Similar to the ranking system in the transfer thread, do we have any tiers for general credibility.
Steinbergs article before the cup final felt malicious at the time, and now, quite simply looks like one of the all time career-ruining pieces from a sports journalist. He isnt writing for a tabloid- he wrote this piece, guaranteeing Ten Hag's sacking, for a reputable broadsheet. Now where is the accountability. He wasn't the only one. There was a countless list of 'alternative media' try-hards, claiming to have the inside track but they have been proven to be doing nothing but punting on the most likely outcome.
It might be useful to have a sort of hall of shame. This was such a huge topic- it wasn't transfer news which is fast changing and open to some degree of speculation. In most other jobs you'd have some accountability for such brutal work.
Steinberg certainly looks the most idiotic. He would be hard pressed to explain that his intention was anything but chaos and upheaval and his basic integrity as a journalist can be doubted in light of the certainty that was shared. It was publicly humiliating to Ten Hag and no doubt distracting to players on the way to a cup final.
As a reminder, this was the opening to his sensationalist piece, that conveniently boosted his own name recognition:
'Manchester United have decided to sack Erik ten Hag after the FA Cup final against Manchester City.
In an echo of United parting company with Louis van Gaal despite winning the FA Cup in 2016, it is understood that even beating City at Wembley on Saturday will not save Ten Hag.'
Steinbergs article before the cup final felt malicious at the time, and now, quite simply looks like one of the all time career-ruining pieces from a sports journalist. He isnt writing for a tabloid- he wrote this piece, guaranteeing Ten Hag's sacking, for a reputable broadsheet. Now where is the accountability. He wasn't the only one. There was a countless list of 'alternative media' try-hards, claiming to have the inside track but they have been proven to be doing nothing but punting on the most likely outcome.
It might be useful to have a sort of hall of shame. This was such a huge topic- it wasn't transfer news which is fast changing and open to some degree of speculation. In most other jobs you'd have some accountability for such brutal work.
Steinberg certainly looks the most idiotic. He would be hard pressed to explain that his intention was anything but chaos and upheaval and his basic integrity as a journalist can be doubted in light of the certainty that was shared. It was publicly humiliating to Ten Hag and no doubt distracting to players on the way to a cup final.
As a reminder, this was the opening to his sensationalist piece, that conveniently boosted his own name recognition:
'Manchester United have decided to sack Erik ten Hag after the FA Cup final against Manchester City.
In an echo of United parting company with Louis van Gaal despite winning the FA Cup in 2016, it is understood that even beating City at Wembley on Saturday will not save Ten Hag.'
Some nasty old tweets resurfacing and now being made to look an idiot (whether his info was wrong or the club changed their mind).
never/rarely get quoted whereas idiots and Twitter aggregators get quoted every day, and their complete guesses see, to be taken as gospel