Hughes calls for clarity over Tevez row, MuEN block comments

[squirtyflower]

actually I could be arsed as i had read the whole thread from the beginning
however I felt you hadn't given a full answer, although i accorded you more respect than you I

I won't be as arsed going on the website in future either, thanks that's one less bookmark now

 

[edgecroft]

I'm not about to start defending the national papers, but the idea that they also have an anti-City agenda is also daft, and not something shared by the City press office.
Can you name me one City story from the past three years which, if it had happened at United, would not have made the papers?

WTF?!

 

[berryblue]

Just to clear up one or two other points.
Chris Bailey used to be called a Rag, whenever he wrote anything someone didn't agree with. Chris is a proud, lifelong Blue and was an excellent journalist, now doing a good job for City.

Someone said I hadn't answered three basic questions. I have, but the poster clearly couldn't be arsed to go back through the thread, or look at past threads.

1. Why are City comments blocked but Utd ones aren't on MEN website? It's not true - comments from both sides are blocked, usually because they are defamatory, offensive, abusive or use bad language. The lad who normally moderates comments is a Blue. I can't answer every single case of why a comment was blocked, but we get the same moans from Utd fans

2. Rags are given more sympathetic treatment? They aren't - you just see what you want to see, read what you want to read. If something appears which goes against your viewpoint, you ignore it, if something appears which backs up your viewpoint, you seize on it.
I'm not about to start defending the national papers, but the idea that they also have an anti-City agenda is also daft, and not something shared by the City press office.
Can you name me one City story from the past three years which, if it had happened at United, would not have made the papers?

3. Why hasn't the MEN got a City fan as a City reporter?
It has never been a pre-qualification. The Utd reporter Stuart Mathieson is not a United fan. Peter Gardner was not a City fan.
As I've explained several times before, Chris Bailey left in the last round of voluntary redundancies, making the City post vacant.
As people were being made redundant, the MEN legally could not advertise the post externally, so there were only a few internal candidates for the job. I applied, as I thought it would be an interesting and exciting job (which it has been) and was deemed to have the necessary ability and experience.

-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:45 pm --

To be fair, Boddington's isn't brewed at Strangeways anymore and has alienated a lot of locals as a consequence. I would also argue that it isn't synonymous with Manchester anymore so it's probably not the best analogy!

Just part of my pro-Boddington's, anti-Holts agenda ;)

It was just the first thing that popped into my mind, which is odd because I wouldn't touch the stuff these days

You're obviously living in the past!

As a matter of interest who did Peter Gardner support? I always felt he was a little too dismissive of City, but just put it down to him being addicted to 'typical City' cliches in his articles.

Gardener once said. I am a reporter who writes about Man City not a reporter who supports Man City, in fact I am a Blackpool supporter.
Regarding the dispute around Hughes and the media, it will probably end in a DRAW. Everything else he did seemed to!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Just to clear up one or two other points.
Chris Bailey used to be called a Rag, whenever he wrote anything someone didn't agree with. Chris is a proud, lifelong Blue and was an excellent journalist, now doing a good job for City.

Someone said I hadn't answered three basic questions. I have, but the poster clearly couldn't be arsed to go back through the thread, or look at past threads.

1. Why are City comments blocked but Utd ones aren't on MEN website? It's not true - comments from both sides are blocked, usually because they are defamatory, offensive, abusive or use bad language. The lad who normally moderates comments is a Blue. I can't answer every single case of why a comment was blocked, but we get the same moans from Utd fans

2. Rags are given more sympathetic treatment? They aren't - you just see what you want to see, read what you want to read. If something appears which goes against your viewpoint, you ignore it, if something appears which backs up your viewpoint, you seize on it.
I'm not about to start defending the national papers, but the idea that they also have an anti-City agenda is also daft, and not something shared by the City press office.
Can you name me one City story from the past three years which, if it had happened at United, would not have made the papers?

3. Why hasn't the MEN got a City fan as a City reporter?
It has never been a pre-qualification. The Utd reporter Stuart Mathieson is not a United fan. Peter Gardner was not a City fan.
As I've explained several times before, Chris Bailey left in the last round of voluntary redundancies, making the City post vacant.
As people were being made redundant, the MEN legally could not advertise the post externally, so there were only a few internal candidates for the job. I applied, as I thought it would be an interesting and exciting job (which it has been) and was deemed to have the necessary ability and experience.

-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:45 pm --

To be fair, Boddington's isn't brewed at Strangeways anymore and has alienated a lot of locals as a consequence. I would also argue that it isn't synonymous with Manchester anymore so it's probably not the best analogy!

Just part of my pro-Boddington's, anti-Holts agenda ;)

It was just the first thing that popped into my mind, which is odd because I wouldn't touch the stuff these days

to be honest mate, I can't remember reading anything at all in the MEN that has made me thought there is anything anti city. the rest of the media has an agenda though.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Has a huge chunk of this thread gone missing?

 

[danebanksheik]

A newspaper should in my opinion relate the news.

Is it unreasonable for me to suggest that a story has to be written by a journo who has to write it so that his editor approves it so that it he will agree to include it in the paper?
Would an editor ever change a story submitted to him? Course he would - his job title gives the game away. So why would he edit a story? Presentation and content of course. Bias or slant, Newspaper policy, Sales, Editors personal opinion? Owners opinion? Not unreasonable - the editor has to report up to the owners.
So take any story with a pinch of salt and consider the source as you would when considering political stories on the same subject from say the Guardian and The Mail, who support opposite political parties and most of us know this, they make it clear to us. Depending on your own view one is for left wing loonies and the other for right wing loonies. The bottom line is that we do take this into account when reading such a story.

The big difference in sport is that we do not actually know what any newspapers stand point is because they do not tell us and we do not know what the editor’s standpoint is because they do not tell us. So we, Joe Public who provide the funds which enable the newspaper to continue its business have to make our own mind up and then we find out that when we express our opinion about what we think their standpoint is they do not like it.
The difficulty for genuine football fans is that they do have a stand point and are loud and proud about it and they do not and never will, unless they are muppets, ever change their allegiance and so believe that anyone who has an opinion about their club should do so from either a fan’s point of view or at the very worst with a reasoned objectivity.

If you live in this city, if you are a football fan you have to prefer red over blue or blue over red, even if you follow another team or attend matches of a third team you are likely to favour one or the other.

So to Mr Brennan, you are free to add your thoughts to the topic raised which questions your employers stance and it is no surprise to find you disagree with the OP who questions their impartiality even though fans who disagree with the original story are unable to make their thoughts known to your employers.
You can write about City for 20 years but you will never be a blue and however much you come on here and defend yourself you cannot be surprised that you will always get a truck load of venom each time you write something or put your name to something which shows our club in a bad light or express an opinion which many do not agree with. I appreciate that it is particularly more difficult for you when the editor who vets your stories continues to portray the club in a bad light whenever he gets the chance to go national to blow his own trumpet and air his views publicly on talkshite or Sky.

So write the news and tell the story and leave opinions to those who are qualified to give an opinion. I do not read your opinions of the club or the matches I pay to see and I do not expect you to have to read mine. Your affiliations are not the issue here; my point is that just because you are a journalist doesn’t mean that your opinion has any more value. Many of us on here have seen more football matches than you and all have an opinion on most topics about the game, our club and our team. You should not come on here to defend your opinion, you should only defend your right to have an opinion.
Having said that, opinions can and should help tell a story but my real bugbear is that in sport an opinion should never be the story because that means that the story has to be the journalists opinion.
So Mr Brennan, feel free to add an expert’s opinion to a story and as a former manager of this club, love him or hate him, Hughes can be considered an expert and therefore suitable to be granted an opinion on a news item BUT, and this is where your decisions come into play and those of your editor, you have to choose your experts wisely. It cannot have escaped your notice that Tevez’s advisor is also Hughes’ advisor and therefore any thoughts of his on the topic have to be compromised and that makes his opinion tainted and for your paper to print this makes it an unreasonable story and in the eyes of many an anti-city story.
Added to that we get the stories that are a prediction of what might happen such as those this weekend, not particularly in the MEN, in which Tevez will come back Wednesday and do this and do that and the club will do this that and the other and will demand a reduced fee and seek a sell on and blah blah blah it is just made up shit and we are getting to the point where we are sick of it. There are too many journalists guessing what might happen and printing it as a story and then aiming for prizes when they get one right.
I will return to buying the MEN when the sport is reported as news with only expert opinion and not a series of opinions and sensationalised headlines by journalists attempting to make the news.
That is my opinion.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Just to clear up one or two other points.
Chris Bailey used to be called a Rag, whenever he wrote anything someone didn't agree with. Chris is a proud, lifelong Blue and was an excellent journalist, now doing a good job for City.

Someone said I hadn't answered three basic questions. I have, but the poster clearly couldn't be arsed to go back through the thread, or look at past threads.

1. Why are City comments blocked but Utd ones aren't on MEN website? It's not true - comments from both sides are blocked, usually because they are defamatory, offensive, abusive or use bad language. The lad who normally moderates comments is a Blue. I can't answer every single case of why a comment was blocked, but we get the same moans from Utd fans

2. Rags are given more sympathetic treatment? They aren't - you just see what you want to see, read what you want to read. If something appears which goes against your viewpoint, you ignore it, if something appears which backs up your viewpoint, you seize on it.
I'm not about to start defending the national papers, but the idea that they also have an anti-City agenda is also daft, and not something shared by the City press office.
Can you name me one City story from the past three years which, if it had happened at United, would not have made the papers?

3. Why hasn't the MEN got a City fan as a City reporter?
It has never been a pre-qualification. The Utd reporter Stuart Mathieson is not a United fan. Peter Gardner was not a City fan.
As I've explained several times before, Chris Bailey left in the last round of voluntary redundancies, making the City post vacant.
As people were being made redundant, the MEN legally could not advertise the post externally, so there were only a few internal candidates for the job. I applied, as I thought it would be an interesting and exciting job (which it has been) and was deemed to have the necessary ability and experience.

-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:45 pm --

To be fair, Boddington's isn't brewed at Strangeways anymore and has alienated a lot of locals as a consequence. I would also argue that it isn't synonymous with Manchester anymore so it's probably not the best analogy!

Just part of my pro-Boddington's, anti-Holts agenda ;)

It was just the first thing that popped into my mind, which is odd because I wouldn't touch the stuff these days

I take it you watched the sunday supplement when 2 high profile journos Paul smith & Rob beasley absolutely slated our club with pure vile slurs(which our club took action against)...Oliver holt has now got an agenda he has a pop at us about everything in his column,and dont even get me started on the biggest **** ever lived in neil custis.....so whos the 1 being daft now stuart if you think they give us fair coverage!

 

[Mancio]

Just to clear up one or two other points.
Chris Bailey used to be called a Rag, whenever he wrote anything someone didn't agree with. Chris is a proud, lifelong Blue and was an excellent journalist, now doing a good job for City.

Someone said I hadn't answered three basic questions. I have, but the poster clearly couldn't be arsed to go back through the thread, or look at past threads.

1. Why are City comments blocked but Utd ones aren't on MEN website? It's not true - comments from both sides are blocked, usually because they are defamatory, offensive, abusive or use bad language. The lad who normally moderates comments is a Blue. I can't answer every single case of why a comment was blocked, but we get the same moans from Utd fans

2. Rags are given more sympathetic treatment? They aren't - you just see what you want to see, read what you want to read. If something appears which goes against your viewpoint, you ignore it, if something appears which backs up your viewpoint, you seize on it.
I'm not about to start defending the national papers, but the idea that they also have an anti-City agenda is also daft, and not something shared by the City press office.
Can you name me one City story from the past three years which, if it had happened at United, would not have made the papers?

are you saying that if he were a rag Balotelli would have the same media "treatment" that he had being a City player ?

let me have the benefit of the doubt

 

[stuart brennan]

are you saying that if he were a rag Balotelli would have the same media "treatment" that he had being a City player ?

let me have the benefit of the doubt

Without a shadow of a doubt Balotelli would get the same treatment as a Utd player, if he was doing the same stuff. I know the national paper lads who cover Utd, and believe me, there is no love lost.
Are you suggesting the nationals ignored the Wayne Rooney sex scandals, or Giggs, or de Gea nicking a doughnut? Or hundreds of other Utd stories?
A story is a story is a story, and the bigger name the player, the bigger the club, the better.

I'm still waiting to hear of a City story that would not have been reported had i been at Utd.
Just saying WTF??!! is not an answer

 

[stuart brennan]

A newspaper should in my opinion relate the news.

Is it unreasonable for me to suggest that a story has to be written by a journo who has to write it so that his editor approves it so that it he will agree to include it in the paper?
Would an editor ever change a story submitted to him? Course he would - his job title gives the game away. So why would he edit a story? Presentation and content of course. Bias or slant, Newspaper policy, Sales, Editors personal opinion? Owners opinion? Not unreasonable - the editor has to report up to the owners.
So take any story with a pinch of salt and consider the source as you would when considering political stories on the same subject from say the Guardian and The Mail, who support opposite political parties and most of us know this, they make it clear to us. Depending on your own view one is for left wing loonies and the other for right wing loonies. The bottom line is that we do take this into account when reading such a story.

The big difference in sport is that we do not actually know what any newspapers stand point is because they do not tell us and we do not know what the editor’s standpoint is because they do not tell us. So we, Joe Public who provide the funds which enable the newspaper to continue its business have to make our own mind up and then we find out that when we express our opinion about what we think their standpoint is they do not like it.
The difficulty for genuine football fans is that they do have a stand point and are loud and proud about it and they do not and never will, unless they are muppets, ever change their allegiance and so believe that anyone who has an opinion about their club should do so from either a fan’s point of view or at the very worst with a reasoned objectivity.

If you live in this city, if you are a football fan you have to prefer red over blue or blue over red, even if you follow another team or attend matches of a third team you are likely to favour one or the other.

So to Mr Brennan, you are free to add your thoughts to the topic raised which questions your employers stance and it is no surprise to find you disagree with the OP who questions their impartiality even though fans who disagree with the original story are unable to make their thoughts known to your employers.
You can write about City for 20 years but you will never be a blue and however much you come on here and defend yourself you cannot be surprised that you will always get a truck load of venom each time you write something or put your name to something which shows our club in a bad light or express an opinion which many do not agree with. I appreciate that it is particularly more difficult for you when the editor who vets your stories continues to portray the club in a bad light whenever he gets the chance to go national to blow his own trumpet and air his views publicly on talkshite or Sky.

So write the news and tell the story and leave opinions to those who are qualified to give an opinion. I do not read your opinions of the club or the matches I pay to see and I do not expect you to have to read mine. Your affiliations are not the issue here; my point is that just because you are a journalist doesn’t mean that your opinion has any more value. Many of us on here have seen more football matches than you and all have an opinion on most topics about the game, our club and our team. You should not come on here to defend your opinion, you should only defend your right to have an opinion.
Having said that, opinions can and should help tell a story but my real bugbear is that in sport an opinion should never be the story because that means that the story has to be the journalists opinion.
So Mr Brennan, feel free to add an expert’s opinion to a story and as a former manager of this club, love him or hate him, Hughes can be considered an expert and therefore suitable to be granted an opinion on a news item BUT, and this is where your decisions come into play and those of your editor, you have to choose your experts wisely. It cannot have escaped your notice that Tevez’s advisor is also Hughes’ advisor and therefore any thoughts of his on the topic have to be compromised and that makes his opinion tainted and for your paper to print this makes it an unreasonable story and in the eyes of many an anti-city story.
Added to that we get the stories that are a prediction of what might happen such as those this weekend, not particularly in the MEN, in which Tevez will come back Wednesday and do this and do that and the club will do this that and the other and will demand a reduced fee and seek a sell on and blah blah blah it is just made up shit and we are getting to the point where we are sick of it. There are too many journalists guessing what might happen and printing it as a story and then aiming for prizes when they get one right.
I will return to buying the MEN when the sport is reported as news with only expert opinion and not a series of opinions and sensationalised headlines by journalists attempting to make the news.
That is my opinion.

You misunderstand the role of the sports editor. He rarely alters my stuff, and when he does it tends to be for legal reasons, maybe he feels I have gone over the top in criticism of someone.
He has NEVER altered my stuff to fit a different agenda, and I would be furious if he did.
So you stuff about the editor "vetting" my stuff is as inaccurate as is scurrilous
I have been at the MEN for 13 years now, and have never been told to represnt the owners' views in any way - either when owned by the Guardian or Trinity Mirror. They just let us get on with it, with no interference.
They want to make money and, as I keep saying, they would also have to be total idiots to think a smart way of making money in Manchester is to have an anti-City agenda.

There is nothing we can do aboutb it if people imagine that I am writing stuff through clenched teeth, or writing negative stuff "gleefully". I am content in the fact that City fans who know me - one or two of whom have, very decently, come on here and defended me - know that it is not in my nature.

You talk about having to be a blue or red in Manchester, but you miss the point that by becoming a sports reporter, such stuff tends to go out of the window.

I take the point about only wanting news, and not opinion, but opinion drives the sports media these days. We wouldn't sell many papers, neither would the nationals, and Talksport would have very few listeners if we and they didn't provoke debate and offer opinion.
The best sports writers are opinionated, whether you agree with them or not.

I don't mind getting truckloads of venom - it comes with the job description. The idiot stuff I ignore, the conspiratorial stuff I try to answer, as I have done here, and the smart stuff I try to take on board.<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:14 pm --<br /><br />

The smaller the story or non story gets full back page treatment with city . To deny this is plain nonsense

City are getting on the back page more because they are much bigger news these days, and City fans are perhaps not used to being treated in that way.
United fans have moaned about the same thing for years.
Again, you say it's nonsense, but you tell me a back-page City story that would have not been on the back page had it happened to United.