Manchester Evening News

[gh_mcfc]

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.

While I appreciate your thoughtful approach, and those of wireblue and Tolmie, your argument is still flawed.
The fact is that good news and bad news story, for both United and City, make commercial sense - that is why we run good and bad news stories on both clubs. To suggest anything else doesn't make sense.
Being the local paper, the good news stories on both clubs out-weigh the bad.
In this case, it was simply a poorly-conceived article, and I will not try to defend it.
I can also state that NOBODY tells me, or asks me to come on here. This is not some kind of PR exercise, or anything like.
My policy about coming on here is that I feel it necessary to challenge posts which contain inaccuracies, or lies, about me or about the MEN. Otherwise, they tend to pass into the realm of fact.
Those pointing fingers at the sports editor should know he is on a tech training course this week, and has had nothing to do with any of this
And the poster who suggested David's piece was directed by some shadowy Trinity Mirror execs, hell-bent on bringing down the City empire, you need to stop reading Harry Potter books.
The truth is that two website journos suggested the article, David wrote it and it was read and OK'd by another website news journalist. Unless there are legal implications, or the subject matter really is important, articles do not need "signing off" by senior staff.
Before anyone gets upset, when I say important, I mean stuff that has a real impact on people's lives. This doesn't.
In the wake of it, we have tried to set up better lines of communication, so that such stuff is approved by more experienced people.
The problem, as wireblue says, is that these days, with small staffs and instant news, everyone is under pressure to work fast and get stuff online, and this article is an unhappy by-product of that.
Having said that, I'd better get my arse in gear and write some stuff!

Appreciate the response.

So you can see that writing untruths pass into the realm of fact. We have put up with this since 2008 at least. Whilst your input is appreciated I hope the Irony of this statement isn`t lost on you.

 

[without a dream]

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.

Fucking hell, Stuart, the way this kid defended himself on twitter was embarrassing, moving the goalposts every time he was given facts like some forum teenager backed into a corner. And the editing team's decision to run with your counter piece rather than pull it might have got a few hits, but theyve alienated a lot of people. These are not the usual "MUEN" bleaters, but opinion-shapers.

The Livepool papers would never have printed this piece about one of their own clubs in a million years. You know that's true. Appalling editorial incompetence. I feel for you because your job just got a lot harder.

Not really I imagine complaints will be well down due to a reduced readership. That's not a dig at Stuart, I've only ever one complained at one of his articles and he remedied his mistake immediately ;)

 

[Pigeonho]

Fookin told you there wasn't an agenda!

 

[bobmcfc]

I will tell you something Stuart, never have a seen a reaction as unified as this to an article the the a Evening news has done. Usually it blows up and then you will have those that think there is an overreaction. Not this time, it's seems they really outdid themselves on this occasion.

 

[stuart brennan]

So you can see that writing untruths pass into the realm of fact. We have put up with this since 2008 at least. Whilst your input is appreciated I hope the Irony of this isn`t lost on you.

Absolutely I can see the irony. That is why I responded to the article with one of my own, and why I have, in the past, written stuff defending City on FFP and other issues., and will continue to do so, when I feel they are being unfairly treated.

 

[Lucky Toma]

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.

Perhaps that is the explanation, perhaps not.

We know that "shit stories = more clicks" is a philosophy that exists in some areas of the media (unless for instance Lucky Toma was lying which I don't think anyone is suggesting). What I have invited Stuart to do, if he feels able to do so, is confirm that this does NOT happen at the MEN.

Clicks take absolute precedence over anything else because the online competition is so numerous and fierce.

That is also the case with hard copy too of course but there at least credability still holds some importance.

Whereas online even established institutions such as the MEN have to battle for our limited attention with thousands of bedroom bloggers making up transfer stories on a whim. They HAVE to get our attention and will go to both extremes to get it.
Unfortunately negativity will always get more reaction and response.

What makes matters much worse is that the individual is always dispensable so I believe Lynch will be thrown to the wolves here without a second's thought.

A personal example -

I wrote pro-City, anti-United articles for a year or more, once getting more hits to the site than ever before or since. This was all unpaid.
I was then asked to contribute to an irregular feature they ran where a writer very reluctantly praises a rival they hate but respect. It had a heading that made this very clear.

I agreed and was given three choices - Gary Neville (pre-Sky reinvention), Ferguson, or Roy Keane.

I loathe Keane with every fibre of my being but regarded him as the complete box-to-box midfielder so opted for him.

I wanted to wash myself in bleach after writing it but duly did a good job and submitted my feature.

A day later it was published...under the headline (unlike all the similar ones that preceded it) 'A Manchester City Fan On Why Keano Was The Greatest'.

I protested in outrage, telling the editor that I had a blog (the Daisy Cutter) that was well regarded by Blues, and that it could suffer from this. I reminded him of all the unpaid good work I'd done for the site. I - for the first time - demanded the headline was changed.

His response? "The site always comes first". All that mattered was clicks, hopefully (for them) from Blues outraged at my treason.

We can be up in arms about this all we like but as long as we're talking about it - and have clicked on the bullshit piece - the MEN won't care a jot.

 

[Damocles]

I think the issue many have is not that commercial self-interest exists, but that much of the modern sports media finds the idea of quality control to be old fashioned. Something that Stuart half-confirmed though said that they are addressing.

I would rather have accurate news than quick news. With so many sources of information now, the future of the industry isn't going to be in first past the post as it was 5 years ago, but in aggregation of various trusted news sources. Essentially people will start to follow specific trusted journos rather than papers as a whole.

The private jet was correct. We were told by a contact within air traffic control at Manchester that, unusually, a private jet had been scheduled to land at the airport at 3.23pm on Friday.
I wrongly presumed this to mean the flight had already taken off and tweeted as such (the dangers of instant news).

This is the point that I was alluding to. In the scramble to get the news out there, very few precautions were taken in asserting whether what you had written was actually true.

If you as a journalist aren't taking precautions to find out the accuracy of the report then, and I don't mean to sound harsh here, what exactly is the point of you in the age of new media?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'm a great believer in holding up your hands when you've cocked up and saying sorry. To my mind, it makes you more credible than someone who tries to bluster their way through. I was at the game on Monday and on the lower tier and the only significant block of seats empty was in the upper tier of the away section.

The right thing to do would be for Rob Irvine to say "Sorry, it was a badly researched and ill-judged article. The game was sold-out and there is a witing list for new season tickets so it's clear there is a demand for more seats. We also recognise that not everyone can attend games for various reasons. We'd like to apologise for any ill-feeling this has caused and have withdrawn the offending article."

Then I'd have some respect for the MEN. But his idiotic attempt to defend a factually inaccurate piece is simply disgraceful.

 

[Chris in London]

While I appreciate your thoughtful approach, and those of wireblue and Tolmie, your argument is still flawed.
The fact is that good news and bad news story, for both United and City, make commercial sense - that is why we run good and bad news stories on both clubs. To suggest anything else doesn't make sense.
Being the local paper, the good news stories on both clubs out-weigh the bad.
In this case, it was simply a poorly-conceived article, and I will not try to defend it.
I can also state that NOBODY tells me, or asks me to come on here. This is not some kind of PR exercise, or anything like.
My policy about coming on here is that I feel it necessary to challenge posts which contain inaccuracies, or lies, about me or about the MEN. Otherwise, they tend to pass into the realm of fact.
Those pointing fingers at the sports editor should know he is on a tech training course this week, and has had nothing to do with any of this
And the poster who suggested David's piece was directed by some shadowy Trinity Mirror execs, hell-bent on bringing down the City empire, you need to stop reading Harry Potter books.
The truth is that two website journos suggested the article, David wrote it and it was read and OK'd by another website news journalist. Unless there are legal implications, or the subject matter really is important, articles do not need "signing off" by senior staff.
Before anyone gets upset, when I say important, I mean stuff that has a real impact on people's lives. This doesn't.
In the wake of it, we have tried to set up better lines of communication, so that such stuff is approved by more experienced people.
The problem, as wireblue says, is that these days, with small staffs and instant news, everyone is under pressure to work fast and get stuff online, and this article is an unhappy by-product of that.
Having said that, I'd better get my arse in gear and write some stuff!

Appreciate the response.

So you can see that writing untruths pass into the realm of fact. We have put up with this since 2008 at least. Whilst your input is appreciated I hope the Irony of this statement isn`t lost on you.

I'm afraid I don't get your point.

I asked Stuart a question, and got a reply, which I'm happy to take at face value.

The only thing I wasn't sure about was the statement that the good news stories are more common than the bad, but as I don't frequent the MEN website I'll let others decide on that.

EDIT Sorry, I've re-read the bold bit (which I missed before) and I do get it now :)

 

[gh_mcfc]

So you can see that writing untruths pass into the realm of fact. We have put up with this since 2008 at least. Whilst your input is appreciated I hope the Irony of this isn`t lost on you.

Absolutely I can see the irony. That is why I responded to the article with one of my own, and why I have, in the past, written stuff defending City on FFP and other issues., and will continue to do so, when I feel they are being unfairly treated.

Fair point but it goes back to what we all are saying. I assume the article is still there and an editorial decision to keep it there has been made. (wont be clicking to find out). The lie is still there to be allowed to pass into fact and picked up by any individual or organisation. Even if someone also happens to read your piece it doesn`t mean the lie isn`t perpetuated.