Rags Writing City Reports For MEN

[bluemanc]

From Manchester Confidential:

"Sharp-eyed readers of the sports pages in the Manchester Evening News could hardly have failed to notice a number of highly positive stories earlier this month by the paper's Manchester City reporter, Chris Bailey, notably praising the club's owners, and one in particular which implored the club to reject young striker Daniel Sturridge's wage demands, even if it meant the club losing him to Chelsea. Now Bailey has taken redundancy from the MEN and is about to move into a new role at the City of Manchester Stadium overseeing the club's website, digital and mobile platforms. Are the two events in any way related? Meanwhile, taking over the City beat at the MEN is Stuart Brennan, well-known at Scott Place as a massive Manchester United fan. But why not? His opposite number covering United at the paper, Stuart Mathieson, is actually, er, a City fan. Sleuth has a solution for this, why don’t they swap jobs? Doh."



apologies if already posted.

Stuart Mathieson is a rag, so that article has Zero credibility.
uart Mathieson, Man Utd correspondent of the 'Manchester Evening News', has written a book about the club. Towards the end of 'Champions of Europe: the Road to Moscow', he concludes: "I'm really lucky to have such a dream job, writing for the team I support."

 

[Uwe Rosler's Grandad]

From Manchester Confidential:

"Meanwhile, taking over the City beat at the MEN is Stuart Brennan, well-known at Scott Place as a massive Manchester United fan. But why not? His opposite number covering United at the paper, Stuart Mathieson, is actually, er, a City fan. Sleuth has a solution for this, why don’t they swap jobs? Doh."

Seems a sensible suggestion.

Can't be bothered to look it up but I think Stuart Brennan said something when he posted on here about not being flavour of the month with the current regime at United for writing critical articles, so he's probably not prepared to comply with the Newspeak approach they expect from their MUEN man.

Good point.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Just going back to the 'paranoid and biased' aspect of this thread:

There's a thread on the main forum at present entitled 'The Fear of Manchester City'.

It features an article written by a City fan that is based around the premise that the media are terrified of City being successful and states "But that doesn't stop the accusations being fired towards the club virtually every day - that City are ruining football"

Now, there were some comments around the time of the takeover and the Kaka bid that the money City were talking about bidding could 'ruin football'.

Just like there was when Chelsea started doing it, just like there was when Blackburn bought Sutton for £5m and just like there was no doubt when the first £1m player was signed.

Since then, they have grown less and less. I can't remember the last time I heard a comment like that in the professional media.

But, according to this article there are daily comments like it from the media because the media is terrified of City being successful. It doesn't explain why on Earth the media as a whole would find a successful City terrifying. In fact, given that the media revolves around big news and things changing so they can report on it and hype it up, the opposite is probably true, otherwise everyone gets bored of them printing the same stuff.

Yet, this attitude is reflected in the majority of City fans. Some negative comments (which were ridiculous and worthy of criticism), that would have come to any club in our position, are heard, and then 8 months later we have people claiming that there is a daily barrage of them and it's because the media is terrified of City. No exaplantion why that would be the case, but it isn't needed anyway cos it feeds on people's paranoia and persecution complex.

No doubt some comments by some sad rags over the Tevez affair and one biased and stupid Sky presenter feeds this, but if people think one biased presenter is evidence of 'the media being terrified of City success' and 'willing it not to happen' then they are as paranoid and illogical as the most biased of rags and Baconface himself.

The thread in question, btw, is now full of 'spot on', 'great read', 'the truth at last, 'brilliant article' comments, which just backs up what I said earlier on this thread. They are not comments praising the quality of the article. The article is built on a flimsy premise and does not even attempt to back it up. They are praising the fact that someone is paying lip service to what they want to hear.

Anyway, linking it back to this thread, that's what I was saying earlier in it and that's why some people don't want 'a rag' writing City articles. Most football fans would rather read a load of biased, unsubstantiated $hite rather than good, objective articles, as long as the $hite pays lip service to what they want to here.

The thread I'm talking about is just another example.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Oh, and I've just noticed, for good measure, that the article refers to Platini not making any comments about Real Madrid's transfers.

Not only is it untrue and a classic example of the paranoia that I was talking about earlier in the thread; it's almost the exact example I gave regarding football fans', as a whole, persecution complex.

 

[Kinky by name]

The sports desks at the nationals are not scared of City success... they jut don't want it particularly; they have their (top four) contacts and comfort zones and that's all there is to it. You'd think they'd welcome the shake-up wouldn't you? And they will... eventually but it will take time. As for the MEN, well they now realise that they are getting far more traffic for City than they can generate from United stories, they will throw whoever is free at the stories, regardless of status - it's going to be a slow and powerful seismic shift but it will happen.
I do not claim to be ITK but I (personally) know more national/regional sports reporters than 99.9 per cent on here so my views are not based on spare-room, cyber speculation.

 

[Bonol]

It doesn't explain why on Earth the media as a whole would find a successful City terrifying.

Because if City broke into the top four its likely Arsenal will drop out, leaving just 2 London clubs of any interest Chelsea and Man Utd.

 

[SharpesEagle]

Just going back to the 'paranoid and biased' aspect of this thread:

There's a thread on the main forum at present entitled 'The Fear of Manchester City'.

It features an article written by a City fan that is based around the premise that the media are terrified of City being successful and states "But that doesn't stop the accusations being fired towards the club virtually every day - that City are ruining football"

Now, there were some comments around the time of the takeover and the Kaka bid that the money City were talking about bidding could 'ruin football'.

Just like there was when Chelsea started doing it, just like there was when Blackburn bought Sutton for £5m and just like there was no doubt when the first £1m player was signed.

Since then, they have grown less and less. I can't remember the last time I heard a comment like that in the professional media.

But, according to this article there are daily comments like it from the media because the media is terrified of City being successful. It doesn't explain why on Earth the media as a whole would find a successful City terrifying. In fact, given that the media revolves around big news and things changing so they can report on it and hype it up, the opposite is probably true, otherwise everyone gets bored of them printing the same stuff.

Yet, this attitude is reflected in the majority of City fans. Some negative comments (which were ridiculous and worthy of criticism), that would have come to any club in our position, are heard, and then 8 months later we have people claiming that there is a daily barrage of them and it's because the media is terrified of City. No exaplantion why that would be the case, but it isn't needed anyway cos it feeds on people's paranoia and persecution complex.

No doubt some comments by some sad rags over the Tevez affair and one biased and stupid Sky presenter feeds this, but if people think one biased presenter is evidence of 'the media being terrified of City success' and 'willing it not to happen' then they are as paranoid and illogical as the most biased of rags and Baconface himself.

The thread in question, btw, is now full of 'spot on', 'great read', 'the truth at last, 'brilliant article' comments, which just backs up what I said earlier on this thread. They are not comments praising the quality of the article. The article is built on a flimsy premise and does not even attempt to back it up. They are praising the fact that someone is paying lip service to what they want to hear.

Anyway, linking it back to this thread, that's what I was saying earlier in it and that's why some people don't want 'a rag' writing City articles. Most football fans would rather read a load of biased, unsubstantiated $hite rather than good, objective articles, as long as the $hite pays lip service to what they want to here.

The thread I'm talking about is just another example.

Who is the sky presenter? I know Bryan Swanson the reporter is a twat, i wanted to kill him during the Kaka saga! and im a female blue lol

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

The sports desks at the nationals are not scared of City success... they jut don't want it particularly; they have their (top four) contacts and comfort zones and that's all there is to it.

Well, that doesn't scan imo.

Last season, for 2/3s of it, Aston Villa seriously threatened to break up the established top four. A few seasons earlier Everton actually did. Spurs also threatened a few years back.

At no point were comments printed that were in any way critical of these attempts to do so. In fact, the vast majority were overwhelmingly positive about their efforts and encouraged people to break up the cartel.

If the media was full of journalists whose slant on articles is primarily determined by whether their contacts at four clubs are going to be really useful in the future then surely there would be a slew of articles featuring critical comments about the efforts of these clubs. (although, in fairness, you could say that they would be confident that these clubs couldn't sustain it)

The simple difference is that City were/are threatening to take spending to a level never seen before. Every time in the history of football that a team, especially a team that is coming from outside the established 'top teams', has done this it has been greated with comments similar to the ones aimed at City from some quarters last year.

And that isn't just a function of pathetic journalists shitting themselves about their relationships with the tea lady at Old Trafford, as similar comments are also reflected throughout huge swaths of football fans in general. (No doubt some of the so offended City fans will have been saying or agreeing with exactly the same comments when Blackburn bought the title or when Abramovich took it to new, silly levels and no doubt they would have been saying or agreeing with the same thing about our owners if they had bought another club - not that that would make them right, but the fact that many would just illustrates that such comments are nothing like a function of sad journalist fretting about ther sources, more a reflection of the opinion of quite a few, often jealous, football fans).

Sorry, I can accept that such comments towards City will (and already are, in my view) die out once they become 'the establishment'. I agree with that.

What I can't agree with though is that negative articles that criticise spending are driven by some snide regional journalists housewife-esque fretting that their contacts might become less useful. By saying that you are implying that they will write negative srticles in the hope that these articles somehow result in City not becoming successful and their precious relationship with the groundsman's assistant at Anfield therefore retains it's useful status.

If they were honestly mental enough to think that their negative article in a rag might be able to stop City and the owners progressiing then I'd suggest that they would not be employed by a big media outlet and would be more likely to be found in a straight jacket.

The reason for the negative comments/articles, like it was with Chelsea and Blackburn, is simple human nature and the media at the time (and on some occasions now, if you like) was a reflection of comments in the general 'football fan community' - if that exists.

 

[Kinky by name]

I didn't understand all of that but I don't think out two arguments are a million miles apart at base in any case

 

[Kinky by name]

by the way, I used to work with your username JMA