Manchester Evening News

[Anonymous]

Went out for a ruby last night at the Bulls Head in Glossop which I have to say was bloody lovely. It did of course mean I missed the debate and the contributions from SB and MK.

It seems this article has served the MEN very well in that it has stirred feelings here and no doubt generated a large spike in traffic - job done. SB's rebuttal will also have had Blues clicking again and creating more traffic for the site.

The editor has stood by the article (why wouldn't he? All that traffic! Tea and medals for everyone.) and journo twitter accounts have been fed comments and traffic.

All in all a job well done.

However, has this not been a Pyrrhic victory for the MEN? I think so as it seems it is the straw that has broken a number if bactrian vertebrae.

PB mentioned Luke 6:31 earlier; I'm a stage further (and have been here for quite a long time now) in that I've shaken the dust of the MEN from my sandals.

Farewell then MEN.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Can I just thank Stuart for talking to us about the article.

I'm still livid about it and the failure of MEN senior editorial management to come clean is just par for the course at a Mirror group newspaper.
It does, however clarify that there is no media conspiracy - simply that writing shite about City generates more paper sales, clicks and advertising revenue for a company than writing factual stories. This is mainly due to fans of the previously successful clubs having a massive false sense of entitlement and as a result just lap this crap up.

You lot need to stop saying this is about Man united. That's your paranoia and will lose you the argument.

The article may have had loads of clicks but the vast majority will be from City fans. Isn't the penny dropping yet?

Which is why I cut & pasted it as I didn't want any more people than necessary clicking on it. People still don't understand this concept, like the idiots who congratulate themselves for ringing Talksport and putting the presenter right, not realising this is exactly what they want as it makes them money.

Haha. Or the thousands of people round the country who read the tabloids every day and rant about gutter journalism.

 

[franksinatra]

Why are people bringing Uniteds attendances into this debate. It makes us look small minded and deflects attention away from the fact a local paper has written an article questioning the clubs intention to expand, by a journalist who clearly has no knowledge of the capacity of the stadium (when segregation is considered), that the game was sold out and furthermore has no knowledge of the season ticket waiting list or, even worse, has discounted this to lend weight to his opinion, rather than provide a balanced article.

Furthermore to exacerbate the issue, he has then defended this poorly written and researched piece by trying to shift the landscape of the debate on twitter by feigning concern at the number of no-shows at the stadium rather than admit he was completely wrong and had no justification for this work.

That is the issue.

 

[aguero93:20]

will you run with it stuart,will you fuck,you and your paper are full of shit.

This is the kind of crap I am talking about.
No, we won't run it, because we already did, at the time, on April 13, 2013. Here is the link to our article:

<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>

Now, if you want to enter an adult debate, try getting your facts straight, and do a bit of research, eh?

I know you're offline Stuart, but if you see this, 2 quick questions to pass onto the scouse lad;
If we get the return to safe standing that many of this forum favour, how many millimetres of cubic space between two fans' shoulder blades will constitute an empty seat to your colleague and how does he plan to measure it?
When is he running his whiny immature piece about the hazards posed to fellow spectators by those 7 or so people who were standing in the gangway when they should have been sitting in their seats? (has he run out of red pen? teach him to use photoshop.)

Will still follow you on Twitter Stuart as you seem like a decent lad but your paper can do one.

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

Now, if you want to enter an adult debate, try getting your facts straight, and do a bit of research, eh?

Luke 6:31 Stuart.

Touché.

 

[jrb]

Just to let you all know.

The MEN is still running the Lynch.....( fill in as appropriate) via a link inbetween a new article stating, 'Etihad expansion plans to get the green light'. Underneath that link they have another link to Stuart's article. Obviously trying to even things out.

So instead of removing the offending Lynch article, they have added it to a new City article.

Basically putting two fingers up to the club and the fans. Regardless of the outcry and anger, the MUEN have decided to stick with, and run with, the Lynch article.

They couldn't give a f***!

 

[Sir peace frog]

will you run with it stuart,will you fuck,you and your paper are full of shit.

This is the kind of crap I am talking about.
No, we won't run it, because we already did, at the time, on April 13, 2013. Here is the link to our article:

<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>

Now, if you want to enter an adult debate, try getting your facts straight, and do a bit of research, eh?

I know you're offline Stuart, but if you see this, 2 quick questions to pass onto the scouse lad;
If we get the return to safe standing that many of this forum favour, how many millimetres of cubic space between two fans' shoulder blades will constitute an empty seat to your colleague and how does he plan to measure it?
When is he running his whiny immature piece about the hazards posed to fellow spectators by those 7 or so people who were standing in the gangway when they should have been sitting in their seats? (has he run out of red pen? teach him to use photoshop.)

Will still follow you on Twitter Stuart as you seem like a decent lad but your paper can do one.

I was hoping that post would of been buried ,never to be seen again :)

 

[Georgian Maestro]

Can I just thank Stuart for talking to us about the article.

I'm still livid about it and the failure of MEN senior editorial management to come clean is just par for the course at a Mirror group newspaper.
It does, however clarify that there is no media conspiracy - simply that writing shite about City generates more paper sales, clicks and advertising revenue for a company than writing factual stories. This is mainly due to fans of the previously successful clubs having a massive false sense of entitlement and as a result just lap this crap up.

You lot need to stop saying this is about Man united. That's your paranoia and will lose you the argument.

The article may have had loads of clicks but the vast majority will be from City fans. Isn't the penny dropping yet?

Which is why I cut & pasted it as I didn't want any more people than necessary clicking on it. People still don't understand this concept, like the idiots who congratulate themselves for ringing Talksport and putting the presenter right, not realising this is exactly what they want as it makes them money.

Was this aimed at St Helen's Blue?

 

[Chris in London]

Why are people bringing Uniteds attendances into this debate. It makes us look small minded and deflects attention away from the fact a local paper has written an article questioning the clubs intention to expand, by a journalist who clearly has no knowledge of the capacity of the stadium (when segregation is considered), that the game was sold out and furthermore has no knowledge of the season ticket waiting list or, even worse, has discounted this to lend weight to his opinion, rather than provide a balanced article.

Furthermore to exacerbate the issue, he has then defended this poorly written and researched piece by trying to shift the landscape of the debate on twitter by feigning concern at the number of no-shows at the stadium rather than admit he was completely wrong and had no justification for this work.

That is the issue.

The point about United's attendances was raised to demonstrate the point that the MEN wouldn't run a bad news story about the rags.

It was a bad example because the MEN did run it (Stuart provided the link) but it does beg the question whether such an article as badly researched, ill informed and poorly considered as David Lynch's would ever be published about the rags - I don't recall a similar piece (i.e based on such a factually flawed premise) ever being written about them and as many have said you just wouldn't get this in the local paper in Birmingham or Liverpool.

Sadly, the answer to that question seems to be 'yes articles of equal shite would be published about the rags' because quality control at the MEN is non-existent.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

He's still giving it "at least I've opened a healthy debate about viagogo and official attendances" on twitter.

No you fucking didn't. That wasn't what you wrote about. That has nothing whatsoever, in fact, to do with what you wrote. That's like me writing a piece about how Sheikh Mansour is just here to make a profit from Manchester City, finding out he's actually lost a billion pounds and claiming that I've opened a healthy debate about the intentions of modern day football owners. In the match programme, I should add.

Exactly, the moron who wrote this has not once acknowledged his original article was total lies written complete with marker pen and in no way has anything to do with what he is claiming on Twitter.

Also worth pointing out that as per one of Stuart Brennans replies several pages back that there was a total of 4 people involved in the construction and subsequent publishing of the article from the Online Department, which has then been endorsed by a Senior Journalist (Rob Irvine), this would indicate a complete disregard at making any attempt at reasonable and actual fact based Journalism.

I did not think I could have a lower opinion of modern day Journalism then papers like the Daily Mail, Sun, Star and so on but this utter puerile pile of lie infested shit written by David Lynch in a Manchester based Newspaper derserves nothing but the contempt it has received.