Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Boro clarify transfer facts - Gazette will not interview the manager or players


Recommended Posts

I'll reply to you both at the same time if that's ok.

 

Go on then, I'll let you off.

 

It's not simply about the press getting a free pass whatever you mean by that.  What happened with Hillsborough was terrible from that particular newspaper and never I've read it simply because of what they did back then.  In that instance I can understand a football club or whoever taking the view that they want nothing to do with them.  However, we know that this case is a million miles away from that as you rightly say and as such they can't be compared so it's kinda pointless bringing it up really.  In that instance it wasn't freedom of the press that was the issue though, it was certain people writing outright lies about a tragedy in order to sell some newspapers.  I don't think that has anything to do with free passes.

 

Perhaps the example provided wasn't the best but I do agree with MB that all papers have to be held accountable somehow. The discussion is likely not one that relates to this predicament indeed but as for papers doing things because they're free to do them, the papers are certainly guilty of that (see Rupert Murdoch, Southern Investigations, the Daniel Morgan murder and perhaps what more people are aware of with the Phone Hacking Scandal).

 

The club has chosen to make a big song and dance about a couple of things recently as regards the information and the accuracy of the information that is to be made public.  Essentially what they were actually doing is taking a shot at the Gazette and we have to assume that this stuff is linked to whatever axe the club have to grind with them.  The problem is the club haven't bothered to state their case as to what these two people have done that warrants it and by the sounds of it they haven't even informed the people in question.

 

First of all, unless it's down to common decency, the club doesn't necessarily need to inform the reporters personally why they're banned. They're not employees.

 

And I stand by what I said regarding this targeting of Shaw and Taylor. I don't think it's intended to be a personal attack. I don't think there's much to back that theory up, it just seems to be the line people are running with because they are the two who are banned. But I still think it's worth recognising that they are the least senior reporters of the 4 who work at the Gazette. I don't have anything solid to back up my theory either really, it just seems to make sense from the club's perspective that if they were going to try and hit back at the Gazette for whatever reason they are doing, they'd be in a much worse position if they just banned Vickers and/or Tallentire. It would also make sense as to why they wouldn't need to provide any personal reason to either reporter.

 

In any case, unless it is something terrible along the lines of what I discussed in the first paragraph then I don't see how it can be justified.  Let's be clear about this, one of three things has likely happened here: either the club were unhappy with the content of some things they've written simply because they didn't like what it said or they were unhappy because it contained information that the club didn't want made public or they were unhappy because they fabricated stuff. If it's the first one then the club don't have a leg to stand on.  If it's the second one then depending on what it was and how they came about it the club again don't have a leg to stand on. If it's the latter then the club might have some justification but it's hard to figure exactly what things they'll have fabricated/lied about that the club wouldn't simply take legal action to remedy or that the Gazette would dig their heels in about.  For that reason I don't think the latter reason is likely.

 

I think that point number one is the most likely. And you're right, the club shouldn't have a leg to stand on with that. But again, I go back to the Gazette's reporting for the past couple of years. Ever since they reported they had a much better relationship with the club and now had sources at the very top. I remember saying to Humpty who fought back against this point that there's absolutely no reason for the club to allow the local gaff in on more correct information without getting anything in return. Humpty himself said (something along the lines of) they get better press from the club which helps the club's image. What hurts the club's image? Critical and accurate reporting during a downward spiral. What didn't we get? Critical and accurate reporting during a downward spiral. I certainly didn't feel like we did anyway.

 

After speaking with another journalist earlier, his point was he simply feels the club are trying to direct traffic to their site so have made business decisions to help that along. Hell, it seems to be working for the most part. The club are writing more, engaging slightly more and working continuously on making the website somewhere you actually go to first rather than a news website. I've found myself doing it when I never used to touch their site for anything other than commentary during matches.

 

As far as propaganda goes, I don't expect any less from the club when putting out things on their own website as long as they don't report fake news themselves. I don't think anybody does. The club aren't hiring journalists. They're likely hiring content editors. They provide a different role. It's just like if you go on a website like... say Samsung. I look up their phones on their website, it's not going to say "Well this one is alright but the battery is a bit ***", is it? But just because any outgoing content is going to favour them doesn't mean it's all rubbish forced down your throat to get you to believe the club is all-powerful and all-mighty. As long as the information is factual, it's doing no worse than any other content managed site.

 

In terms of your previous reply Wilson, I don't believe what you've said there is accurate.  I don't think the Gazette have been content writers for the club.  Don't get me wrong they have been very favourable towards the club but they've also printed speculation and opinion pieces that have been less than flattering.  You will get none of that from the club website, in fact you will get very little from the club website when all is said and done.  As I said earlier, I actually agreed with one of your paragraphs where you said it might lead to a different attitude from the Gazette and that this is a good thing.  I agree that the local paper having a more critical eye is better than not but that doesn't make banning those journalists right just because the end result may be good.

 

Well not literally no but they have been favourable as you say. They've given the club a bit of an easy ride in my point of view. You and I know that recruitment was a major part of our failing last season. Tallentire, after the January window went by, posted an article pulling the line that the club worked exceptionally hard in that window, practically saying they should be commended if anything. When the season was over, he listed failed recruitment as one of his top reasons for failure. So what changed? Quite like a lot of their content since the close-season break, it has tiptoed into pretty unfamiliar territory in criticising the club. Rather than stand by the club's decisions, they started pulling out content that echoed with the fans more.

 

If this is how the club responds to that, perhaps that agreement I previously mentioned was considered broken? I'm speculating of course but is it so far outside the box as a theory? Because it would absolutely explain why the club has reacted so strongly against the Gazette and no other media outlet, something you have picked up on during this debacle too.

 

If it is at all true too, then I have to point the finger at the Gazette and say they are partly at fault for this current situation. They should not have gotten so close to the club if it meant losing any of their integrity as journalists. They were always going to get their fingers burnt when they realised they couldn't keep it up. The club would never let them get away without attempting to hinder them.

 

If the club are intent on keeping us well informed then they can start by letting us know what their grievance is with these two blokes and we can all make our own minds up about whether it's justified or not.

 

Unfortunately for us, I don't think this is something the club will consider as information that helps us as Boro fans. But I also don't think the Gazette would be telling us if they knew the reason either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 294
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    36

  •  

    19

  •  

    16

 

You do realise that you've just said it's ok for the club to ban journalists for spurious reasons and that they don't even need an explanation why? There's no way you can think that is acceptable? If it was any other club I don't believe you'd feel the same way at all. I know there are times when I struggle to get my head around what people on here are saying but seriously, you cannot think that it's ok???

 

It is a personal attack in the same way it would be if the mods on here banned you for no reason or to teach someone else a lesson. I don't really see how banning specific journalists whilst continuing to allow others access is anything but personal. You appear to be going out of your way to make the club appear reasonable for some reason.

 

The example you've used of Samsung doesn't work because Samsung aren't stopping other people from writing about their products. The club right now are trying to make it difficult for these people to do their jobs and that's out of order unless the provocation is so heinous that it's justified of course. As I've already said, I find it difficult to believe that it is.

 

The club won't report fake news as you put it. (btw, since when did it become de rigueur to make lying seem more palatable by calling it something else? Fake news is wilfully misleading people i.e. lying so let's just call it lying). However the club also won't report anything the club don't want to talk about so I don't see huge value in it.

 

I doubt there was any agreement as you put it, certainly not a formal one. The fact is that the Gazette haven't always put content out there that the club would be all that happy with I imagine so to say that they've brought it on themselves doesn't stack up.

 

This is all very easily sorted out if the club come out and clarify what's happened. There's actually no reason for them not to as the journalists presumably are in the wrong unless the club are taking the *** a bit. If nothing else it will make them look less petty. The onus isn't on the Gazette to provide an explanation as they aren't the ones who have taken action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumour has it that the two journalists were given inside information by an unhappy player and it made it into the papers.

 

Surely the club should have a problem with the player, who is their actual employee, rather than journalists who are doing their job and reporting on what their sources tell them.

 

This censorship by the club is so Russia-style and it's painting the club in a very bad picture. It's rather lucky for the club that we aren't big in a national sense or this would be a hell of a mess for the club. Imagine the ***storm a club like ***nal, United etc would be in if they banned local journalists without giving a reason. There would be an uproar in the national pres.

 

They want to control the content but it will never be as good as a third party. It will be rose tinted *** throughout. I'll be looking forward to seeing the gazette reporting next season instead of reading the website.

 

I prefer to simplify it. Obviously the journalists that are banned have *** of Steve Gibson somehow. So all he's said is "yes the Gazette can still do the interview but ***head A and numb nuts B can *** off"

No real cloak and dagger, certainly not like a communist state like you eluded to.

But the most important thing is I couldn't care less

 

Surely banning a journalist for writing something you don't like is a bit akin to dictatorship/communism. There is a lot of cloak and dagger here as no one knows what the hell is going on other than the club have a personal grievance with two named journalists. Trying to silence journalism is never a good move. Ever. Unless you provide sufficient explanation which the club seemingly don't have  or are willing to give.

 

They're still free to write and publish whatever they want. Denying access to the club including players and staff members is a sensible move if the Gazette has continuously crossed the line - that being agreements between the club and newspaper, writing and publishing articles overly criticising every move Boro, Karanka, Gibson or any other staff members made or makes, or contacting disgruntled players for gossip to support some hidden agenda. 

 

We don't know what happened behind the scenes, what the Gazette had access to and not, and how they came about their information. The Gazette were out in full force when we relegated, taking swings at former employees including scouts, management, Gibson, Agnew, Ramirez, etc. I'm guessing their sources were not always too reputable, but "sources close to/within the club" adds some rather vague credibility albeit more than enough given many fans were more than ready to believe anything and everything which remotely resembled their own view (fake news?)

 

It's nothing out of the ordinary for any company to deny access to news agencies being overly faultfinding based on 'anonymous sources within the club'. Boro have a team to protect, but more importantly a brand to protect. While outright banning 2 individuals is somewhat drastic, I'm guessing the Gazette crossed a few ethical boundaries here and there which can be rather dangerous being a local newspaper. Public relations (PR) is a difficult discipline to master, and perhaps a few too many bridges have been severely damaged since January 1st.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fabio in 5 minutes assisted more goals than George has in about 6 months?

 

His composure on the ball is far better than George. The amount of times we lose the ball high up the field with GF trying to cut inside is beyond frustrating.

 

For what it's worth, I get all my Boro news off KM's Twitter account.

 

Which one?

 

The one that steals content from Humpty.

 

Fixed :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fabio in 5 minutes assisted more goals than George has in about 6 months?

 

His composure on the ball is far better than George. The amount of times we lose the ball high up the field with GF trying to cut inside is beyond frustrating.

 

For what it's worth, I get all my Boro news off KM's Twitter account.

 

Which one?

 

The one that steals content from Humpty.

 

Fixed :D

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be over simplifying this but might Mr Gibson be peeved by the Gazette starting to charge his customers for the access the EG are granted given their local status and this being the way he has shown his displeasure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be over simplifying this but might Mr Gibson be peeved by the Gazette starting to charge his customers for the access the EG are granted given their local status and this being the way he has shown his displeasure?

 

I don't know if he's peeved, but Gibson/MFC will have realised that a monthly subscription to MFC for 'exclusive' news is a good source of steady revenue for the club. I bet that a 'premium' version of MFC.co.uk is coming. I've also noticed that all photos on social media have the mfc.co.uk watermark on them, presumably so that other organisations can't use them for commercial purposes without royalties (I haven't checked this, however).

 

The strange thing is, people have always bought the Gazette for Boro news (as well as local news) and have therefore paid for this news. If people think the Gazette sportsdesk charging for Boro news is a new thing, they must have thought newspapers were once free of charge. The EG subscription model is what loads of papers do. EG continue to give some of their news for 'free', but they have to make some money somewhere as newspaper sales are in decline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lived away for decades, used to get the sports Gazette by post (arrived on Monday/Tuesday) but it was the only way to get a decent match report etc. but since the interweb it's not required. The club have just dropped the charge service and the EG start one up..... just made me think

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no 'Premium' MFC membership coming, I don't see anything to back that up. The club are trying to provide everything on their website for free and are only recently finding a stumbling block with regards to their version of iFollow and providing the audio commentary. They mentioned in the MSF minutes about how the EFL providers prefer to have a pay barrier set up and it would seem the club is still working on that right now.

 

In fact, the Premium content from the Gazette is never the regular news so the information from sources at the club are never put beyond a pay barrier, it's usually in depth opinion pieces the likes which Vickers and John Nicholson write.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to be, that the issue between club n paper centres around the actions of 1-2 people, rather than a business model. But i agree that charging for content at a time when the club finally doing their own web based outlet in a modern way is a tad odd.

 

imo

from reading everyones opinions and taking in what highly slanted info each side has posted, i think that the issue is more likely the links and printing of information coming from sources the club not happy with, any reputable newspaper will be well within its rights to print any info it gets from primary sources of information and to continue to do so while protecting the identity of its source. ( Tittle-Tattle suggests this is downing but ive seen or heard nothing to prove this)

 

Journalists have to be friendly and encourage sources where ever and when ever they can on whatever subject or topic they cover, and after validating it from a different source they print it. We read it and tomorrow we do the same again, that how it works

 

A solution to the issue going to be tricky tho as the longer things go on the harder it will be for one side to give that little bit that solves the issue, because journalistic loyalty is the bases for any good news agency but how long will it be before money talks and 4 reporters doing the job that now 1-2 could do easily is rapidly approaching.

 

Do the club want to see the relationship between itself and the gazette go down the knackers yard or a couple of blokes loose their jobs potentially I dont think so, that would be just mean and this standoff is one of stubberness vs pride at the moment.

 

I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out if once either the gazette moves its journalists around or the club manages to remove the sticking blocks from its side. Once the transfer window is closed I think we will see a changing of both sides positions, whether publically with a nice picture from the press box or both sides just stop mentioning it and out of nowhere a nice interview with monk appears after a match.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vickers has launched another lengthy article regarding the gazette/mfc situation. For me it doesn't make anything any more clear but I wonder if this is a final attempt to get a response from mfc ahead of the first home game on Saturday?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vickers  has launched another lengthy article regarding the gazette/mfc situation. For me it doesn't make anything any more clear but I wonder if this is a final attempt to get a response from mfc ahead of the first home game on Saturday?

 

To me, that's absolutely what it reads like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...