He could have handled things totally differently. He could have asked, in a non-confrontational fashion, for opinions from City fans who fell in that middle ground he tried - very badly - to specify. You could even argue that, as a professional writer, his inability to phrase his original tweet properly either shows him to be a poor communicator or a deliberate wum.
But having done what he did, he got an entirely predictable reaction, particularly when he was starting from the point of view that some of us are (in his words) 'militant cranks'. So, if that's what you think to start with, what exactly did he expect? There has to be a strong suspicion that this is what he wanted, so he could prove his point.
Once that all kicked off, he had no need to react. He could have got his DM's and written his piece, which might possibly have been a fair and interesting one (although he's not the most insightful writer and I got fed up of his inane waffling through his answers to questions on the 93:20 pod).
After all, not all City fans do think the same way and there will inevitably be many different shades of political opinion among a large fanbase like ours. We certainly see that when we highlight the LGBT Pride events the club puts on.
But I've seen him do this before, where he gets a rush of blood and tweets snide and sarcastic responses, usually the standard journalistic one of the "how dare you have a different opinion to me" variety. He should have been looking to build bridges with our fanbase after his utterly execrable performance over CAS but he deliberately set out to alienate many of us further. If his job does depend on building subscriber numbers among the fanbase he's supposed to be covering, as alleged in Private Eye, he should be starting to panic.
