Manchester Evening News

[waspish]

It's all about traffic through a website that in turn ups the advertising revenue!

That's why this Article was aloud to be published on there website, I have no doubt they will be many more misinformed none researched articles in the future, it's just they way it is now, you just have to look at all the other newspapers to see its dog eat dog and who can publish the most over the top bullshit for those Clicks to come in..

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Regional newspapers, like Lancashire cotton mills in the 1970's, are sat in the waiting room for extinction. Whenever a business is cornered it takes increasingly random and outlandish steps to delay their inevitable demise.

Doubtless this journalist would have been told to "think outside the box" in an attempt to give the website a few more hits. When a ship is sinking you can't always rely on the crew to slavishly follow the Birkenhead Drill. Likewise an ailing regional newspaper cannot preach the mantra of writing pieces to generate more circulation, without unworldly yet ambitious journalists committing various serious faux pas along the way.

The article was merely "friendly fire", this thread the evidence of its "collateral damage".

It was piss poor and its existence evidence that the demise of the MEN will be near the front of the queue as the war over the ever shrinking written-press pie intensifies.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Lip-service will no doubt be paid, tomorrow.

Poor kid will probably be hung out to dry for it, too.

The buck ALWAYS stops with the sports editor.

And if I was the actual outright editor, I would also be questioning why I also signed-off on it.

Like I say, the blind leading the blind.

Stuart doesn't need to take any advice but it would be more prudent to keep your head down and not post in defence of something you had no part of.

Although you probably don't have much choice in the matter, sadly for you, I would suspect.

 

[Chris in London]

I understand some of the upset here, but the suggestions that this is one-sided and that we never do stuff like this about United should take note of these:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/revealed-manchester-uniteds-old-trafford-2592078" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... rd-2592078</a>

and

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-figures-reveal-five-times-3003108" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... es-3003108</a>

David Lynch's piece was ill-advised, flawed and badly-timed in my opinion, but it was not part of some wider agenda.

The concern many blues have is that there IS an agenda, and the agenda is commercial self interest.

To be clear, the perception is that media outlets (in this case MEN but the same could be said of for instance Talksport or SSN) view 'bad news' stories about City as more likely to generate revenue for their organisation than fair minded or balanced pieces. So a particular editorial stance is taken that pieces like this should be written (acknowledging that this one seems to have backfired in spectacular fashion) knowing that it is unfair and will antagonise City fans, but not caring because that is the way revenue is generated. Lucky Toma posted something about the brief he had to write a piece for a blog which poked fun at United in much the same way and for much the same reason.

Many blues have gone through the process of being angry at the way our club has had acres of underserved shit in the media since the takeover in 2008 and have come to an acceptance that (e.g.) Talksport and SSN have an audience which consists mostly of non-City fans, and if that is how they want to make their money, that's up to them. What, judging from this thread and others like it, really offends people is that the MEN is the local paper, has a readership with a very high proportion of City fans, and in relation to its local team should take a more principled stance. It is crapping on its own readership, in a nutshell.

If you are happy to respond to this post by saying in clear terms that the editor of the MEN does not operate with a working assumption that 'bad news' stories about City generate more commercial benefit than fair and balanced pieces, and that editorial directives are not given to write 'bad news' stories about City for that reason, that I suspect would put a lot of peoples minds at rest. I appreciate that this puts you on the spot somewhat, but you have said that there is no agenda without defining what you mean by that.

 

[Damocles]

They're still pushing it. I'm not going to give the link to help their traffic but in their useless no new information article on the expansion they've just published, they have Lynch's article front and centre linked.

Fuck the MEN

 

[willipp]

I understand some of the upset here, but the suggestions that this is one-sided and that we never do stuff like this about United should take note of these:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/revealed-manchester-uniteds-old-trafford-2592078" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... rd-2592078</a>

and

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-figures-reveal-five-times-3003108" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... es-3003108</a>

David Lynch's piece was ill-advised, flawed and badly-timed in my opinion, but it was not part of some wider agenda.

Its all well and good showing a couple of other news pieces but there is a big difference in these articles to the piece Lynch wrote. For a start these articles are based on published details from reliable sources on attendace figures and they arent written with an undertone of absolute contempt towards the club its about. Lets be very clear, this article was not about fans with tickets not turning up, it was very clearly suggesting City should not be considering expanding their stadium because we cannot sell out. For this article to be written the day after the biggest attendance of the season, a game that was sold out for weeks in advance, a stadium that has been sold out 95% of the time over the past 3 years in the PL clearly shows that it was written purely with an agenda to provoke a negative reaction from its supposed target audience.

I have no issue with balanced articles that don't paint City in a positive light and sometimes i agree with them, but this for me was written in a very derogatory manner towards the club, with absolutely no truth and balance. That comes as some have previously said from an agenda set by the MEN / web team who both commissioned this guy to write it and then published it.

 

[bobmcfc]

It seems I've missed something huge here

Anyone sum up what's happened ? (I know it's very cheeky of me)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I understand some of the upset here, but the suggestions that this is one-sided and that we never do stuff like this about United should take note of these:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/revealed-manchester-uniteds-old-trafford-2592078" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... rd-2592078</a>

and

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/police-figures-reveal-five-times-3003108" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... es-3003108</a>

David Lynch's piece was ill-advised, flawed and badly-timed in my opinion, but it was not part of some wider agenda.

The concern many blues have is that there IS an agenda, and the agenda is commercial self interest.

To be clear, the perception is that media outlets (in this case MEN but the same could be said of for instance Talksport or SSN) view 'bad news' stories about City as more likely to generate revenue for their organisation than fair minded or balanced pieces. So a particular editorial stance is taken that pieces like this should be written (acknowledging that this one seems to have backfired in spectacular fashion) knowing that it is unfair and will antagonise City fans, but not caring because that is the way revenue is generated. Lucky Toma posted something about the brief he had to write a piece for a blog which poked fun at United in much the same way and for much the same reason.

Many blues have gone through the process of being angry at the way our club has had acres of underserved shit in the media since the takeover in 2008 and have come to an acceptance that (e.g.) Talksport and SSN have an audience which consists mostly of non-City fans, and if that is how they want to make their money, that's up to them. What, judging from this thread and others like it, really offends people is that the MEN is the local paper, has a readership with a very high proportion of City fans, and in relation to its local team should take a more principled stance. It is crapping on its own readership, in a nutshell.

If you are happy to respond to this post by saying in clear terms that the editor of the MEN does not operate with a working assumption that 'bad news' stories about City generate more commercial benefit than fair and balanced pieces, and that editorial directives are not given to write 'bad news' stories about City for that reason, that I suspect would put a lot of peoples minds at rest. I appreciate that this puts you on the spot somewhat, but you have said that there is no agenda without defining what you mean by that.

It is difficult to imagine this article being printed in the Liverpool Echo about Everton or Liverpool, or the Birmingham Post about Villa or even Birmingham City. It's because their default setting is to report their local clubs, and in particular anything relating to their supporters, in a positive light, unless something egregious happens, which cannot be said about the crowd on Monday. To me it is a cultural thing that this journalist assumed that this article was acceptable, not to the City fans as such, but to those who employ him. He wouldn't have written it if that was not the case.

We've all had jobs where we're told at the outset : whatever you do, don't do such and such. Clearly no such regime exists at the MEN when reporting on City. It's not an agenda per se, but rather indicative that they still look upon us in a slightly disdainful way, as if they cannot fully erase our previous characteristics from their minds.

No agenda, just a lack of respect and I don't think they even realise they're doing it.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

It seems I've missed something huge here

Anyone sum up what's happened ? (I know it's very cheeky of me)

the men has run a is this your face in the crowd? win a tenner competition and people have got the idea that they are having a dig at city .

 

[bluesteve]

Chris has got it right. This says it all - "What, judging from this thread and others like it, really offends people is that the MEN is the local paper, has a readership with a very high proportion of City fans, and in relation to its local team should take a more principled stance. It is crapping on its own readership, in a nutshell."

A Manchester paper 'crapping' on Mancunians.

Don't/stop - buying it, following it on social media, visiting it's website.

Bring back the Chronicle