Our PR department and the media

[Prestwich_Blue]

I see from his LinkedIn profile he has been with us 7 years. Prior to that short spells at Reading and Milton Keynes Dons. You seem well informed about the inner workings of the club PB, who ultimately would set the media strategy that this guy executes. Would that be Vicky, or higher?

Higher. Our media strategy is determined in Abu Dhabi by people like Simon Pearce. City is just a small (albeit very high profile) part of the direct and indirect promotion of the UAE as a global business hub and I'd guess that image is managed very tightly.

There is criticism of the UAE politically as it's essentially a feudal system with limited freedoms in some areas and has some human rights issues. They are very benevolent to their own citizens of course but, in return, those citizens are expected to accept the status quo and not question things like the lack of the democratic institutions - universal suffrage, a totally free press, the right to peaceful protest - that we take for granted. The press one must be difficult for them to deal with as they have no experience of dealing with a media culture that can effectively write whatever it wants as long as it stays within what little restraint the law provides. If people like Custis or McDonnell were writing for a UAE-based paper, their bullshit wouldn't be tolerated as taking the "right" line is far more important than attracting hits and clicks. But our media certainly doesn't work that way.

I know the club has attempted to influence the thinking of a few of the serious journalists and have had some success. But what to do about the others? This is pure speculation but my thoughts are that the ultimate aim is to protect the image of Abu Dhabi first and foremost. At the same time, the owners recognise that shit will get written about us one way or the other, no matter how passive or aggressive they are with the media. There's every chance that it could even get a lot worse if we start banning papers and/or journalists. But the worse downside is that getting heavy with the media risks unfavourable comparisons with the situation in Abu Dhabi around press freedom. Therefore the owners would rather swallow the insults here (although we're not as passive as some think we are) in order to insulate Abu Dhabi from criticism by these same media groups.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Higher. Our media strategy is determined in Abu Dhabi by people like Simon Pearce. City is just a small (albeit very high profile) part of the direct and indirect promotion of the UAE as a global business hub and I'd guess that image is managed very tightly.

There is criticism of the UAE politically as it's essentially a feudal system with limited freedoms in some areas and has some human rights issues. They are very benevolent to their own citizens of course but, in return, those citizens are expected to accept the status quo and not question things like the lack of the democratic institutions - universal suffrage, a totally free press, the right to peaceful protest - that we take for granted. The press one must be difficult for them to deal with as they have no experience of dealing with a media culture that can effectively write whatever it wants as long as it stays within what little restraint the law provides. If people like Custis or McDonnell were writing for a UAE-based paper, their bullshit wouldn't be tolerated as taking the "right" line is far more important than attracting hits and clicks. But our media certainly doesn't work that way.

I know the club has attempted to influence the thinking of a few of the serious journalists and have had some success. But what to do about the others? This is pure speculation but my thoughts are that the ultimate aim is to protect the image of Abu Dhabi first and foremost. At the same time, the owners recognise that shit will get written about us one way or the other, no matter how passive or aggressive they are with the media. There's every chance that it could even get a lot worse if we start banning papers and/or journalists. But the worse downside is that getting heavy with the media risks unfavourable comparisons with the situation in Abu Dhabi around press freedom. Therefore the owners would rather swallow the insults here (although we're not as passive as some think we are) in order to insulate Abu Dhabi from criticism by these same media groups.

A long and well written post - but guess and speculation are the key words.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Higher. Our media strategy is determined in Abu Dhabi by people like Simon Pearce. City is just a small (albeit very high profile) part of the direct and indirect promotion of the UAE as a global business hub and I'd guess that image is managed very tightly.

There is criticism of the UAE politically as it's essentially a feudal system with limited freedoms in some areas and has some human rights issues. They are very benevolent to their own citizens of course but, in return, those citizens are expected to accept the status quo and not question things like the lack of the democratic institutions - universal suffrage, a totally free press, the right to peaceful protest - that we take for granted. The press one must be difficult for them to deal with as they have no experience of dealing with a media culture that can effectively write whatever it wants as long as it stays within what little restraint the law provides. If people like Custis or McDonnell were writing for a UAE-based paper, their bullshit wouldn't be tolerated as taking the "right" line is far more important than attracting hits and clicks. But our media certainly doesn't work that way.

I know the club has attempted to influence the thinking of a few of the serious journalists and have had some success. But what to do about the others? This is pure speculation but my thoughts are that the ultimate aim is to protect the image of Abu Dhabi first and foremost. At the same time, the owners recognise that shit will get written about us one way or the other, no matter how passive or aggressive they are with the media. There's every chance that it could even get a lot worse if we start banning papers and/or journalists. But the worse downside is that getting heavy with the media risks unfavourable comparisons with the situation in Abu Dhabi around press freedom. Therefore the owners would rather swallow the insults here (although we're not as passive as some think we are) in order to insulate Abu Dhabi from criticism by these same media groups.

Thanks. It may be speculation but it does ring true and would explain a great deal.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

OK, so now are PR is terrible because it's in the best interests of International Human Rights and the freedom of the press to take it on the chin.
You know, as much as people, understandably, want everything to be absolutely wonderful and perfect at our Club, and if not it's because we planned it that way, sometimes a department or person may fall short - it's not as if we've not had the Ticket Office as an example.

 

[blueju]

Simon Heggie is the person who is responsible for City-specific media activity and he's more active than some think. Whether we like it or not we (a) can't force anyone not to write crap about us that isn't defamatory and (b) are playing the long game, as frustrating as that may be.

Surely we can vet which scouse/rag mafioso we let in to commentate on live games at the Etihad? Why can't we insist one of ours is in there to even things up?
For the life of me I'll never get why we allow these pricks to jump around the commentators studio in delight when someone scores against us.

 

[CrownPointBlue]

And yet again you fail to give a straight answer. Well here's one for you - we are going to make some signings this summer - watch this space and see how events develop.

What was the question again Eds ?

Summer signings......"we are" or "are we" ??

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

OK, so now are PR is terrible because it's in the best interests of International Human Rights and the freedom of the press to take it on the chin.
You know, as much as people, understandably, want everything to be absolutely wonderful and perfect at our Club, and if not it's because we planned it that way, sometimes a department or person may fall short - it's not as if we've not had the Ticket Office as an example.

I've expressed an opinion that I've thought about quite a lot and clearly it's gone in one ear and out of the other as far as you're concerned. Go back to your colouring book and leave this discussion to the adults.

And I don't think I need to take any opinion seriously from someone who doesn't know the difference between 'our' and 'are'.

 

[TCIB]

Personally if we ended up with just 5 reporters in our pressers then fine. It is just not in my nature to turn a blind eye to gobshites talking nonsense about me and by extention, the club; and probably why i am not in the job :-D We could have an mma ring and as they turn up for the event pull the wankers to the side and chuck em in with a raging coked up blue :-D

Outside of the frustration it causes me, i do think we need to step back and tweak our tactics. Seriously now, is there anyone like Cooky around for the job, a bloke who has no qualms about telling the whole pack of reporters what their horoscope says for the day. It may not work but we have not tried it either and after 5 years of waiting for change i think we have given our current approach long enough. PB said they have no real grip on how to deal with free press so maybe time to send a monster to kill a monster?

 

[Jazzman]

Higher. Our media strategy is determined in Abu Dhabi by people like Simon Pearce. City is just a small (albeit very high profile) part of the direct and indirect promotion of the UAE as a global business hub and I'd guess that image is managed very tightly.

There is criticism of the UAE politically as it's essentially a feudal system with limited freedoms in some areas and has some human rights issues. They are very benevolent to their own citizens of course but, in return, those citizens are expected to accept the status quo and not question things like the lack of the democratic institutions - universal suffrage, a totally free press, the right to peaceful protest - that we take for granted. The press one must be difficult for them to deal with as they have no experience of dealing with a media culture that can effectively write whatever it wants as long as it stays within what little restraint the law provides. If people like Custis or McDonnell were writing for a UAE-based paper, their bullshit wouldn't be tolerated as taking the "right" line is far more important than attracting hits and clicks. But our media certainly doesn't work that way.

I know the club has attempted to influence the thinking of a few of the serious journalists and have had some success. But what to do about the others? This is pure speculation but my thoughts are that the ultimate aim is to protect the image of Abu Dhabi first and foremost. At the same time, the owners recognise that shit will get written about us one way or the other, no matter how passive or aggressive they are with the media. There's every chance that it could even get a lot worse if we start banning papers and/or journalists. But the worse downside is that getting heavy with the media risks unfavourable comparisons with the situation in Abu Dhabi around press freedom. Therefore the owners would rather swallow the insults here (although we're not as passive as some think we are) in order to insulate Abu Dhabi from criticism by these same media groups.

Sounds very plausible to me. Almost funny if City helps to improve the image of Abu Dhabi by serving as a lightning conductor for bad PR :-)

 

[TCIB]

Can't we hire one of these ex paper editors to do it, i highly doubt the lads they used to bollock daily would want to piss them off even though they don't work for them anymore, espesh if they know they are a savvy swine who will fuck them if they play games.

 

[CrownPointBlue]

What was the question again Eds ?

Summer signings......"we are" or "are we" ??

I think you're quite intelligent & rather important.

"We are" or "Are we"........ not sure where "our"enters the question.

Perhaps you'd just clear this iccle point up for the readers.

Many thanks.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I've expressed an opinion that I've thought about quite a lot and clearly it's gone in one ear and out of the other as far as you're concerned. Go back to your colouring book and leave this discussion to the adults.

And I don't think I need to take any opinion seriously from someone who doesn't know the difference between 'our' and 'are'.

I didn't insult you, I had the temerity to disagree. It is you who has thrown their toys out and become offensive. To be expected from someone posting with such pomposity and hailing it as incredibly analytical. I suppose only you can come to a conclusion?
If you want to get into education, occupation, intelligence and qualifications because of a posting error - fair enough.

 

[CrownPointBlue]

I think you're quite intelligent & rather important.

"We are" or "Are we"........ not sure where "our"enters the question.

Perhaps you'd just clear this iccle point up for the readers.

Many thanks.

Oops....I think this was meant for Eds.

Silly old fool....me not Eds of course,he's smart.

 

[Blue Mist]

Has anyone kept track of the current score(s) ?

 

[bluekeith]

WE just have to make sure the fair journalists get interviews and the editors of the unfair ones will stop the problem straight away , all the papers want exclusives

 

[TCIB]

WE just have to make sure the fair journalists get interviews and the editors of the unfair ones will stop the problem straight away , all the papers want exclusives

I was thinking about this, even the bad stuff. For example a player gets done for drink driving, get on the blower fast to a friendly and give him the details. That news is coming out if you like it or not so get your version out first kinda thing. Bad news is great news for reporters so that relationship would become very strong as both benefit a lot.

 

[bluekeith]

I was thinking about this, even the bad stuff. For example a player gets done for drink driving, get on the blower fast to a friendly and give him the details. That news is coming out if you like it or not so get your version out first kinda thing. Bad news is great news for reporters so that relationship would become very strong as both benefit a lot.

We all have to answer to somebody and the papers just want stories so manage it to our advantage I would not want biased just fair

 

[cookster]

Sports homepage: "Guardiola irritated by Aguero question" meanwhile "I'm not the monster you say I am - Mourinho"

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

Sports homepage: "Guardiola irritated by Aguero question" meanwhile "I'm not the monster you say I am - Mourinho"

Just about to make the same point.
In fact the last two home games have resulted in 10 City goals and 2 negative post-match phone-ins,
Is John Stones worth the money?
Is Bravo the worst goalkeeper ever?

 

[franksinatra]

I will be honest I didn't really get offended by the obvious reference to "Bitter Berties" because it's not the first time we've heard it and we know they are biased they always have been.

Having thought about it, what annoys me is it's like an individual there was clearly taunting City fans in general not just Pete("look at that Bitter Bertie typical City eh haha?"), we know it and they know it. If it was from somewhere like Paddy Power we know they "bantz" all the time and we'd be a bit silly to react in the same way but the BBC is supposed to be a different kettle of fish ie professional... the person who did it was unprofessional and they know it, what should happen is they acknowledge it, apologise(to Pete probably via letter but it's better than nothing and a statement apologising to the City fan base) then say it's been dealt with and we move on.

Instead they are basically either denying it or saying it's not a big deal by the way they've handled it, which is again unprofessional, when you are in certain positions there are certain expectations and responsibilities that rightfully come with all those perks they enjoy(such as the extra credibility they are given by default among other things). We put up with their biased anti-city bullshit enough while they tell us we are making something out of nothing if they are going to try and pull that same trick here and sit and tell us they don't have anything against City or City fans then they lose whatever little credibility they have left with us.

I think its fair to say im pretty ambivalent to most of the stuff in the media but like you the main issues for me is the broadcaster and their alleged impartiality, the dismissive nature of their response and their choice of 'target'.

You would expect this type of puerile 'lad bantz' from the likes of the Sun or Star not the National Broadcaster funded by the taxpayer chucking out childish digs and allowing someone of pensionsble age to be ridiculed through their twitter feed and the accompanying comments section.

This was then exacerbated by their dismissive tone to the original complaint made by myself and others and the fact they either blatantly lied to deflect any criticism and chose to blame the producer of the picture or alternatively were so dismissive of peoples disgust they never even bothered to research where the offensive comment originated from.

Im sure its also no conicidence they chose Pete (dressed all in blue) to attach the moniker 'Bertie Blue the bitter blue' too. It highlights to me it was a premeditated act rather than their inference that it was a throwaway comment the writer was not aware of the significance off.

All in all a despicable act. I hate them like all the rest now.