Rags Writing City Reports For MEN

[blueinsa]

It was quite clear regardless of the content that they considered Utd were more important for selling their paper, I was also irritated in the coverage of the M****h derby, when after our impeccable support did not receive an apology for the coverage they received prior to the game (their was a comment/leader following the game that praised both sets of fans but significantly failed to retract the accusations made).

I wonder why, if as you suggest there is an even city/utd split on the sports desk, this post could not be given to a blue? Whilst i share JMA's and DD's wish for reporting devoid of sycophancy I have yet to meet a Utd fan who claims to have a soft spot for City (when not playing Utd, and quite a few play the "team from M/cr" card) who are able to tread the "fine line" successfully.

I hope you succeed, your previous city pieces suggest to me that you will have an uphill task.

Good luck.

United are definitely not considered more important in selling the paper. The sports editor used to keep a log of how many column inches each club got, to ensure the evenness was kept up - and he would produce the figures whenever a City or United fan complained that the other club got more coverage.
I don't think he logs figures any more, due to time constraints with the sports desk staff half as big as it used to be, but it is still carefully monitored.
As for the derby last year, I am not sure what pre-match comments the MEN needed to apologise for.

As for giving the job to a Blue, two of the Blues on the desk are leaving voluntarily, one is management and didn't want the pay cut, and the other does not have the necessary experience (believe me it is not easy writing a 900-word match report, plus form guide, within ten minutes of the end of a game, and still get manager and player quotes as well!).
I believe a couple of Blues from our weekly papers also applied, but their lack of daily newspaper experience probably counted against them.
So you're stuck with me. Sorry, folks ...

I have no issues with City at all - I have never really understood the animosity in football, once it rises above the level of banter.
I have always had City mates who I would stand shoulder to shoulder with, and I have known many many Reds who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. The same goes for Scousers.
All this "Blues are this" and "Reds are that" and so on is nonsense, and something akin to racism, judging a person's character and personality by the colour of their football club, and I've never gone in for it, other than mickey-taking and wind-up stuff.
With the way I have been treated and warmly welcomed by the City staff I have met so far - and some of the City old boys - I hope I have no reason to dislike the club in future!
I don't go to Old Trafford any more, even though I could probably get in for free.

Your definately a rag then! ;-)

 

[JOGAMIGMOG]

It's been interesting, to say the least, reading this thread - especially since the arrival of Mr Brennan himself. I don't blame Mr Brennan for wanting the job - who wouldn't? But I think the MEN are being naive in appointing him to report on City. The fact that the MEN covers City at all is the only reason for most Blues to buy the paper. Now why risk alienating potentially ALL of your MCFC readership by employing a Rag to do our reporting? Surely in these hard times there would be any number of Blues who'd crawl over broken glass to do the job?

If the MEN want to increase sales then partizan reporting in terms of its football coverage wouldn't go amiss and frankly it's impossible to be partizan about City when you actually want United to win matches over and above God's own club!

If you read what SB wrote, he says that the MEN are making people redundant, Him taking over the City part of the MEN was a job of opportunity, since he was already working there, he was deemed the best person to take the job without hiring.

I know all that but they're still being totally naive in not advertising the post, as the only person suitable to get the job from within was a Rag, albeit one of those rareasrockinhorseshit friendly Rags.

They've just shot themselves in the foot.

 

[MCFC-alan88]

Legally you have to do that. You can't make redundancies then take on someone to do effectively the same job.

Read.

 

[bluemanc]

I'm Stuart Brennan (puts on tin helmet).

I don't make a habit of perusing fan forums - as a journo they could send you insane - but a City mate flagged up this debate, and I thought I'd dip in.

Yes, I am the new City man at the Evening News, and yes I do have a Red background.
One poster touched on the truth of it, that Chris Bailey is leaving to work for City, and as redundancies have been made, his successor had to be chosen from within.
The editor and sports editor deemed I was the best choice in terms of experience and ability and I aim to prove them right.
I understand that some people won't be happy with that decision, but there's not a lot I can do about that.
What I WILL try to do is provide a first-class service to City fans, and try to make sure the MEN is seen as an independent source of news about the club which strives for accuracy (won't always happen, but that is unavoidable in today's media climate, unfortunately).
I was born into a Red family and was a home and away United supporter in the 80s, before my job meant I stopped going for a long time. I became number two on Utd after joining the MEN in 1998, but have grown increasingly disillusioned with the club, both as a fan and a journalist.
I have been shunned by United for my coverage of the Glazer takeover and formation of FC United.
And, though I have always enjoyed banter with City mates, and occasionally in the MEN, I have never had a problem with City. In fact, there have always been aspects of City I respected - even as a kid I remember wondering why my City mates who were Junior Blues got a Christmas party at which they met their heroes, when United did nothing like it.
Over the years, I have met plenty of City people, from Joe Royle to Mark Hughes to Jim Cassell and have tremendous respect for them. Being a football journalist alters your perspective on football as a whole, as well as your traditional allegiance and rivalry.

I am enjoying covering the club after years of suffering the Pravda attitude at Old Trafford, and finding everyone friendly and helpful. It is an exciting time to be covering City, and I am excited to do the job, and will do it as well as I possibly can.

I probably shouldn't have posted this, but what the hell - I had to come clean at some time!

Well i for one am big enough to take your post at face value & take your word that you will report fairly about us.
The slaughtering City fans got in the run up to the Muniich Memorial match from the Postbag to the sports sections was disgusting, & a lot of Blues stopped buying the M.E.N after that, me included.

 

[JOGAMIGMOG]

Legally you have to do that. You can't make redundancies then take on someone to do effectively the same job.

Read.

Fair enough. They're not making the City reporter's job redundant though are they and they didn't make Chris Bailey redundant.

 

[bluemanc]

Stuart
As you will see from my posts on this thread, I don't care who you support as long as you do a good job. It's going to be hard for you to properly guage the fan's feelings sometimes and perhaps for you to write "rabble rousing" pieces, but you're a pro and I'm sure can pull it off.

However....

You and the MEN are going to get a seriously hard time from many less intelligent Blues.

There's a lot of paranoia and insecurity amongst some Blues about all things red. As you will see from this thread, sometimes Paul Hince gets called a red because he says he respects Fergie in print, Jimmy bloody Wagg has even been called a red by some.

I personally hate the lack of pride and perspective but that's the way it is with some of our fans. And lots and lots of fans are not that well educated and don't understand "the media". "The Media", in their minds, sit down in a lounge at Old Trafford once a month discussing how to humilate City in print.

You're in for a hard time, matey. I would try to get some sort of opinion piece like the one you've written above in the paper if I were you. It might help a bit. I'm sure you'll earn your spurs but on the forums and in the pubs you're going to get some stick if you slip up.

Good luck

Kissy Kissy!

My God man, you don't have to fawn all over them just because they're Rags!

I know we're only Liddle Cideh, but show some backbone man, and have some pride in OUR club! They're our rivals... not our fucking kindred spirits!

But nice of you to tell him how to do his job. A bit of a professional media man on the quiet are you...? Or is it just limited to the messageboards?

agreed,why dont you stick your tongue down the back of his trousers

Good post flb, DD's tongue needs a good cleaning with sandpaper after that post.

 

[Marvin]

It was quite clear regardless of the content that they considered Utd were more important for selling their paper, I was also irritated in the coverage of the M****h derby, when after our impeccable support did not receive an apology for the coverage they received prior to the game (their was a comment/leader following the game that praised both sets of fans but significantly failed to retract the accusations made).

I wonder why, if as you suggest there is an even city/utd split on the sports desk, this post could not be given to a blue? Whilst i share JMA's and DD's wish for reporting devoid of sycophancy I have yet to meet a Utd fan who claims to have a soft spot for City (when not playing Utd, and quite a few play the "team from M/cr" card) who are able to tread the "fine line" successfully.

I hope you succeed, your previous city pieces suggest to me that you will have an uphill task.

Good luck.

United are definitely not considered more important in selling the paper. The sports editor used to keep a log of how many column inches each club got, to ensure the evenness was kept up - and he would produce the figures whenever a City or United fan complained that the other club got more coverage.
I don't think he logs figures any more, due to time constraints with the sports desk staff half as big as it used to be, but it is still carefully monitored.
As for the derby last year, I am not sure what pre-match comments the MEN needed to apologise for.

As for giving the job to a Blue, two of the Blues on the desk are leaving voluntarily, one is management and didn't want the pay cut, and the other does not have the necessary experience (believe me it is not easy writing a 900-word match report, plus form guide, within ten minutes of the end of a game, and still get manager and player quotes as well!).
I believe a couple of Blues from our weekly papers also applied, but their lack of daily newspaper experience probably counted against them.
So you're stuck with me. Sorry, folks ...

I have no issues with City at all - I have never really understood the animosity in football, once it rises above the level of banter.
I have always had City mates who I would stand shoulder to shoulder with, and I have known many many Reds who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. The same goes for Scousers.
All this "Blues are this" and "Reds are that" and so on is nonsense, and something akin to racism, judging a person's character and personality by the colour of their football club, and I've never gone in for it, other than mickey-taking and wind-up stuff.
With the way I have been treated and warmly welcomed by the City staff I have met so far - and some of the City old boys - I hope I have no reason to dislike the club in future!
I don't go to Old Trafford any more, even though I could probably get in for free.

Good post and one which a lot of football fans will agree with.

Best wishes in your new job. I think sites like this have undermined newspapers to an extent, but I'm still envious. Thanks for taking the time to post on here.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Robbie, I don't disagree that City, both recently and over the years, have been the subject of a higher number of mocking/pi$$ take/critical articles than many clubs. Mostly in the national papers, as the locals would have little reason to alenate their readers.

What I can't buy into though is that these articles have appeared because people want to whip up a campaign against City, because loads of the media hate City or because they want City to fail.

A very, very small amount of sad characters might use their position to write bile, but it will be very minimal and no more than the equal of sad gits who hold a grudge against other clubs and aren't professional enough to leave it at home in their job.

The reason that City might have been subject to these articles over the years are purely due to the circumstances the club has been in. When we were down amongst the dead men we were ripe for pi$$ taking. The biggest 'joke' club in the country at the time. I can't imagine a situation where we wouldn't attract negative/pi$$ taking/critical articles.

But they are exactly the same articles and sort of views that are now expressed about Leeds and now Newcastle, and many of their fans will be just as quick to tell you how the press hate them and have been loving them going down. Well, the media as a whole might love it, but only because it's good copy and throws up all the dramatic guff that is associated with a big club going down the pan.

The same goes for the 'ruining football' stuff that loads of City fans have got chips on their shoulder about now. City threatened, with the big talk last year and the immediate signing of Robinho and massive bid for Kaka, to take the transfer market and the dynamics of power to a different level (they still might but the hyperbole around it isn't there as much now).

That attracted a very similar reaction in the press to the reaction that happened when Abramovich took over at Chelsea. Virtually identical articles appeared then when it became apparent that Chelsea were taking spending to a level not seen before. Where we had Garry Cook coming out with a few cringeworthy quotes, they had everyone's hated Chief Exec, Kenyon.

Then, a year or two later, none of the articles about Chelsea's unfair spending appear (or at least very few of them) because that is then the norm. It isn't new and they are now part of the accepted big players.

Then City come along, threaten to take it even further, and get exactly the same reaction from many quarters.

The negative/sceptical/critical press is a function of the situation, not of the fact that it is 'the hated City' doing it.

In fact, I bet you could illustrate it using fan's individual reactions. I'd have a big bet that there are a fair few number of City fans out there who were all in agreement that Abramovich was taking it to daft extremes and liked joining in with the jibes at Chelsea 'buying success' at the time, but now swiftly forget that. The point being that there will always be reaction like that to a club taking transfer spending to extremes. And the press reflect that.

I stand by the claim that football fans have a massive persecution complex in general. Nothing specific to City, just in general.

Another topical one is the claim that 'Platini hates the English'. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard Englishmen on the radio/in the pub/wherever over the past week claim that "Platini would slaughter an English club if they spent what Madrid has". Yet I read comments from Platini this week that were critical of the transfers and the inequality they represent. His gripe is with inequalities in European football, but because the biggest inequality exists at present between the Premiership and the rest that means that the Premiership is often the subject of his statements on the subject. Which gives another nice little persecution complex for people to add to their repetoire. Even his comments like those this week, which show it not to be the case, are ignored, cos they don't fit with the persecution complex (although that is something the press are at fault with their - they love this particular persecution complex as much as anyone and pick and choose the level of coverage given to his comments dependent on whether they fit with it or not).

Anyway, I just can't have that there is any sort of conspiracy against City. Although if you ask me whether there are certain areas of the media that are so far up United's backside and terrified of incuring the wrath of Ferguson that they refuse to ask anything like the right questions to them, then that's a different matter.

 

[bluemanc]

At the bottom of the Tevez article it refers to 'moneybags City'. That's a cheap shot.

A cheap shot?!?!?!?!?!?

Jesus wept, I told you you were on a loser here, Stuart

The "moneybags"bit is actually what the rags were called.

At the suggestion of club secretary J. J. Bentley the cost of construction only served to reinforce the club's "Moneybags United" epithet, with which they had been tarred since Davies had taken over as chairman.In May 1908.

Meaning John Henry Davies who was a wealthy brewery owner who in 1902 took over the rags.

 

[Soulboy]

Legally you have to do that. You can't make redundancies then take on someone to do effectively the same job.

You can. It's called "bumping".