MUEN again and again

[west didsblue]

I had a look at the front page of the MEN website on Saturday and compared it with the front page of the Sunderland Echo's website. The Echo probably had 3/4 of the front page dedicated to the League Cup final, whereas the MEN had absolutely fuck all apart from a tiny link near the bottom of the page. Pathetic.

Did you look inside? There was a 12-page pullout.

I'm sure there was.

I was talking about the website on the day before the match where I would have expected the coverage on the home page of the website of Manchester's largest local news organisation to reflect the fact that one of Manchester's biggest teams was in a cup final the following day.

And I'm not sure why I'm being called a hypocrite by one poster for making an observation about the website. I didn't know that I had to buy a copy of the printed version in order to comment on the website.

 

[stuart brennan]

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?

 

[Anonymous]

Errors unfortunately happen, as Stuart points out. It's just unfortunate that there seem to be so many when it comes to your City coverage.

Once bitten ought to make you twice shy.

 

[stuart brennan]

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.

 

[Neville Kneville]

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.

When you do a particularly interesting piece, it gets complimented on this site & others, & you have done several particularly good ones in recent times.

If an article is just repeating the same stuff we've all read from other sources, which many are, it's unlikely anyone will mention it.

If someone puts out a picture of Aguero with his wages attached however, for seemingly no reason, it's not for us to know that it was down to incompetence rather than deliberate.

Someone decided the piece about empty seats was acceptable, so how are we supposed to know the Aguero picture wasn't intentional ?

 

[stuart brennan]

If someone puts out a picture of Aguero with his wages attached however, for seemingly no reason, it's not for us to know that it was down to incompetence rather than deliberate.

Someone decided the piece about empty seats was acceptable, so how are we supposed to know the Aguero picture wasn't intentional ?

It's the fact that even when there is an innocent error, it is used as "proof" of an anti-City agenda, with no thought that the explanation could be far simpler.
I'm not going back over the empty seats stuff, as I made my position clear, and it has been dealt with internally.
There will always be mistakes, as in any media organisation - indeed any company, anywhere in the world - but to interpret them all as some attempt to undermine City is just ridiculous - at times it makes this forum look like an insane asylum!<br /><br />-- Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:25 pm --<br /><br />

If an article is just repeating the same stuff we've all read from other sources, which many are, it's unlikely anyone will mention it.

Just for the record, it is far more likely that the other sources got the stuff from the MEN, than vice versa! Because you read it elsewhere first doesn't mean they had it first.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Dont buy the paper and dont click the link.

Why not click the link? If you click the link from Bluemoon, doesn't that mean they (MUEN) have to pay Bluemoon (Ric) for a referral?

Not the other way round.

 

[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.)

 

[SPIDERBOY]

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?

Your phone needs charging mate.

 

[stuart brennan]

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.