stuart brenna - lying rag

[Diablo_azul]

Just a couple of things:
1. It says "reported interest" which is true - it has been reported.
2. I didn't actually write that - it was edited into my piece afterwards, quite fairly in my opinion, although I DIDN'T write it.
You need to get facts straight before you start calling someone a liar

i recall someone once 'reporting' that a Lancaster bomber was found on the moon..

Well played for coming on here and responding though.

That turned out to be true :)

 

[Phuk Tifano]

Stuart, appreciate you wanting to stand your ground but not sure whether it's a wise idea for you to track and address comments about yourself on this site...you may be laying yourself open to no end of flak. With all due respect, would it not be wiser (and, dare I say it, more professional?) to keep your counsel and your distance?

 

[BlueMooney]

Just a couple of things:
1. It says "reported interest" which is true - it has been reported.
2. I didn't actually write that - it was edited into my piece afterwards, quite fairly in my opinion, although I DIDN'T write it.
You need to get facts straight before you start calling someone a liar

Stuart,

Quick (slightly off topic) question, but what power do sub editors have in subbing something you've written?

I only ask because I saw this on Twitter yesterday:

Compare & contrast: my Sunday Times column <a class="postlink" href="http://tinyurl.com/nkhlev" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://tinyurl.com/nkhlev</a> Their version <a class="postlink" href="http://tinyurl.com/myqydv" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://tinyurl.com/myqydv</a> WTF?

Now they're two completely different versions by the end of it and it's clearly not what he wrote. But the reading majority will think it is what he'd written...

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Just a couple of things:
1. It says "reported interest" which is true - it has been reported.
2. I didn't actually write that - it was edited into my piece afterwards, quite fairly in my opinion, although I DIDN'T write it.
You need to get facts straight before you start calling someone a liar

You find it "quite fair" for someone to edit something into your piece that you didn't actually write?
What kind of serious professional journalist would find that acceptable?
Or have I inadvertantly just answered my own question?

 

[Tbilisi]

The guys ok,give him a break.

PS new poster but not a Red!Blue for 48 years!

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

This is the problem I have with this appointment, sometimes things should and need to be reported that don't follow the club line. Having a known rag as the clubs main reporter, anything that he says that is in the least bit controversial, will be seen by many as simply a dig at the club. If you look at what he said and then look on the Eto'o thread, there are people there that share the same view, even though every man and his dog know the rags haven't got a hope in hell of affording him(and the knock on effects to others at the club). I'm willing to bet that this will be the first of 1000s of topics on this same subject.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

The guys ok,give him a break.

PS new poster but not a Red!Blue for 48 years!

No,he isn't "ok" at all.
He is,by his own admission,a lifelong rag.
My post above makes a reasonable query regarding his journalistic integrity.
You have been on here all of 10 minutes.
Maybe it would be advisable to watch and learn before posting about someone you clearly know nothing about.

 

[bluecore]

Fair play for coming on here and putting your side.

It may not be down to you but it reveals the consistent rag bias in the media. This in part reflects editors' personal affiliations and in part the 'old thinking' that man u are 'the biggest club in the world'.

It'll take time for everyone to realise United's dire financial position (and I suspect their PR boys are leaking 'interest in....' stories to create the impression that they actually have funds to spend) and discount these rumours before they hit the page.

Stuart I think you should have words with your sub, he/she is playing a part in some dirty PR scheme. Lets be kind and say they're unwilling and a bit naive.

 

[Tbilisi]

I cant recall a single City reporter over the last 20 years being controversial,they want to keep in with the Club and wont rock the boat.

In fact I seem to recall Blue reporters in the past writing bum licking pro Red articles

 

[loffers]

I cant recall a single City reporter over the last 20 years being controversial,they want to keep in with the Club and wont rock the boat.

In fact I seem to recall Blue reporters in the past writing bum licking pro Red articles

Paul Hince?
He's has to keep the red half sweet as he wants them to read his stuff. Mr Brennans is intended mostly for blues. Every other paper in the country takes delight in have little digs at us is it so outrageous that our local paper has a sympathetic bent?
Stuarts reply on here was ill advised and doesn;t fill me with any kind of confidence in his ability to deliver to his readership what they want