Plenty of people would claim that this is possible. There are plenty of historical examples where people truly believed a small ethnic minority were manipulating the rest, and often they reacted to this with violence. Historically these haven't even been niche views, just because a lot of people of a certain race believe a certain thing about the way they are being treated, does not automatically make it entirely true. I'm also not saying that black athletes across the country have no point, or that racism has been eradicated in the nation. I'm certain that there are certain articles written about Sterling which have been motivated by racist believes held by certain journalists. I'm just not as quick as others are to immediately brand all of the media attention he's received as being racially motivated, I genuinely believe that a vast majority of what has been aimed at him would have occurred regardless of race.
Nobody is calling anybody loons, I can understand why Sterling and others feel targeted. I'm not portraying them as foolish or insane, I'm merely putting across an opposing view. If somebody Jewish claimed something about anti semitism you'd look like a prick if you claimed they were wrong? How? Why? What if you had meticulously researched the topic for years and were an expert on anti semitism, would you still be incapable of commenting on it unless you happened to be Jewish?
Ok, do you have any concrete evidence that the media reported that story because they are racist? No? Then don't make things up. I'm merely suggesting an alternative, and I have as much to back up that alternative as you do. All you're suggesting is that certain stereotypes exist, thus the media must have released the story on a whim to conform with that stereotype. Generally journalists don't just wake up and decide to be racist, so I find that theory a little weak .. but you're the expert on evidence, right? A far more plausible scenario is that this was a story someone came forward with, and whilst there was probably a lack of evidence they ran with it anyway because of existing stereotypes making them thing 'hey, it's probably true!". Which yes, is an example of racism and should be condemned by all, but it doesn't mean every single story related to Sterling is racist.
The media love sensationalism, a story about Sterling being related to gang culture was always going to be more interesting than 'footballer gets weird tattoo'. They made assumptions they didn't think would get questioned, but again is this a racial problem or more just an issue with the British media in general? I think if a white, working class lad had come out with a similar tattoo the media would have reacted in the exact same way. This is more of a class than a race problem I feel.
I've never said his personality was 'wrong', just suggested that certain personalities are better received in the media, which absolutely true. Most footballers have a history of stories related to their money, especially ones who move to Manchester City, once again I can post articles about John Stones and his new house if you like? He's one of the best English footballers around so is inevitably going to get a lot of media attention, and when you get guns tattooed on your leg or post pictures of diamond encrusted sinks on social media, you will get called out on it regardless of race.
The personality question is actually an interesting one, because he doesn't actually strike me as being particularly flamboyant and showy. I think the media settled on this narrative because of his move to City/the stories about him demanding tons of money at the time, and that narrative has stuck since. It's not fair or right, but then the media in this country isn't.
You don't get it - if a media outlet allows a story to be ran by journalists who hold racist views, then they are supporting racism.
These aren't stories on a random person's blog with nobody to answer to - these are national & international news outlets. Every story needs to get approval from the editor, and if it's a front-page story (in the Sun & Daily Mail's case) then it needs multiple approvals, and multiple eyes will proof read, and approve it to print.
So you excusing the media is moot because the journalist doesn't work independently, and if there are 'lone racist journalists' working their views will still be known and approved - so yes, I'm not denying there are likely to be individual journalists who hold racist views - however the news papers need to be held accountable because they still choose to print those same stories.
If you don't oppose racism, you are supporting it. There's no fence to sit on when it comes to this topic. So yes, the media deserve to get stick just as much as the journalists, if not more considering they continue to employ said journalists.
Secondly - the fact that you resorted to making things up rather than agreeing that a fabricated story that plays on the stereotype of Jamaican men is racist, is proof that you aren't actually interested in 'intelligent debate' as you tried to claim, nor are you just trying to 'put across an alternative view' - because you can't answer what the motivations for using a racial stereotype are, if not racism.
I think you are just more interested in being the contrarian here who goes against the grain because you don't choose to believe the popular viewpoint.
In some cases, the popular viewpoint is the correct viewpoint, and not every issue needs a degree of debate.
The media claiming that Sterling had multiple kids with different mothers at the age of 18/19 was racist. The only information they had at the time was that he's a Jamaican born teenager who had 1 child. Nothing else, and with Google it's really easy to look these things up, even if 'somebody close to him' tried to sell them a story, instead they chose to play on the racial stereotype instead.
The British media get away with these things because there's always somebody willing to give them an inch and not be held accountable for what they report. The Daily Mail & The sun have dog-whistled for years about brown immigration. Now they've switched onto Megan Markle and stories of her being 'difficult' because she insists on doing chores like cleaning up after herself where as Kate 'respects' the Royal traditions, but Megan is also being 'difficult' because she wants to wear dresses that cost 'x amount' whilst Kate is either 'modest' for wearing cheap clothes or 'chic' when she decides to wear more expensive clothes.
The signs are all there, but sometimes - unless the N word is thrown out - people will just choose to not believe it's there because they simply don't understand - which was my first point.
The media settled on this narrative of him before he moved to City, that wasn't the landmark moment for which he was targeted by the press.
