MEN banned from the press conference today | Some journalists banned for running articles without approaching United for comment first

JuriM

New Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
2,266
Location
Estonia
Insulting another member
That's pathetic from Man UTD. The FA should step in. Whether you like them or not, we should not be okay with banning the press because we don't like their stories. And this far more important since UTD are a publicly traded company.
This just like the complaints for a VAR and the refs, it offloading responsibility for what's going on to a 3rd company.
The press and the stories got nothing to do why Man UTD is toxic.
It's something internal because it all the same cycle. New manager then results go to shite and then the negative stories from the press. And note, the negative press comes after the bad results and not prior.
This isn't the way to do it. And internally their message to players should be not to give on iota of what the press says. The press will praise when you're good and turn on you when you're bad. Your job is to perform regardless of what's written about you.
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.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,777
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.
 

padzilla

Hipster
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
3,445
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.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Why would the club care to comment on a positive story?

You can't separate the snide behaviour of publishing shite about the club without offering them the opportunity to comment from the publishing of said shite.
So it's not only about the lack of opportunity to comment.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Doesn't matter if they can confirm it or not, 99.9% of football related journalism is made up nonsense. It's not real journalism.

Publishing articles where claims are being made by one side and not contacting the other side to seek a right of reply is not upholding any kind of standards. It's pathetic and childish and they've been met with a somewhat pathetic and childish response. But in this case, I think it's warranted.
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.
 

sparx99

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
4,015
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.
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.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Of course they wouldn't have been banned for a positive story unless they were breaking an embargo or something. I don't think yours is the only logical conclusion when there have been several incidences of these journalists printing stories based on so called sources. They are alleging something serious and have not given the club a chance to comment. It's gutter journalism. No one is stopped from printing any stories, they can keep printing to their hearts content.
A source being wrong or lying isn't the fault of the journalist. That's not gutter journalism.
 

Alex99

Rehab's Pete Doherty
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
16,135
So it's not only about the lack of opportunity to comment.
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.
 

Lyng

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
5,256
Location
Denmark
That's pathetic from Man UTD. The FA should step in. Whether you like them or not, we should not be okay with banning the press because we don't like their stories. And this far more important since UTD are a publicly traded company.
This just like the complaints for a VAR and the refs, it offloading responsibility for what's going on to a 3rd company.
The press and the stories got nothing to do why Man UTD is toxic.
It's something internal because it all the same cycle. New manager then results go to shite and then the negative stories from the press. And note, the negative press comes after the bad results and not prior.
This isn't the way to do it. And internally their message to players should be not to give on iota of what the press says. The press will praise when you're good and turn on you when you're bad. Your job is to perform regardless of what's written about you.
So eh you didn't like Ferguson?
 

TheGame

Full Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Messages
19,601
Location
In the Land of Saints and Sinners
A source being wrong or lying isn't the fault of the journalist. That's not gutter journalism.
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.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,777
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.
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.
 

Fully Fledged

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
16,274
Location
Midlands UK
Yep. I'm absolutely fine with ripping "the people in front of me" a new one like SAF did in that clip, but preventing the press to join a press conference just isn't right. What do you expect happens? They'll just write angry stuff and you open up the new angle that you aren't dealing with the press in the right way.
SAF wouldn't talk to the BBC for years.
 

Pronewbie

Peep
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,720
Location
In front of My Computer
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.
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.
 

MancunianAngels

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
2,522
Location
Manchester
Supports
FC United
They're an awful rag now so this is good news.

Fergie banned the BBC for a decade so this is hardly unprecedented.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
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.
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.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
12,449
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.
Which they could do if they were given a right to reply.

They weren't, so they couldn't.
 

cj_sparky

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
8,317
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.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
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.
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.
 

oreon

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
417
They're an awful rag now so this is good news.

Fergie banned the BBC for a decade so this is hardly unprecedented.
It shouldn't be allowed. You can't ban journalists because you don't like their stories.
 

RuudTom83

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
5,660
Location
Manc
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.
 

oreon

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
417
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.
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.
 

Alex99

Rehab's Pete Doherty
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
16,135
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.
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.
 

TheGame

Full Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Messages
19,601
Location
In the Land of Saints and Sinners
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.
I think we are just going to agree to disagree on this as we have very different views.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
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.
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"
 

Alex99

Rehab's Pete Doherty
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
16,135
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.
Is it? Or have recent stories not perhaps crossed a line?