You also have to take into account who wrote the article, even with the broadsheets there are some terrible journalists working for them, so you have to be cautious of who has written it.

I know, that was my point - there sources are not internal, but plucked from goal.com dailymail etc...



Other media don't report rumours as rumours though, they report it as fact.

What I'm getting at Robben is that if MUTV report something about the club, for example, a statement from the club, that is a reliable source of information.

Russian I'd say that was very true a few years back but the BBC seem to be changing quite a lot, they are supposed to be impartial in their news and only present the facts but they are changing, I remember watching their rolling news of the Paris attacks and they were reporting that the Calais Jungle was on fire based on Twitter comments, they would have never reported such a story with little to no proof before. They also make sh-t loads of money from programs like Strictly and Top Gear from selling rights abroad.

-----------------------------------------

I totally accept that standards are eroded, particularly in this 24-hour rolling news climate where you always have to be saying something even if nothing new has happened. I particularly loathe the way reporting on what people are tweeting has come to be regarded as newsworthy. Also, it's worth qualifying what I said before with the fact that the BBC is under pressure to be relevant, i.e. to attract audiences, even if it doesn't have the direct audience:income relationship that commercial media do.

At the same time, I think the BBC's unique position gives it the luxury to not have to chase trivial transfer gossip stories to the same extent that the others do. And it's my observation that their website doesn't seem to carry content along the lines of 'it's understood that Man Utd are considering buying X' and presenting that as news. Most of it is based on attributed quotes or at the very least an off-the-record briefing from someone mandated to speak for whoever he's speaking for.

Of course, we may see further erosion of standards in the coming years.

comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 11 minutes ago
What I'm getting at Robben is that if MUTV report something about the club, for example, a statement from the club, that is a reliable source of information.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes, if it is a statement, of course.

Such as: "Louis van Gaal has left the club by mutual consent. We thank him for his time and wish him the best of luck in future"

Russian

True, I don't have any examples to hand but I'm sure I have seen the BBC write the odd 'Club X might be interested in Player A' article, but yeah, usually it's in their Gossip column.

What annoys me about the BBC (primarily BBC1 and Radio 1) is that they are supposed to offer the public a service that educates and informs, they are free from advertising and rating should not be an issue yet they put out krap like the Voice, a program they don't even own and have to pay large sums to use, a program that is made for the only purpose to get high ratings and in doing so pays huge wages to their hosts. Radio 1 is even worse, a station that has it's output pretty much controlled but the main record companies to play the hits to get high ratings. I know the BBC do some brilliant things and I'm happy to pay my TV license for them, I just wish it toned down the marketable BS. Apart from the football and Attenbrough BBC1 is about as good as Channel 5.

Robben - I think what Mud was hoping for is you agreeing MUTV is a credible source when it comes to reporting United news and their reporting that lVG did not offer his resignation was somehow an official club statement.

But this clearly wasnt the case or the statement would have been on the club website.

Guys, I'm neither jealous or obsessed. I'm spy try to identify who we as the contributors to the board consider to be reliable, credible sources / outlets as clearly someone within the supposedly credible broadsheets has been fibbing in recent days / weeks.

"credible broadsheets "

This is where you are making a mistake

1982, I give the BBC some leeway because it's always under pressure from those who want to get rid of the licence fee to prove it is serving the public as a whole by serving up shows that attract big audiences. Also, I think the Tories imposed rules on a certain amount of their content being made by private suppliers years ago.

RDD

Whether Robben agrees with MUDd or not is irrelevant. MUTV is owned and run by the club.

It is therefore more reliable than any newspaper and other media source.

Essentially, it cannot bring the club into disrepute or publish information that may be speculative or untrue.

Ussian

But I think it's job to at least raise the standards. Just because everyone else is dumbing down it's sad the BBC feel the need to too. Even though strictly isn't my cup of tea I see some kind of originality in it and there's history there with the BBC, the Voice on the other hand is just a sh-t version of the X Factor (another program not for me but one ITV do an incredible job producing).

Just look at the BBC's comedy output in recent years, it's so poor and sad to see.

Ussian

Reddevilsdouble- il just say it was a joke (U12215)
posted 25 minutes ago
Robben - I think what Mud was hoping for is you agreeing MUTV is a credible source when it comes to reporting United news and their reporting that lVG did not offer his resignation was somehow an official club statement.

But this clearly wasnt the case or the statement would have been on the club website.
....

Once again you've just completely ignored what was explained to you yesterday.

Such a reeetard. RDD, is going on my list - above Maf, but below WNM

Just to put a bit of perspective on it, how much crap were MUTV in with the club when they aired the Keane revelations?

It's a propaganda outlet for the club.

Red Russian

It seems to be an accepted norm when publishing news about potential transfers and the mood inside a FC that journalists today don't have to know a story is true, or even believe it is. It's enough to have been told something by someone (whatever their agenda and however authoritative they are), and then to tantalise the reader with unsubstantiated gossip using 'according to sources close to' or 'it is understood that' or 'within the club there is feeling that' as cover for the uncertainty.
===============================
What passes as 'mainstream' (or more accurately put, corporate) journalism is nothing more than stenography. This is evidently true in sporting news however...

In other words, the ethics that would see journalists lose credibility in political or foreign affairs reporting don't seem to apply. Standards of objectivity have been driven down by commercial competitive pressures in a market hungry 24/7 for hints at what's going on.
=======================

Journalists reporting on these topics are also guilty of stenography. Producing serious, critical reporting on power is to be guilty of committing the sin of actual journalism. So I'm sure which 'ethics' you're referring to? And in any case, the opposite of this is true:

"the ethics that would see journalists lose credibility in political or foreign affairs reporting don't seem to apply."

On the contrary, journalists are more likely to get nice well paid jobs at the major media outlets by doing exactly as you describe. Dissent and actual journalism rarely make it through. Stenography and servility to power on the other hand...

VC - here is a question for you that will destroy your argument re MUTV be a reliable outlet. Who did they quote when reporting LVG did not offer his resignation?

Can anybody tell Mud, VC and Ruiney why the 'official club statement' supposedly issued by MUTV re LVG not resigning didn't appear on the official club website?

I would have but you didn't namecheck me.

Go for it

Show me where it says that the denial was an official club statement