BBCs Dan Roan banned by City for latest Vieira Interview

[LoveCity]

Speaking of awful "journalism", United's favourite newspaper has posted this gem.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4227667/Roberto-Mancini-bike-scare-as-big-red-machine-closes-on-Man-City-boss.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -boss.html</a>

 

[Red_fan]

Speaking of awful "journalism", United's favourite newspaper has posted this gem.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4227667/Roberto-Mancini-bike-scare-as-big-red-machine-closes-on-Man-City-boss.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -boss.html</a>

lol, slow day at the office.

 

[Manc in London]

If you cared to read through his City match reports this season when we have on the game he spent much of reports talking about the then absent Carlos Tevez rather than giving City the credit the club deserves. Tevez was irrelevant to the games concerned but Taylor attempted to put a negative angle on it. You take your pick from the Guardian site.

I would think I have read pretty much every City match report in The Guardian for the last 20 years.

To consider someone as bias, they would surely have to regularly negative about City. That, purely and simply, is not the case with Daniel Taylor.

I suggest you look at the Daniel Taylor penned articles about Tevez, you will clearly see that he was not working against the club, but actually with them.

I can understand people pointing the finger at the likes of Count Paul Smith, Rob Beasley and Shaun Custis but Daniel Taylor?

 

[LoveCity]

I don't think Dan Taylor is bad at all, some of his stuff is very good and he has genuine inside knowledge so people at the club seem to trust him with info.

The likes of Ogden and Herbert (writing for the "objective" Independent and a blatant rag) though are an absolute joke with their cheap shots and jibes.

 

[Manc in London]

Steve Bates is actually the son-in-law of David Meek, former United reporter for the MEN and press officer.

That explains a lot. .

Ogden posts on all the United forums, he is as Red as they come and guess who did the interview with Vieira last week?

Hates City.

Cannot say I am surprised.

What makes it worse is that he denies the bias against City rather than simply ignores the claims. I guess he is too thick to see that we can see through him.

Isn't Sam Wallace still at the Indy? I like him. I would rather see him as Manchester/northern football correspondent. Surely the job of northern correspondent is the most coveted role among football newspaper journalists.

 

[nijinskybell]

Daniel Taylor used to write some attrocious stuff about City. Stopped reading anyhting by him some time ago so can't say if it's changed. Wasn't he also the journo who reported about chanting (not good stuff but can't recall exactly what it was - maybe Munich jubilee related?) at a WHU away game only to later admit that someone told him they'd heard it in a pub near the ground. That was his level - I'd be surprised if it's changed but maybe he's realised which side his bread will be buttered in future.

 

[mancunial]

Fuck the press/media...bunch of cunts who make things up to make money.. Instead of just banning this leech ban his fucking paper/organisation from City full stop..Until a full retraction is published and money donated to a charity of patricks naming..

spot on Sam my thoughts exactly

 

[monroe to angeline]

Daniel Taylor used to give us bad press but has certainly improved in the last 12 months. He is now top football man at the Guardian.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Yes I remember the munich chant allegations he had online before the game had finished, total utter bollox it was.

Yes it was and I was one of the ones who bombarded The Guardian over it. But I've since spoken to DT about that story and while I still think it was ill-advised in the way it was put over, I believe it was actually the club who asked him to write it. You have to remember that Paul Tyrrell was the Communications Officer at the time and he wasn't terribly subtle, to put it mildly. I can only assume he thought a story with a high 'shock value' would do the trick prior to the 50th anniversary game. Tyrrell would no doubt have been congratulating himself that the means justified the end after the way the silence was observed on the day, despite the damage the story did to City fans.

The club (particularly since the takeover) are very, very sensitive to munich chants and have had the media play the issue up in the press a few times as part of the campaign to eradicate it. This certainly happened again just a year ago Link when the club presumably asked them to do it again but many on here were up in arms, little suspecting the hand of the club in it.

So what you're saying is that a story that Mr Taylor put out in his paper, a story which people think he did as part of some agenda against the club was actually the work of the club itself?
What good would that have done City mate?

They were very worried about that game and what might happen so wanted the media to run something to try to forestall any chanting or disruption of the minute's silence. I suspect they'd seen something on one of the forums and used it to get their point across. As I said, I thought it was a hamfisted way of going about it but I suspect if you asked Tyrrell about it he'd say it worked.

You'd be amazed at some of the shit he used to pull.

 

[Bobbies Black Bins]

Speaking of awful "journalism", United's favourite newspaper has posted this gem.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4227667/Roberto-Mancini-bike-scare-as-big-red-machine-closes-on-Man-City-boss.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -boss.html</a>

To think someone will get paid to print this shit is unreal.