst sitting on their coushins in the stands watching the pies whilst eating their prawn sangers listening to abc regional.

Or the project obviously

The Times and The Australian are running similar articles on the bomber. By similar I mean the same, but edited to market. The Times article is attributed to 4 different writers. The Australian article attributed to the paper's "UK correspondent" whose name does not appear in the listed writers on the Times article. Which is funny, because paragraphs in the articles are of course exactly the same. What is intriguing though is the differences that appear in the Australian version. He's an avid cricket fan in the Times article. Whereas in the Australian article he's identified in the article's headline as a Man U fan. You can even sense from the flow of the article that they are the same article for 3 paragraphs, then some jarring paragraph in the edited Australian version then suddenly mentions Manchester United. Like the Australian editor has put down the phone and barked "there's not enough Sockah, what am I paying you for?"

Poor, very poor journalism

Pathetic. 

Regardless of the tweet this is what d have been done from the start. 

everyone one of these "incidents" needs to be highlighted, named and shamed. and trolled. and this seems to be happening every time now, which is great. 

a cruel twist... if it happens

English headlines...
"Manchester bomber Salman Abedi played five-a-side football with fellow jihadis"
and
"Foul Play: Manchester bomber Salman Abedi played five-a-side football with fellow United supporting jihadis"

Over there it's used to demonstrate how 'normal' these animals can appear.

Re-print the same headlines here and it's anti-football bias.  

Settle down, stop being so paranoid.

There is a difference between how the media portrays football in Australia compared to how the media portrays football in the UK.
Someone lights a flare during a football match:
Australian media: Suburban terrorists strike again.
UK Media: Millwall 1 Bradford City 0

Absolutely, and if they were referring to something the English wouldn't mention your point would be valid...  But the fact that the UK press have picked up and reported the football issue just as strongly as the Aussie media suggests that it's not bias, it's news.

It can be both.

I agree totally with you. The tweet seems to be trying to normalise him ... that is they can be anyone (fear!!!)