Not really, someone sent me that sky article earlier and my initial reaction was ‘this isn’t even journalism’. I’d be saying the same if the article was about any other club to be honest, it’s that bad.
According to article they didn't have a problem with it until now. If it had been a positive or neutral story without asking the club for comment do you think they would have been banned?
By banning the likes of luckhurst ? He might be cracking up but this was the right play by the club/ him
Who said that??
Regardless they drew the line because they didn't like the negative story, not because of any policy. That is small time. Even if they had contacted the club, the same posters would be cheering the decision. This isn't a good look and doesn't help.
It's simply not liking the stories they write. Had they asked the club for comment would you be against the ban?
Yep. It is really simple and easily done. And if they indeed didn’t even attempt to get a comment, they not only should be banned, they deserve to be fired from their paper. And it’s not like they had anything to lose. Just print the clubs denial of the story and go on. It’s not like anybody actually puts much stock into these denials.
Somehow I don't think that this is EtH's idea at all. He didn't seem to take that much of an issue with questionable journalist questions but took the typical Dutch route of direct answering. I do believe this ban is coming from someone else who tries to take control of the narrative. EtH didn't strike me as caring too much about that so far.
This can't be a serious post. Sir Alex would have banned journalists in his first year if he felt they took the piss.
Who cares about Eric's credit? This is not about him, if press spread lies and bullshit, they get banned, simple as that, this should be happening a lot more often at all the clubs. Cull the lying vermin.
Good thing that's not why we banned them.
Depends really. If he wasn't doing shite it'd be "right call, feck these press vultures, Fergie did the same" etc. But he's doing shite so it just makes him look like he's struggling under the pressure.
negative stories had already been written and we can both agree they would do this for a neutral or positive story. Therefore, it's reasonable to view the main reason for the ban as the negative story regardless of the other reasons.
Journalists have to corroborate their stories. A handful failed to do basic journalism 101 and reported gossip.
Angry tweet? We are talking about lies here, misinformation. Lying actions have to have consequences, it can't be simpler than that. I can't believe you are defending the vermin.
