MancAl said:stuart brennan said:The relationship between MEN and City changed the day the club vamped up the website.
Sounds bitter
They do. You compare it to the national media. Huge differenceThe Road Sweeper said:MancAl said:stuart brennan said:The relationship between MEN and City changed the day the club vamped up the website.
Sounds bitter
Does a little bit doesn't it?
Now I'm not suggesting the MEN turns in to the equivilant of Pravda, but perhaps if the MEN "supported" the club with some positive articles, optimistic pieces, feel good stories or basically anything which demonstrated they were actually behind the club, then the club may recipricate when releasing news. At least the fans (the readership) would appreciate it.
stanHayes said:Train said:mancitymick said: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..
Make love to me.stuart brennan said:Dethred said: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.
MancAl said:stuart brennan said:The relationship between MEN and City changed the day the club vamped up the website.
Sounds bitter
Make love to me.stuart brennan said:Dethred said: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.
M24 Citizen said:I must have missed this article? Can anyone tell me what they said? Haven't a clue what all the rambling on this thread is about