Insulting another member
You are so fecking stupid.
It's the best move, just throw out all the garbage people who talk shit about us for their own agenda.
MEN banned from the press conference today | Some journalists banned for running articles without approaching United for comment first
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
It's the best move, just throw out all the garbage people who talk shit about us for their own agenda.
If you don't understand that the media and football are incredibly intertwined, you don't understand the game. It's not just a sport anymore, it's about narrative, hype and above all entertainment - that's what pays the bills.
This is incredibly naive of United. Fergie could go apocalyptic at the press because the British press needed United more than United needed them. That is sadly no longer true. The press control the narrative. A more saavy institution would understand this. I've been hammering about this for years in the refereeing/VAR thread. If you think that Klopp's reaction to decisions - in the press - do not influence matches, you're wrong.
City basically buy the press. Beautiful receptison for them, lovely spreads at games, lots of pampering - and lo and behold, the press treat them accordingly. By antagonising the press - especially right now - all we're going to do is increase the negativity, increase the pressure on ETH and increase the feeling of players that do read the news that it's beyond repair.
It's an own goal of the highest order - and fits right in with how we're run these days.
The British press are one of the most detestable groups on the face of the planet, but ignoring their impact is just stupid.
This is incredibly naive of United. Fergie could go apocalyptic at the press because the British press needed United more than United needed them. That is sadly no longer true. The press control the narrative. A more saavy institution would understand this. I've been hammering about this for years in the refereeing/VAR thread. If you think that Klopp's reaction to decisions - in the press - do not influence matches, you're wrong.
City basically buy the press. Beautiful receptison for them, lovely spreads at games, lots of pampering - and lo and behold, the press treat them accordingly. By antagonising the press - especially right now - all we're going to do is increase the negativity, increase the pressure on ETH and increase the feeling of players that do read the news that it's beyond repair.
It's an own goal of the highest order - and fits right in with how we're run these days.
The British press are one of the most detestable groups on the face of the planet, but ignoring their impact is just stupid.
As a journalist I would expect my editor to most likely issue me a warning, at the very least, if I accused an organisation of something in a story without bothering to at least contact them for comment.
Being omitted from the list of a subsequent press conference is fair enough in this instance.
Being omitted from the list of a subsequent press conference is fair enough in this instance.
So it's not only about the lack of opportunity to comment.
That is your opinion. Most journalist present their sources to their editors. Whether or not the sources lie is a different story.
United can easily deny all the claims made by the story. It's not that hard.
I actually think it makes a lot of sense. If you ban the journalists players are leaking to then journalists will have to reconsider whether that story is worth it to have their credentials revoked. It’s another way of stopping the leaks.
Feck these hacks and anyone defending them.
When did this come in?
A source being wrong or lying isn't the fault of the journalist. That's not gutter journalism.
Just a pun on the thread title, Manchester Evening News = MEN = men
It is weird seeing several posters here siding with these clickbait journalists.
It might be. It might not. It's just daft to argue that it's definitely just about the negative articles as if the club would intervene with a media love-in.
So eh you didn't like Ferguson?
Well that is just stupid. To print the story, the journalist must be content that their source is reliable otherwise they are printing shite. You will then be disciplined by your editor. You again ignore what I state. Not allowing the club to reply before printing as several others have pointed out here is gutter journalism.
That's not how this will playout though. These journalists will be back in the press room next week with a chip on their shoulder, and the narrative will reflect that.
It’s very weird considering these so called journalists have been happily shitting all over the club for the last 10 years. This has been long overdue.
SAF wouldn't talk to the BBC for years.
IMHO - Carrot and stick mate. We generate the most views and engagement in world football and negativity/outrage is probably the most cost effective viral types of content, unfortunately. Doesn't matter whether the content is true.
I wouldn't be surprised if the United Comms team feel like they've already exhausted all avenues of pleading/rewarding/placating before resorting to this tactic.
They're an awful rag now so this is good news.
Fergie banned the BBC for a decade so this is hardly unprecedented.
Fergie banned the BBC for a decade so this is hardly unprecedented.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't use sources they believe are lying as it undermines their credibility. Most journalist know if they continually print lies their career is over.
It's not gutter journalism. It's advised and done as a courtesy but changes very little. All that would happen is a blurb of the club denying the allegations or issuing, which they can still do now.
It is. If the papers are going to write stories without asking the club for comment they should be banned from speaking to the manager.
Chat shit, get banned
Which they could do if they were given a right to reply.
They weren't, so they couldn't.
I thought with any news story, a journalist or newspaper would contact the persons (United in this instance) named in the story to ascertain the validity before printing. Even if it is a simply, "Manchester United refused to comment".
I think that clubs are within their rights to ban anyone that they want, Luckhurst has been a knob head for a long period of time anyway.
I think that clubs are within their rights to ban anyone that they want, Luckhurst has been a knob head for a long period of time anyway.
Occam's razor. As they have published stories before without asking the club for comment, the fact that this comes off the back of the widely reported negative story is very telling.
They can't issue a club statement or address it in a press conference?
Haven't they addressed it by banning the journalists from the presser and stating the reasons why?
Exciting times.
Now lets fecking twat Chel$ki
Now lets fecking twat Chel$ki
It shouldn't be allowed. You can't ban journalists because you don't like their stories.
No fan of the football club should actually care about United banning a journalist for a day or two for writing some utter bollocks.
The press officer should do it more often if you ask me.
The press officer should do it more often if you ask me.
Again that's not why they were banned.
No they are not. They are publicly traded. And all public and private companies should offer free access to the press. It's football so in general don't a big deal. What if an oil company did this, or a bank or a NGO.
I don't even disagree that this is a response to the recent stories, I just think it's a bit mental-gymnastic-y to act like the club should give every negative story equal weight, or even just every story, as you initially suggested.
There are obviously thresholds and it's about time the media were held to account for repeatedly publishing shite without asking the club if they want to comment.
I think we are just going to agree to disagree on this as we have very different views.
You're missing the point. I'm saying if it was mainly about not asking for comment before publishing a story this would have been done long ago. There are no mental gymnastics in play at all. It's a fairly straightforward conclusion.
EDIT: I would have been more okay with them saying "We are banning you because we believe the stories you are presenting are false, a mischaracterization" and/or overly negative"
Is it? Or have recent stories not perhaps crossed a line?
SAF greatest manager ever but not everything he did was right.