Why isn't Ridsdale boycotting the BBC?

As we know Ridsdale is saying that the club *was not* in court over a winding up order, and there's no risk to the club. He said this on the official website:

"Today's court action had the affect of withdrawing the threat of a winding-up order rather than imposing it.... there is no prospect of the club being wound up."

And also confirmed this stance when I e-mailed him linking to the official HRMC Government's website:

"The HMRC issue a winding up petition to get you to the table. We were at the table some weeks ago. We reached agreement with them. As a result they agreed to withdraw which I was told would happen today. It did. Peter"

He then attacked the Echo over this article (which mainly stated the obvious; albeit in a show of poor journalism), saying:

"What you have published is despicable and I will not be talking to anyone at the South Wales Echo again."

I wonder, though, why Ridsdale hasn't chosen to attack the massive and Worldwide British Broadcasting Corporation?

They did a very similar article to the Wales Online one (as can be seen here). In-fact, they say:

"It comes on the day that the Bluebirds appeared before London's High Court to face a winding-up order brought by Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.

But the case was put off for 70 days to allow the club to pay the undisclosed debt."

This is again reporting the facts, in a similar way (albeit in slightly less sensationalist language) than the Wales Online article.

So why has Ridsdale decided to attack the Echo with such vitriol, when the BBC published an article saying the exact same thing?

Surely our good, honest, non-MP-esque chairman Peter Ridsdale isn't simply attacking the weakest news station here (who fans were already a bit dubious about) in an attempt to deflect?

Personally I'm waiting for Ridsdale to boycott the BBC. They did just as much "wrong" as the Echo.

You've answered your own point.

The BBC merely reported in neutral language. The Eggo used a sensationalist tone. That's the difference.

You've answered your own point.

The BBC merely reported in neutral language. The Eggo used a sensationalist tone. That's the difference.

No, that's not the difference.

The Echo reported that the club was due to be wound up, and his has been delayed for 70 days.

The BBC reported that the club was due to be wound up, and his has been delayed for 70 days.

Ridsdale said that the Echo were wrong in reporting that the club was due to be wound up, and his has been delayed for 70 days; and so Ridsdale said he was boycotting the Echo.

Logic therefore tells us that Ridsdale should boycott the BBC.

Ridsdale isn't boycotting the Echo due to semi-sensationalist reporting. Nowhere has he said this.