PRESS TO PLAY

Criticise journalists at your peril, even if you are one. Guardian scribe Nick Davies’ book ‘Flat Earth News’ drew accusations from rank hypocrisy to treachery for suggesting that journalism was over-reliant on PR and sensationalism – describing the transfer of press releases into news as “churnalism.”

Meanwhile, relatively un-reported, Man Yoo’s communication’s director Phil Townsend lambasted fellow sports-hacks for “exaggerating…the most minor” Old Trafford stories and writing about United “every day (when) there isn’t a story every day”, concluding “impact is more important than facts.”

Pots and kettles went flying in response - Townsend’s own attempts to portray Man Yoo’s accounts as justification for the Glazers had produced the most furious spinning outside Muttiah Muralitharan’s test-career. Barry Newcombe, Sports Journalists’ Association chair, pinpointed one manager “picking and choosing who he speaks to…boycotting a broadcaster which pays public money to cover (them.)” Guess who.

BBC sports editor Mihir Bose cited the twin-terrors of control and profit hindering journalists: “All sports governing bodies have realised they have a product. They want to control it and realise money. (Information) is becoming a business proposition.”

Football is deemed especially guilty, comparing unfavourably with gridiron’s dressing-room access (“no flak, no spokesmen, no assistant managers” – Newcombe, on about Sir you-know-who again). Even rugby “offers daily access to players”, not necessarily a good thing – imagine daily access to Ashley Cole.

So, who’s spinning? In researching this column – yes, work goes into it, despite appearances – I often write out newspaper articles, thereby reading them slowly enough to allow understanding and considered opinions to develop…hopefully. A lengthy exercise which uncovered the following.

On February 26^th, the Premier League issued a statement about postponing their meeting with Blatter regarding ‘Game 39.’ FIFA issued a statement welcoming this. And…er…that’s it. Except, of course, it wasn’t. ‘Churnalism’ – reproducing the statements – would have covered the news angle, nothing else was new, but not the story. Or, it emerged, stories.

Most newspapers opposed Game 39 – even the Sun eventually took the populist rather than the, shall we say, ‘Murdoch’ view; nicknaming Scudamore “Scooby” because he hasn’t got a clue (one for Cockney rhyming slang aficionados and…no-one else). So it was remarkable how two contrasting ‘stories’ emerged from the same, brief, base material.

Charles Sale’s Sports Agenda in the Mail is a good source of ‘behind-the-scenes’ information. But ‘agenda’ is writ large over his Game 39 coverage. Thus, Scudamore “threw in the towel…on his crazy idea…in humiliating circumstances” and so on…and on. The PL’s naturally less emotive statement was relegated to the third paragraph, a mere interlude before “monumental tactical blunders” and “giant gaffes” were being “blown out of the water.”

Tne sentence of FIFA’s statement was tagged on the end, looking as if it was put in at the last minute by a harassed staff reporter in the office, Sale too busy with his attack-dog posturings to even mention it himself.

In the Independent, FIFA had “left the door open” in a statement giving the PL “considerable succour”, adding that if FIFA was killing Game 39, “it was a strange way to do it.” Scudamore would have to say Game 39 was designed specifically to increase global warming for the Indie to take a stand. But it still managed an entirely different story to the Mail, even from its perch on the fence, from the same, brief, base material.

Sale has since turned his pen on League Managers’ Association ex-chair John Barnwell’s role in formulating Game 39, pushing for his members – the team managers involved – to get their percentage of the finances before taking a consultancy role with one of the Australian companies also involved.

“A grubby deal” ran the headline, in keeping with Sale’s agenda and the Mail’s anti-trade unionism (the LMA was described as a “union” throughout. It isn’t). An interesting story but not the two-page spread afforded it by the Mail. Check other press for details and there’ll be few, which is about right.

Sale has eloquently opposed Game 39. But such opposition belongs in opinion columns, not news items.

Momentarily, you felt sorry for Tom Hicks. He couldn’t have been clearer. Reports he was selling his half of Liverpool were “absolutely and categorically false.” He was “committed to (Liverpool)…now and in the future.” But he might as well have declared: “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body” for all the notice taken of him. We got lists of what he “hasn’t ruled out” – never mind that an 87-word statement couldn’t rule out much, or that he hadn’t “ruled out” running for Pope or re-nationalising the railways.

But sympathy for him was momentary. He’s only kept true to those 87 words, at the time of writing, because sale negotiations are happening elsewhere and he hasn’t the cash to buy out what he must consider his lightweight partner Gillett, before selling on to an increasingly desperate and profligate DIC (which will happen when the money’s right, whatever Hicks may say about DIC’s “committee approach” not being in the interests of “Kop or the club – his company before the club, BTW).
Sympathy lies with the journalists here, in this multi-media age of ‘rolling’ news. On March 4^th, Liverpool news kept-a-rollin’. By late afternoon, three of the Telegraph web-site’s five most-read stories were…the SAME story with different headlines. Even the Beatles never had three versions of any song in the top five at once.

This meant “Midnight Deadline for DIC takeover” headlined a story containing “Spokeswoman Jehad Saleh said: “No timetable has been set on the talks.” While at the Guardian “DIC were confirming Liverpool talks” as Hicks was “rejecting their offer immediately on receipt.” Still, it gave newspapers ‘rolling’ excuses to print pics of gorgeous, pouting Amanda Staveley who, said Hicks, “made the UK press an interesting read” as she was touted as a future Liverpool director.

Occasionally, rolling news gets stuck in the mud. Thank heavens, then, for “sources.” Hicks was right about “reports planted…by parties with self-interested agenda.” But not only because DIC ‘sources’ were everywhere. Dallas ‘sources’ were talkative too, which renders his outburst at Staveley, for “publicly putting words in my mouth…that she should know perfectly well aren’t true”, the rankest of hypocrisy.

Real ‘news’ has been slower than Dirk Kuyt in the penalty box. But rolling news needs rolling copy regardless. Hence, just one example of many, the Telegraph’s David Bond re-writing his story from 12.54am Tuesday to 3.03am Wednesday. And journos are expected to do this extra work for no extra recompense by penny-pinching newspaper groups. Who’s spinning? The heads of Liverpool fans, mostly.

Harry Harris’s agenda is…Harry Harris. He’ll spin or be spun for an “exclusive.” Having personally turned Blatter against Game 39 (“Express gets Blatter backing” – beyond parody), he’s back onto the re-emerging ‘Tevez affair.’

Convinced, rightly, that West Ham, not Sheffield United, should have been relegated after blatant and continued breaches of third-party ownership regulations, Harris has given Kia Joorbachian, Tevez’s…whatever, full use of his columns since the case returned to court recently. Harris has “exclusive” tourettes-syndrome, though. And his latest really have been “I already know this” efforts, as Joorbachian’s ‘particulars of claim’ have been in the papers for weeks.

However, cynicism (rightly) directed at Joorbachian’s claims that “it’s not about money” has skewed judgement, at the expense of basic journalistic standards – “impact more important than facts.”

Early in my journalism-training (yes, I’m trained – despite appearances), Martin Samuel was praised for his ability to adapt his prose-style to Times or tabloids. Over Tevez, he got his papers mixed-up.

“Joorbachian is not the sort for rounding up or down” he sniffed. But what, you wonder, did Samuel expect from particulars of claim? There’s a clue there somewhere. He was equally and equally-mistakenly sniffy about Sheffield United’s compensation ambitions: “Their campaign is about fairness…and £50m”, as if United had any other recourse. And he wondered why Joorbachian’s claims weren’t “dealt with at the time” when the claim made ‘particularly’ clear that monies were due by January 31 2008. West Ham had broken no agreements, real or alleged, until then.

Who’s spinning? Erm…Scudamore, for ever suggesting that West Ham received appropriate sanction. As I’ve written before, only if Bryan Robson had been appointed Hammers’ manager rather than Sheffield United’s would justice by now have been served.

So is Townsend right, or are his many critics? Well, they all are to some extent. And if my instincts side me with newspaper journalists over ‘communications directors’ (and isn’t there something inherently spectre-like about directing communications?), it’s because I’m hoping to break into the industry myself. With all these agenda flying about, I’m not missing out.

Ultimately, no-one benefits from this constant manipulation of information – even Harry Harris has to get it right occasionally – unless we, dear readers, let them. By reading things without reading into them. By reading “it is understood” and “sources revealed” without translating them into journalists saying “my mate told me.” By ignoring the obvious questions: “If West Ham wholly-owned Tevez, why didn’t they get the whole transfer fee?”

Easy for me to say, though. I’ve got time for all this analysis as I haven’t got a proper job. Following the Liverpool saga made me think I should get out more. By now, you probably agree.

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

Entry Filed under: MotorMurph Column

© The Right Result 2008

Resources | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us