Jump to content
IGNORED

Evening Post are sorry

SE23Red

By SE23Red
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

SE23Red

SE23Red

Posted
Posted

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode...;pNodeId=221340

I find it hard to disagree with these fans and the many others who have contacted us about this story. In short, we got it wrong. Bradley Orr was the victim at Ashton Gate. His recent criminal past was irrelevant to the story, as was that of Steve Brooker, Dave Partridge and Scott Brown. To mention their recent history was an error of judgment. It was the wrong decision and I would like to apologise for it.

However, what I cannot agree with is how some fans - particularly some who have written to us online - then take a leap of faith to the conclusion that the story was indicative of some kind of Post bias against Bristol City. There is no such thing. Anyone who reads the Post every day will know that.

This paper is a great editorial and commercial supporter of both City and Rovers. And to that support we add scrutiny, because our other role is to ask difficult questions on behalf of the fans. That support and scrutiny are dished out in equal measure to both clubs.

Finally, City fans who think we're pro-Rovers might like to know that, over the years, just as many Rovers fans have contacted us to accuse the Post of being pro-City.

Mike Norton, Editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Boy

Bristol Boy

Posted
Posted

Well, at least they've apologised.

My only issue is that someone thought they'd write in that manner, with that content, in the first place.That smacks of sensationalism more than bias and, like all written media, the onset of the Internet has caused circulation to drop and even the way they calculate readers is laughable, assuming that each copy is read by four people??

In short, they're desperate to sell and headlines encourage the general public to buy it, which, in itself, is even sadder than writing it in my view.

In the days when I bought the EP, I read it and then binned it.

The answer's simple.Don't buy it.Don't read it.......all together now......."Oh I'd rather read a paper than the Post............" and for the Journo "He's the meanest :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
citybabe

citybabe

Posted
Posted

Thats still not good enough I'm going to email him and ask him this

A few comments on this

1. As the original story was on the frontpage, this apology should also be on the front page.

2. Was there any need to mention his 'criminal past'again in the apology

3. Why has it taken you three days to do this

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SE23Red

SE23Red

Posted
  • Author
Posted
"His recent criminal past" Whoops he did it again. Is it relevant to an apology, was in neccesary to state it once again. No it wasn't. Has this editor got a brain?

We do have to accept that he does have a recent criminal past though, don't we? I must admit I read the apology somewhat cynically. One paragraph to say sorry and three to say we are not biased is the wrong emphasis in my mind. But the statement that made me laugh out loud was this:

And to that support we add scrutiny, because our other role is to ask difficult questions on behalf of the fans.

If they actually did this it might be a paper worth reading. All in all I read the statement as "I'm doing this because I have to but not much is going to change".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedM

RedM

Posted
Posted
Well, at least they've apologised.

My only issue is that someone thought they'd write in that manner, with that content, in the first place.

Yes at least they've apologised, but it's easy to say sorry isn't it. It's almost like writing something libelous and then adding 'allegedly' after it As far as I'm concerned. It doesn't excuse anything. It wuld be nice if they were to offer a gesture of goodwill of some sort to the Club, maybe a donation to a Charity or hospital of the clubs choice perhaps? I think they need to build a few bridges which won't be easy.

I can't believe a reporter can write an article and it then gets sent to print. Doesn't anyone have to approve it, thats what Editors and their assistants do I thought? How did they all think it wouldn't cause some negative reaction, it was Front Page after all, not hidden on the bottom of page 10 or something? I thought it was so over the top it was almost like a joke email in content which somehow got sent to print.

Shoddy and Sloppy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Milo

Milo

Posted
Posted

From the opening line of the article it looks like there are fans' letters accompanying it in the paper which presumably complain about the inclusion of the reference to the players' past records so it seems appropriate to make reference to the criminal record in the apology.

They are right that they should scutinise as well as support. I'm sure none of us want them to be sycophantic, turning a blind eye to issues that could effect us all. But what matters is getting the balance right and being consistent. They're a bit like the referee - we want them to let the game flow, to help us enjoy our football and to be impartial but when there are too many inconsistencies we understandably get on their backs.

Unlike with a poor refereeing display, we have had an apology and I respect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muddy Funster

Muddy Funster

Posted
Posted

The Post have always had to try and sell papers, and the only way to do this sometimes is to beef up a story.

If i were to claim that all the reporters are vicious thugs with criminal records (which undoubtably one or two members of the post have, for whatever cime they have been done for) (allegedly of course folks!!!) on the front page of a paper i would be hung out to dry, and 'apologising' on some back water page does not smack of a sincere apology.

It is time the club take the Post to task over this gross mis reporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badger22

badger22

Posted
Posted
Do you mean my comment or Mike Norton's - if mine please explain

Thanks

I think your comments sum this club up!!!

Look, something has been done, they've said sorry, what more do you want?

People always want more...... Its never good enough is it?

Lets put this to bed now, if we keep bringing it up it will get more publicity and drag the Bradey Orr/Brooker/Partridge/Brown incident thought the papers again, which is exactly what you are trying to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • SC&T Board Members
Blagdon red

Blagdon red

Posted
  • SC&T Board Members
Posted
Yes at least they've apologised, but it's easy to say sorry isn't it. It's almost like writing something libelous and then adding 'allegedly' after it As far as I'm concerned. It doesn't excuse anything. It wuld be nice if they were to offer a gesture of goodwill of some sort to the Club, maybe a donation to a Charity or hospital of the clubs choice perhaps? I think they need to build a few bridges which won't be easy.

I can't believe a reporter can write an article and it then gets sent to print. Doesn't anyone have to approve it, thats what Editors and their assistants do I thought? How did they all think it wouldn't cause some negative reaction, it was Front Page after all, not hidden on the bottom of page 10 or something? I thought it was so over the top it was almost like a joke email in content which somehow got sent to print.

Shoddy and Sloppy.

The story would have been reviewed and edited by a sub-editor and, as it was on the front page, almost certainly reviewed by the editor himself ... so it was an 'error of judgement' on the part of at least 3 people, not just one errant reporter.

The editor does indeed show his lack of judgement again in his apology, not so much by reference to Orr's 'recent criminal past' (which is a matter of record and relevant to the apology) but by failing to resist having a dig at Brooker, Brown and Partridge in the process (none of whom have anything to do with the incident in question and are therefore not relevant to the apology). It does show - if not an anti-City bias - then certainly an inclination to 'muck rake'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SE23Red

SE23Red

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The story would have been reviewed and edited by a sub-editor and, as it was on the front page, almost certainly reviewed by the editor himself ... so it was an 'error of judgement' on the part of at least 3 people, not just one errant reporter.

The editor does indeed show his lack of judgement again in his apology, not so much by reference to Orr's 'recent criminal past' (which is a matter of record and relevant to the apology) but by failing to resist having a dig at Brooker, Brown and Partridge in the process (none of whom have anything to do with the incident in question and are therefore not relevant to the apology). It does show - if not an anti-City bias - then certainly an inclination to 'muck rake'!

Somehow they managed to find reason to bring Brown, Partridge and Brooker into the original article, one of the many 'errors of judgement'. So I can see why they are mentioned now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • SC&T Board Members
Blagdon red

Blagdon red

Posted
  • SC&T Board Members
Posted
Somehow they managed to find reason to bring Brown, Partridge and Brooker into the original article, one of the many 'errors of judgement'. So I can see why they are mentioned now.

Yep, re-reading the apology I see what you mean ... he is apologising for mentioning them in the first place.

I wonder how much ad revenue they have lost / stood to lose to make them eat such humble pie?! Can't believe they would have apologised just because of a few complaints from fans. Money talks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
citybabe

citybabe

Posted
Posted
I think your comments sum this club up!!!

Look, something has been done, they've said sorry, what more do you want?

People always want more...... Its never good enough is it?

Lets put this to bed now, if we keep bringing it up it will get more publicity and drag the Bradey Orr/Brooker/Partridge/Brown incident thought the papers again, which is exactly what you are trying to stop.

I think the apology should have been on the front page where the original article was, as I no longer by the Evening Post, I only knew about the apology because of the link on this forum. I also believe the apology could have been printed earlier as the editor was well aware of the furore the article had caused as the 'comment on this article' link kept crashing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SE23Red

SE23Red

Posted
  • Author
Posted
To take that to its' logic extreme, every rape victims' conviction for shoplifting would be reported, do you honestly think that happens?

I'm not saying it should have been reported in the original article, in fact I wrote to the editor to complain that it had no relevance. But I don't see how he can apologise for that mistake without making reference to it in the apology, so don't go along with the suggestion from cheshire_red that this compounds the original error of judgement. The fact is Bradley Orr does have a criminal conviction. The error the EP made was making reference to it without justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibor

Nibor

Posted
Posted
I'm not saying it should have been reported in the original article, in fact I wrote to the editor to complain that it had no relevance. But I don't see how he can apologise for that mistake without making reference to it in the apology, so don't go along with the suggestion from cheshire_red that this compounds the original error of judgement. The fact is Bradley Orr does have a criminal conviction. The error the EP made was making reference to it without justification.

Would have been quite simple to say "we should have made no mention of previous incidents".

The way it's phrased makes it sound like he spent 20 years masterminding organized crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibor

Nibor

Posted
Posted
Only if you want it to.

No, I don't want it to sound like that but it does to me. The Krays had a criminal past. Someone who gets pissed and does something stupid might end up getting convicted but the phrase has connotations that aren't really fair. It's emotive use of language and I think it's deliberate, these guys are shit lazy reporters but they know how to play with words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boadle

boadle

Posted
Posted
I have asked this in the comments part

Can you confirm for us then Mr Editor using the Freedom Of Information Act how many rovers fans this is compared to City?

The Freedom of Information Act applies to Public Authorities, not privately owned newspapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
exiledinwatford

exiledinwatford

Posted
Posted

I still can't understand why this made the front page in the first place? The paper (and Twentyman) made it sound like some sort of pitch riot. It was only 1 clown who was to blameand no one was injured .

It seems to me than there's nothing more the EP (and Radio Bristol) love more than BCFC bashing.

Don't buy the damn rag! :city:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...