The media have started reporting certain details of the FIFA corruption scandal.
For example, this link takes you to the BBC coverage entitled Fifa crisis: Ex-official Chuck Blazer details bribe-taking. It includes this:
Former top Fifa official Chuck Blazer has admitted that he and others on the executive committee agreed to accept bribes in conjunction with the choice of South Africa as 2010 World Cup host.
The American said he also helped to arrange bribes over the 1998 event.
The admissions come in a newly released transcript from a 2013 US hearing in which he pleads guilty to 10 charges.
And this link takes you to the Guardian coverage entitled Fifa whistleblower Chuck Blazer: I took bribes over 1998 and 2010 World Cups. It includes this:
An American former Fifa executive cooperating with the FBI on a major corruption inquiry has admitted that he and other members of the all-powerful executive committee were bribed in return for voting for South Africa’s bid for the 2010 World Cup.
Chuck Blazer, a 70-year-old soccer chief, made the admission in testimony to a New York judge in 2013 which was made public on Wednesday.
Blazer, an eccentric power broker for American soccer for decades, and a member of the Fifa executive committee for six years until 2013, also admitted in the court facilitating the payment of a bribe relating to the 1998 World Cup.
Notice anything interesting about the presentation of the information? Anything missing?
Without further reading, I can see that the 2010 World Cup was in South Africa. Where was the 1998 World Cup? It was in France, but it is nowhere in either coverage. Why? Just an oversight? Deliberate policy? Sloppy reproduction of some sloppily written press release? Or is it OK to mention probable corruption in South Africa, but not in France? Or, is old corruption no longer corruption?
By way of contrast, the ‘F’ word is in the CNN coverage, here.