Chris in London said:
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!
