You do comment on the team, the players , the staff, the club and how they do their work. That is what you are employed to do by the paper but just because you have been given the opportunity to voice your opinions does not make you qualified to do so. . . . . . dont get upset with me yet . . . . .
There are many on here who have put in the hard yards and have the qualifications, through seeing more City matches than anyone at the paper will ever see, to voice opinions about the club and that is why it is difficult for us to accept any poor quality output from the paper whether it be unqualified staff rehashing rubbish (Pelligrini's Englishmen) and recent events which appear to be poor quality checks putting wrong names with pictures (youth team), cheap shots (tourism) or wind up (Boateng). In total fairness to you these objections are to events that you are surely not responsible for and there are no stand out issues about your actual stories or opinions that have come to a head like these stories.
Shit sticks and in the same way that we hate TV match commentators who voice opinions about our team just because they have the platform (I am talking about the commentators and not former players who are qualified even if they talk bollocks) and we call Sky and MOTD for allowing it and Talk Sport for allowing arseholes to broadcast their unqualified opinions, you, as the leading City expert at the paper are going to get it when your paper makes a poor judgement call.
It doesnt actually matter what you believe went wrong (as in the tourism story), I think the paper should have a handle on anything it prints about two of the biggest businesses in the paper's catchment area; In this scenario you are the heart surgeon and so better qualified in understanding how the paper works and so have a better chance of sorting that out than we do.