So everyone making a statement about anything has to be concerned with how it is perceived by some? Good to know.
The rest is just baseless speculation (very similar to the paper you're defending here) rooted in your obvious dislike of the guy. I don't like him either, but this is just utter nonsense. "Points with football hipsters"? Seriously?
So he is not really obliged to talk to the press at all? Can you please decide what you really want to say?
Because this looks like you are more concerned with Klopp not answering questions to a newspaper which has publicly shamed one of his players, than you are with that paper actually doing so. Klopp not answering questions of the Sun = poor form. Tabloid rag publishing most private stuff = totally aight.
Well, you said I didn't know anything about football journalism, which implies that you do. You also mention, time and time again, that Klopp is obliged to answer questions and you are even so knowlegeable about this, that you can differentiate between varying degress of obligability:
So, according to you, he is under an obligation (by whom?) to answer any question at a press conference and even more so, when it's match-related. You seem absolutely certain of your statements, could you maybe refer to a source for the regulations at pre-season friendlies?
The Sun were the ones who came up with it, others followed. I also don't know why Klopp should give a shit about the "history of sensationalism" of this and other papers? What the Sun did right now was obviously enough for him (and the club) to draw the line. A player of his was personally shamed in public and he does not like it.
Not really butthurt, to be honest. I'm making fun of you, dude, because you publically defend the fucking Sun.