gordondaviesmoustache said: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.Chris in London said:stuart brennan said: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.
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.
stuart brennan said: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:
and
David Lynch's piece was ill-advised, flawed and badly-timed in my opinion, but it was not part of some wider agenda.
mrtwiceaseason said: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 .bobmcfc said:It seems I've missed something huge here
Anyone sum up what's happened ? (I know it's very cheeky of me)
stuart brennan said: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.
bobmcfc said:It seems I've missed something huge here
Anyone sum up what's happened ? (I know it's very cheeky of me)
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.
stuart brennan said: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!
Isn't the point, that it didn't occur to him that he shouldn't write the article?stuart brennan said: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!
Damocles said:bobmcfc said:It seems I've missed something huge here
Anyone sum up what's happened ? (I know it's very cheeky of me)
Some kid the MEN employed wrote an article saying that we're wrong to expand the stadium because we had empty seats in the sold out game against Chelsea. To prove this, he snapped two pictures from the telly footage and drew a red ring around the 5 empty seats in the entire stand, with people on the gangway.
Stu Brennan and Mike Keegan have both had to write pieces on how brilliant City and their expansion plans are. However, their editor-in-chief has supported the article which has infuriated many.
The MEN's editorial processes in allowing this through, after the deadline day debacle about their "private jet" has gotten people wondering whether a formerly trustworthy local paper has moved into the Tribal Football/Sports Direct News territory of attracting clicks with poorly written and poorly researched articles. Most of us feel sorry for people like Keegan and Brennan who are actually journos there and have worked hard to bring back the reputation of the MEN Sports in the eyes of many (including myself) and have essentially had their hard work thrown away by the new kid who probably has all the knowledge in the world about grammar but no knowledge of how to actually be a journalist.
Tolmie, wireblue and others in the media who post on here have highlighted a worrying trend of hiring "bloggers", which this kid seems to be, in front of people who understand the sensitive nature of building a relationship with contacts and with your readership.
Many see an agenda to generate more hits whilst others see incompetence by the editorial staff. The MEN are still promoting this illogical and badly written article as "a legitimate point" which is ironic because it's neither legitimate nor has a point to make.
Damocles said:The MEN's editorial processes in allowing this through, after the deadline day debacle about their "private jet" has gotten people wondering whether a formerly trustworthy local paper has moved into the Tribal Football/Sports Direct News territory of attracting clicks with poorly written and poorly researched articles.