Disgraceful Journalism again by MUEN

[mad4city]

I'd be more interested in wondering... why post the apology on a fan forum, when you admit to fucking up in the actual press? Apologizing to a relatively small audience in a forum is the easy, ineffective attempt at solving the problem.

The professional solution would be to remove the article, post the proper information (which in this case would be a rebuttal of the Daily Mail hack job) and an apology - or at least an acknowledgment of wrong-doing.

Perhaps Mr. Brennan could put the issue of the "MUEN" moniker to bed, by posting a few instances of his employer reporting slanderous, or patently false and damagingly misleading information about Manchester United. I'd love to see actual evidence from a news outlet.

For a start, this didn't go in the newspaper at all - it was up on the website overnight, piut there by someone temporarily standing in for the sports website fella (we have a skeleton staff on a Sunday), and was taken down as soon as I and the regular sports website lad became fully aware of it.
It wasn't "slanderous" (when written, it is libellous, "slanderous" is only word of mouth), nor patently false, nor was it damaging, in any way.
And, of course, we try not to publish things that are slanderous etc, about any club - as I said, this was an error, made by one individual working on his own, under pressure. To ask us to come up with instances of writing "slanderous" things about United is just stupid.
Why would we knowingly libel United, or City, or anyone, when to do so costs you money?
You seem to think it was done deliberately, as part of some stupid agenda - if that's the case, why would we take it down, just because a few Blues moaned about it.
Some people are just so busy trying to fit things to their ridiculous MUEN agenda, that they can't see the fact of the matter.

Ah now, don't be so disingenuous, Stuart.

First off, you knew that Dethred's request was issued more in rhetoric than any expectation that you'd put yourself in a legally vulnerable position.

Secondly, the number of staff that the MEN employ to do a job is of no concern to anybody but the MEN. As a professional organisation, proporting to represent any demographic of Western Society, the public have aright to expect that the highest standards are maintained by the MEN at all times. "Oh jeez, the pesky YTS kid dunnit!", just isn't good enough.

Thirdly, the Manchester Evening News is, by definition, a provincial publication. One of the major ways that it (and every other provincial newspaper) makes money is by printing stories that it hopes will be picked up by the National/ International Press. To that end, titbits, tales and exclusives about United have all been a nice litter earner for the MEN over the years (and long, long before City was re-invented by the Sheik, too). So good luck to ye, on that. Everybody is entitled to make a living and if good news stories about United sell, well, who can blame ye? And hey, doesn't everybody in the whole world just love a good news story about United, eh?
Trouble is, good news stories about City aren't what's in vogue, are they? You only have to pick up any tabloid in the country to see that. So, with that in mind, can you really blame the sceptics, Stuart?

Your paper has a long way to go before it wins back the respect of Blues. Incidents like this latest nonsense, that somehow squeezed by the "overworked temp" certainly aren't helping in that regard. Sure, it, in itself, very likely wasn't a deliberate slur. Let's not be disingenuous and pretend that it isn't to be expected in the current circumstances, though. In the rush to get stories syndicated, some reports are bound go to go over the top; be a little selective with the slant. (Hey, Moysey is the Chosen One versus hey that Pelliwhatsit is an anti English, Johnny Foreigner, really???).
Still, it is the silly season, after all. That's all this petty, little matter was: a simple error of judgement - although, sadly, nothing to unduly worry the MEN editorial policy-makers, I feel.

 

[stanHayes]

I wonder what the odds would be of them posting an apology, correcting this admittedly "poor Mail article" with their own rebuff, or simply changing every "city with "United, and "Pellegrini" with "Moyes".

You know...

Just to be fair and balanced.

This is a classic, "Oh I ran over your dog? Sorry!" "Oh, I just ran over your other dog - Sorry again" "Oh geesh I didn't know you had three dogs I could run over - Please believe us, we're really sorry."

Why put an apology in the MEN? He was commenting and should be commended on it for being honest. It is not the first time SB has been on here

Because it would mean taking responsibility. If they can post something unprofessional like that in the newspaper, they can sure as hell post an apology to go with it. A simple apology on a forum where a lot of match day blues don't read or venture upon doesn't count for much.[/quote

Be more impressed if he did the job he is paid for (instead of c/p other peoples work) He is in the city..he should be best pals with the PR people at city..getting inside stories that that are EXCLUSIVE to the MUEN.. then he wont need to get blamed for Printing crap...and if he does its HIS crap so no excuse.. Like has been said Before Peter Garner made a good living reporting on the club failing that city should employ a freelance a few Days a week and just feed them stories..

 

[penalty spot]

It is a shame that the MEN paper has become less well thought of by City fans these days. Once upon a time it was a United journo ...David Meek v Gardener in the blue corner . Then I suppose , the sports media at some stage, and to sell copies to vast United followers throughout the country, started to print " friendly articles" which is the state we are in at the moment. Very quiet on the Moyes front, eerily quiet.

Peter Gardener was a Blackpool fan iirc.

Aah.. I stand corrected Gordon. Tangerine corner then...Also who owned the Football Pink.. ?

 

[Why Always Ste]

Why can't these papers, especially the local press, just employ true supporters of the club to post up the online content?

I know of a good amount of Twitter junkies who spend 10+hrs a day posting City related content that's usually with some Blue Tinted Specs firmly in place and wouldn't result in regular accusations that The MEN is actually MUEN.

Fbloke - Official MEN City section online editor, stalking other gutterpress.
LoveCity - Tactical youth academy know-it-all
Prestwich Blue - Financial Whizz
GDM - outside the courts giving the legal view on Tevez's driving bans

You know it makes sense (and they'd do it for free)

 

[stuart brennan]

Be more impressed if he did the job he is paid for (instead of c/p other peoples work) He is in the city..he should be best pals with the PR people at city..getting inside stories that that are EXCLUSIVE to the MUEN.. then he wont need to get blamed for Printing crap...and if he does its HIS crap so no excuse.. Like has been said Before Peter Garner made a good living reporting on the club failing that city should employ a freelance a few Days a week and just feed them stories..

So when did I c/p someone else's work? That's a ridiculous statement, and I ask you to back it up or retract it
The relationship between MEN and City changed the day the club vamped up the website.
We are still their closest allies in the media - City still advertise with us, and help us out, but they save most exclusive interviews etc for the website.
"City should employ a freelance" - why do that, when they just use their own website?

 

[Marvin]

The MEN does not have an agenda against MCFC and I think most blues who saw this article recognised straight away that it was just a copy and paste job that passes for 95% of the stuff you see online nowadays.

 

[MancAl]

The relationship between MEN and City changed the day the club vamped up the website.

Sounds bitter

 

[Dethred]

First of all, thanks for keeping it civil, and at the very least posting it on here in your employer's own defense.

For a start, this didn't go in the newspaper at all - it was up on the website overnight, piut there by someone temporarily standing in for the sports website fella (we have a skeleton staff on a Sunday), and was taken down as soon as I and the regular sports website lad became fully aware of it.

Nor did I say it went in any newspaper. Or do you consider the press to only be in printed form, or an evening news reading? We applaud you removing it, as it shows at least some differentiation between the hacks and the Mail your news outlet, but my point remains clear. If you post something on your website (is that not a revenue-generating outlet of information???), then it is your responsibility to your readers to correct such misinformation. In my line of work, if a supervisor let an untrained individual take control of something as fundamental (to your business) as content distribution, that supervisor would be reprimanded or released. If I'm in charge of a network and throw a rookie on something he apparently doesn't understand, its my responsibility when a mistake is made, not the person who apparently doesn't know better.

It wasn't "slanderous" (when written, it is libellous, "slanderous" is only word of mouth), nor patently false, nor was it damaging, in any way.

Ever heard of the term Ignoratio Elenchi? But you are correct, I used the incorrect wording.

And, of course, we try not to publish things that are slanderous etc, about any club - as I said, this was an error, made by one individual working on his own, under pressure. To ask us to come up with instances of writing "slanderous" things about United is just stupid.
Why would we knowingly libel United, or City, or anyone, when to do so costs you money?

I asked you to illustrate one instance of an untrue or similar occurrence as a method of showing that mistakes happen toward both sides, as you so claimed. Your inability to even begin thinking of a single example makes me wonder.

In regards to Libel recriminations, I'd suggest that the line between defamatory "news" is blurred, the fact that other outlets can write whatever they please, and the club does not bring legal action. For instance, this "news" story is as unprovable as whether or not aliens exist. There is no way anyone could know the direction a heretofore free agent manager will do with domestic players. It speculates on a negative slant based on the signing of two foreigner players, and presents it (at the very least, in the title) as City ruining English football by giving English players less of a run out.

Imagine that, a false "news" story that appeals to the recently-rekindled discussion of homegrown players and the decline of the National team. Nevermind United's first signing being a foreigner, City are bad for English football, because they signed two (technically still one at this moment).

It doesn't take any special insight to see that its a defamatory opinion piece presented as real news. Your employer not only repeated it, but posted it without proper attribution. So libel and plagiarism in the same event. Beautiful. Hopefully this uninitiated fellow is under a bit more pressure at this point.

You seem to think it was done deliberately, as part of some stupid agenda - if that's the case, why would we take it down, just because a few Blues moaned about it.
Some people are just so busy trying to fit things to their ridiculous MUEN agenda, that they can't see the fact of the matter.

Your primary readership moaned about it. I'm convinced that's the only reason you did take action, compared to the national "news" outlets that couldn't be tossed if a chunk of Manchester didn't buy their paper for a brief time. Had there been no challenge to the "story", it would likely still be up there, but for the record I don't think you lot are half as bad as the Mail, although my point remains the exact same.

If you truly feel you screwed up, then the professional action is to either make a statement, or write a story that uses actual facts, and disproves the Mail's article. Doing neither is akin to having your hand slapped as you reach into the cookie jar, and coming to the conclusion that your mistake was getting caught.

 

[danebanksheik]

Be more impressed if he did the job he is paid for (instead of c/p other peoples work) He is in the city..he should be best pals with the PR people at city..getting inside stories that that are EXCLUSIVE to the MUEN.. then he wont need to get blamed for Printing crap...and if he does its HIS crap so no excuse.. Like has been said Before Peter Garner made a good living reporting on the club failing that city should employ a freelance a few Days a week and just feed them stories..

That's a ridiculous statement, and I ask you to back it up or retract it.
The relationship between MEN and City changed the day the club vamped up the website.
We are still their closest allies in the media - City still advertise with us, and help us out, but they save most exclusive interviews etc for the website.
"City should employ a freelance" - why do that, when they just use their own website?

Something I think to myself when I read 90% of online football stories.

The media business these days is to get the scoop ahead of the rivals by saying this will happen or that will happen or even suggest is already happening as in this story when the newspaper tried to make us believe that not only was Pellegrini already at his desk putting his plans together but that they also knew what he was thinking. and by chance appears to have selected their esteemed journal (DM!! as if) to share the news although our great website to which you refer (with some bitterness) to appears to have not been aware of any of this.

People do believe this shit you know, and that is exactly what the newspapers want, they want them coming back for more.

Fair play for coming on here and explaining what happened but asking for a retraction from a BM member, priceless.

 

[Marvin]

I gave up buying the MEN years ago, but it's still good reference as the local correspondent is a good journalist - and you can see that in this topic.

Simply being bothered about what City fans think, and reacting says a lot.