MUEN again and again

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Stuart,

So are you taking the position that the MEN is fair and unbiased as far its overall coverage of us vis-a-vis the rags?

Because I just don't see that. I'm not saying there is an "agenda" to "undermine" City. I think it is nothing more or less complicated than this:

Number of City fans < Number of (rag fans + fans of other clubs jealous of City's resources and newfound success.)

So if you are a media outlet wouldn't there be more upside to being slanted in an anti-City direction? It seems like you would please far more people than you would alienate.

(Not speaking as to you personally, but rather the MEN as a whole and most of the UK media here.)

We've been over this argument many times before, but your point is deeply flawed.
We are selling, and if you are selling something, it makes no commercial sense to try to sell only to one part of your market.
We are a Manchester paper, and need to tap into the attraction of BOTH United and City, and we do that. But we are also not the official website, and that means we are prepared to criticise BOTH clubs, which we do.
Of course the times when we publish stuff which is seen by United fans as being anti-Red, never makes it on here, so those posters who come on here and boast that they don't read the MEN never get to see the true picture.
Interestingly, City themselves don't see as us anti-City at all - the feedback I get is that they are generally very pleased with our coverage, and they continue to advertise in the paper, as the best way to reach their core market.
That doesn't mean they don't get annoyed with aspects of our coverage, especially when we get something wrong - but that goes exactly the same for United.

But by that rationale would there never be a national media outlet with a pro-Labour or pro-Tory bias? Because the market would be the whole of the UK, correct?

I do read the MEN and have for years. Just my opinion, but I think that to the extent it is fair to City it is only so far as it is MORE fair than pretty much all of the other major outlets. That may be what the club is pleased about as much as anything.

I will say that I have NEVER, EVER seen something analogous to that "empty seats" article get run in an anti-rag direction. And, if I remember it correctly, someone higher up at MEN was actually defending that author on twitter at least initially.

 

[stuart brennan]

But by that rationale would there never be a national media outlet with a pro-Labour or pro-Tory bias? Because the market would be the whole of the UK, correct?

I do read the MEN and have for years. Just my opinion, but I think that to the extent it is fair to City it is only so far as it is MORE fair than pretty much all of the other major outlets. That may be what the club is pleased about as much as anything.

I will say that I have NEVER, EVER seen something analogous to that "empty seats" article get run in an anti-rag direction. And, if I remember it correctly, someone higher up at MEN was actually defending that author on twitter at least initially.

I don't think the comparison is a correct one - how could you be both pro-Labour and pro-Tory? You could try to be neutral, as does the Independent, but not pro both.
We see the MEN's place as neutral - we lean towards both City and United in many ways, but are not afraid to criticise them when warranted.
As I said, I don't want to go into the seats story again, as I dealt with it at the time and there has been an internal look at the way things are handled as a result of it.
The MEN and City have enjoyed a close relationship for a long time, certainly in the 16 years I have worked there, as we appreciate the mutual benefits of it.
We have always sold to fans of both clubs and, unlike politics, being pro one of them does not mean you have to be anti the other. Anything else makes no commercial sense

 

[Anonymous]

That's the problem with instant news - people rush to get stuff up, and errors can occur - they are usually small, harmless ones like this.
The problem is that, with the level of paranoia amongst some people on here, every little error becomes interpreted as a major slight, all part of a conspiracy theory.
It's not just City coverage where these things happen, but other stuff, and stuff which could easily be interpreted as anti-United, does not get highlighted on here, nor does the overwhelming amount of positive, pro-City stuff we publish.

I absolutely understand mistakes happen Stuart, but like a bad meal at a restaurant, how many opportunities do you give them before you decide to frequent a different establishment?

The old adage of telling 5 people about great service and 50 people about poor service should be at the forefront of the MEN's mind with output for any section of the paper.

Less haste, more speed then?

 

[stuart brennan]

I absolutely understand mistakes happen Stuart, but like a bad meal at a restaurant, how many opportunities do you give them before you decide to frequent a different establishment?

The old adage of telling 5 people about great service and 50 people about poor service should be at the forefront of the MEN's mind with output for any section of the paper.

Less haste, more speed then?

It's a fair point, but these days it is about getting stuff up - there is an unholy scramble, and all media outlets are the same, so mistakes will happen.
As for the bad meal analogy, I agree that the seats story was a bad meal, and fully understand the angry reaction.
But the other moans in this thread are small matters blown out of proportion.
We do need to be as careful as possible, but it also needs a more reasoned, balanced approach from those who read it.
Complain about the bad meals, by all means, but if a waiter drops a spoon on the floor, don't make out that he threw a carving knife at your head!

 

[BringBackSwales]

But by that rationale would there never be a national media outlet with a pro-Labour or pro-Tory bias? Because the market would be the whole of the UK, correct?

I do read the MEN and have for years. Just my opinion, but I think that to the extent it is fair to City it is only so far as it is MORE fair than pretty much all of the other major outlets. That may be what the club is pleased about as much as anything.

I will say that I have NEVER, EVER seen something analogous to that "empty seats" article get run in an anti-rag direction. And, if I remember it correctly, someone higher up at MEN was actually defending that author on twitter at least initially.

I don't think the comparison is a correct one - how could you be both pro-Labour and pro-Tory? You could try to be neutral, as does the Independent, but not pro both.
We see the MEN's place as neutral - we lean towards both City and United in many ways, but are not afraid to criticise them when warranted.
As I said, I don't want to go into the seats story again, as I dealt with it at the time and there has been an internal look at the way things are handled as a result of it.
The MEN and City have enjoyed a close relationship for a long time, certainly in the 16 years I have worked there, as we appreciate the mutual benefits of it.
We have always sold to fans of both clubs and, unlike politics, being pro one of them does not mean you have to be anti the other. Anything else makes no commercial sense

how did you "deal with the seats story"? Did your "newspaper" print any kind of apology? Did it **ck (heck)

 

[barryo]

This was on the MUEN website last week.
Look at the picture and see the figures of how much he gets paid a week.
There is no mention of it in the article which leads me to believe that it was done to counter the negative press the scum were getting with Rooneys new contract.
It was quickly removed.

Do you think it is more likely that this picture was used by accident - the sub-editor accidentally attached the pic of Aguero already used in this article:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-city-player-wages-fans-6753659" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ns-6753659</a>

As you say, it was "quickly removed" - because he realised his error.

But why let the truth get in the way of another load of paranoid tosh?

Oh I see.

Wow, silly me.

I should investigate further before making up a load of bollocks. ......oh wait a second.....that's not my job.

If I make a mistake in my business I lose a client.

If you make a mistake, you conclude that we're all paranoid.

 

[bluwes]

Excuses ,excuses, excuses, ..every time its someone else's fault. How many times do we have to listen to Brennan saying we are all paranoid

 

[Blue Is the Opposite of Blue]

EHow many times do we have to listen to Brennan saying we are all paranoid

Absolutely zilch if you actually listen to what he says and develop a thicker skin at the same time.

 

[Pigeonho]

EHow many times do we have to listen to Brennan saying we are all paranoid

Absolutely zilch if you actually listen to what he says and develop a thicker skin at the same time.

No chance.

 

[Bill]

That's the problem with instant news - people rush to get stuff up, and errors can occur - they are usually small, harmless ones like this.
The problem is that, with the level of paranoia amongst some people on here, every little error becomes interpreted as a major slight, all part of a conspiracy theory.
It's not just City coverage where these things happen, but other stuff, and stuff which could easily be interpreted as anti-United, does not get highlighted on here, nor does the overwhelming amount of positive, pro-City stuff we publish.

The snag is when you get "innocent" mistakes after publishing intended mistakes.

Your paper was "at it" again Stuart.
Like I've said get a new job, that place will drag you down.