Stuart Brennan. MEN.

[Blue Punter]

Perhaps Stuart Brennan could post the thought process behind using the Boateng photo as opposed to Uwe or Bert?

I have no idea why that picture was chosen - and this is the first I have seen of it. I am not trying to defend it, but I do refute the suggestion that it is evidence of some kind of anti-City agenda.
I haven't got time to do it, but I suspect if you trawl through the Utd section, you could find "evidence" of an anti-United agenda, if you were so minded

Thanks for the reply, Stuart.

I appreciate you're a busy man, but any chance you can find out why that particular image was chosen?

 

[Matty]

I have no idea why that picture was chosen - and this is the first I have seen of it. I am not trying to defend it, but I do refute the suggestion that it is evidence of some kind of anti-City agenda.
I haven't got time to do it, but I suspect if you trawl through the Utd section, you could find "evidence" of an anti-United agenda, if you were so minded

I'm curious, are there threads on United Forums alledging a pro-City bias in the MEN? I'd be interested to read them if you know of any.

Looking forward to reading Stuart's excuse when he can't produce any examples.

Is it really his job to trawl through United websites to provide us with examples of them complaining about an "anti -United" agenda in the MEN? You know the main United websites, you're more than capable of finding these things for yourself.

Personally I don't believe the existance of such threads is proof of much at all. It's a fact that football fans can be a little precious at times, so I'd suspect there will be threads on Red Cafe and Red Issue having a pop at the MEN's coverage of United. This doesn't necessarily give any weight to their points of view however.

 

[aguero93:20]

Football fans want to feel superior about their football club, especially when compared to their neighbours and rivals. The media are aware of this very natural trait, as they are also acutely aware of their need to maintain a great degree of interest in their "product" in order to keep advertising revenues high and, ultimately, themselves in employment. It's only natural therefore that the MEN will pander to football fans interests, writing articles that play to the sensibilities of fans in order to attract them into reading the paper and, as a biproduct, getting "hits" on the various advertisments.

On the face of it this seems perfectly fine, however, in order to make one set of football fans feel superios there is a knock on effect of making the other set of fans, the rival set, feel inferior, and put upon. Now, in a one horse town, like Newcastle, or Leeds, that's fine. So, you alienate Sunderland fans. Big deal. How many of them will read the Newcastle Barechested Reporter anyway? However, in a town with 2 sizeable clubs such as Manchester, you're going to be alienatig certain sections of your readership by writing articles that make their rivals lok good, and them look bad. So, how do you deal with this? It's a simple solution really, find the course of least resistance, and go with that. Which group is it better to alienate? In Manchester's case it's clear, alienating the City fans is a far better idea than alientating the United fans, it's a simple matter of the maths involved. There are a decent amount more people who would claim to be United fans than City fans, so by alientating the United fans you'd have a greater impact on your readership than by alienating City fans. It really is that simple.

Given all of that, it's hardly susprising that, as City fans, we feel we are being given the rough end of the wedge here. Yes, in order to redress some sort of balance, I'm sure, on occasion, there are articles that United fans wouldn't be too happy with, however I'd strongly suspect, in a reversal of the fans situation, there are far fewer United stories like this than there are City ones. It's not just a MEN phenomenon, it's in the national press too, and also it happens within the TV media. If anything the MEN is less guilty of this kind of behaviour than most, probably due to the greater proportion of it's readership that would be classed as City fans than a national paper such as the Sun, or Mirror, or indeed SKY Sports News. So, yes, we do feel a touch hard done by, and I believe with legitimate reason, to suggest otherwise is a little insulting to our intelligence, whilst I accept we view things with a certain bias towards City it's not so much as to cloud our judgement in it's entirety.

Or they could give the cheap lazy journalism a rest and write intelligent well balanced articles without lazy reference to paraphrased stats and facts and avoid alienating either set of fans, although I suspect that might be beyond their skillset.

 

[Blue Punter]

I'm curious, are there threads on United Forums alledging a pro-City bias in the MEN? I'd be interested to read them if you know of any.

Looking forward to reading Stuart's excuse when he can't produce any examples.

Is it really his job to trawl through United websites to provide us with examples of them complaining about an "anti -United" agenda in the MEN? You know the main United websites, you're more than capable of finding these things for yourself.

Personally I don't believe the existance of such threads is proof of much at all. It's a fact that football fans can be a little precious at times, so I'd suspect there will be threads on Red Cafe and Red Issue having a pop at the MEN's coverage of United. This doesn't necessarily give any weight to their points of view however.

You're right Matty, it's not his job to trawl the Utd forums. However as Manchester City correspondent for a Manchester newspaper, it's not unreasonable for him to comment on the thought process for his colleagues using the Boateng image.

 

[Matty]

Looking forward to reading Stuart's excuse when he can't produce any examples.

Is it really his job to trawl through United websites to provide us with examples of them complaining about an "anti -United" agenda in the MEN? You know the main United websites, you're more than capable of finding these things for yourself.

Personally I don't believe the existance of such threads is proof of much at all. It's a fact that football fans can be a little precious at times, so I'd suspect there will be threads on Red Cafe and Red Issue having a pop at the MEN's coverage of United. This doesn't necessarily give any weight to their points of view however.

You're right Matty, it's not his job to trawl the Utd forums. However as Manchester City correspondent for a Manchester newspaper, it's not unreasonable for him to comment on the thought process for his colleagues using the Boateng image.

If he can actually check with the colleague then I'd suggest it would be insightful for us to know what the thought process was. If he can't then, ultimately, his comments are guess work and might be inaccurate. I'm sure he wouldn't want to be saying why he THINKS a fellow journalist has done something, when that may not be the reason at all.

 

[Georgian Maestro]

I'm curious, are there threads on United Forums alledging a pro-City bias in the MEN? I'd be interested to read them if you know of any.

Looking forward to reading Stuart's excuse when he can't produce any examples.

Is it really his job to trawl through United websites to provide us with examples of them complaining about an "anti -United" agenda in the MEN? You know the main United websites, you're more than capable of finding these things for yourself.

Personally I don't believe the existance of such threads is proof of much at all. It's a fact that football fans can be a little precious at times, so I'd suspect there will be threads on Red Cafe and Red Issue having a pop at the MEN's coverage of United. This doesn't necessarily give any weight to their points of view however.

The burden of proof is on him. In nearly all his posts to add weight to his point he has said that United fans believe the MEN to be an anti United paper. Where's the evidence?

 

[aguero93:20]

Has anyone checked redcafe? Never been on the filthy website and I don't plan to start anytime soon so....
That's a fair point, it's his allegation, so the burden of proof should rest with him and not us to prove the utd fans think that, however they also believe they get a rough ride from referees and that their players have 3-figure IQs....

 

[Matty]

Looking forward to reading Stuart's excuse when he can't produce any examples.

Is it really his job to trawl through United websites to provide us with examples of them complaining about an "anti -United" agenda in the MEN? You know the main United websites, you're more than capable of finding these things for yourself.

Personally I don't believe the existance of such threads is proof of much at all. It's a fact that football fans can be a little precious at times, so I'd suspect there will be threads on Red Cafe and Red Issue having a pop at the MEN's coverage of United. This doesn't necessarily give any weight to their points of view however.

The burden of proof is on him. In nearly all his posts to add weight to his point he has said that United fans believe the MEN to be an anti United paper. Where's the evidence?

In equal measure then, as your viewpoint is that the MEN is biased towards United, and against City, shouldn't you have to provide evidence to support this? Negative articles about City, compared to negative articles about United etc. If you're demanding proof from Stuart that what he says is true then shouldn't he be able to demand the same of yourself?

It's also worth noting that he didn't actually have to come on here and state his opinions at all, I think it's admirable that he was willing to lift his head above the parapet and open himself up to direct, rather than indirect, character assassination!

Also, he's not being paid to converse with us on here, or to do the kind of research you're asking him to do. For you talking about football, the MEN, and arguing with/about journalists is a hobby, this is his profession. I'd imagine he's got other articles related to Manchester and football he needs to be working on that are demanding his attention, and research ahead of trawling through Red Issue to see if some bloke from Singapore no-likey the MEN.

 

[Blue Punter]

Is it really his job to trawl through United websites to provide us with examples of them complaining about an "anti -United" agenda in the MEN? You know the main United websites, you're more than capable of finding these things for yourself.

Personally I don't believe the existance of such threads is proof of much at all. It's a fact that football fans can be a little precious at times, so I'd suspect there will be threads on Red Cafe and Red Issue having a pop at the MEN's coverage of United. This doesn't necessarily give any weight to their points of view however.

You're right Matty, it's not his job to trawl the Utd forums. However as Manchester City correspondent for a Manchester newspaper, it's not unreasonable for him to comment on the thought process for his colleagues using the Boateng image.

If he can actually check with the colleague then I'd suggest it would be insightful for us to know what the thought process was. If he can't then, ultimately, his comments are guess work and might be inaccurate. I'm sure he wouldn't want to be saying why he THINKS a fellow journalist has done something, when that may not be the reason at all.

I'd suggest there will be an audit trail of who chose that image. So finding the culprit and the reason behind it shouldn't be too difficult.

I vaguely remember another inappropriate MEN website article that attracted criticism. Apparently it was some trainee who was working a bank holiday graveyard shift that was responsible.

 

[Matty]

You're right Matty, it's not his job to trawl the Utd forums. However as Manchester City correspondent for a Manchester newspaper, it's not unreasonable for him to comment on the thought process for his colleagues using the Boateng image.

If he can actually check with the colleague then I'd suggest it would be insightful for us to know what the thought process was. If he can't then, ultimately, his comments are guess work and might be inaccurate. I'm sure he wouldn't want to be saying why he THINKS a fellow journalist has done something, when that may not be the reason at all.

I'd suggest there will be an audit trail of who chose that image. So finding the culprit and the reason behind it shouldn't be too difficult.

I vaguely remember another inappropriate MEN website article that attracted criticism. Apparently it was some trainee who was working a bank holiday graveyard shift that was responsible.

I'm not stating I believe the article, or more accurately the picture, were definitely chosen without bias or agenda. I'm sure it's entirely possible that someone did so in order to have a pop at City, in fact my rather lengthy post a little earlier in this thread has explained that I do believe City are given a rough ride by the MEN when compared to our red neighbours (albeit to a lesser degree than the media in general pander to United/attack City). All I'm saying is that there's no value in him guessing why the picture was used so, until he is able to ascertain the who then when and the why of it all it's better if he doesn't actually comment on that particular topic.