How the press works

[Dave]

'Rio Ferdinand looks like he will today win the race to be Fabio Capello's new England captain...Ferdinand, 29, is favourite to get the job around the England camp - even among those pushing the Chelsea man's case' - The Sun.

 

'Capello chooses between Ferdinand and John Terry today and sems certain to give the armband to Manchester United defender Rio' - The Daily Star.

 

'Rio Ferdinand is the favourite to take the armband on a permanent basis ahead of Terry. Capello was impressed with Ferdinand when he led the side for the first time in a friendly international defeat to France in March, regarding him as a naturally assured leader who is guaranteed his place in the side' - The Times.

 

'Rio Ferdinand is the strong favourite with the bookmakers and his selection does look plausible, even if the manager is so discreet that he will surely not have revealed his intentions in a loose-lipped moment. There will be a sense of occasion when he breaks the news' - The Guardian.

 

'Capello's willingness upon accepting the England job to try to persuade Jamie Carragher out of retirement was driven not by a desire for him to replace Ferdinand, but to play alongside him, immediately cast doubts on Terry's standing. To have someone with Ferdinand's cultured style as the on-field leader would also send out a subtle message that England are trying to move away from the up-and-at-'em English bulldog approach which has been found wanting. Consider, too, that in contrast to a series of infamous escapades earlier in his career, Ferdinand has also shown in recent seasons that he possesses a new-found sense of maturity' - The Daily Express.

 

---

 

Even after eight months in the job, it remains unclear whether Fabio Capello now understands that the English take the identity of their captain far more seriously than the Italians. It is also unclear whether he has realised that if Fleet Street hates one thing above all others, it is being proved wrong. Hopelessly, hopelessly wrong.

 

If the decision to reappoint John Terry as captain over strong favourite Rio Ferdinand was met unfavourably by the nation's football supporters then their indignation paled alongside that of the fourth estate.

 

Presumably someone at the FA realised that Capello had put himself on a dangerous collision course with Fleet Street yesterday because the press conference called to unveil the new armband-wearer was called to a halt after just 12 minutes. Official records do not exist for such matters but it is nonetheless believed to be the shortest-ever conference in history with the exception of Steve McClaren's "You write what you want" meet-and-walk-out two years ago.

 

The void of explanation has, predictably, been filled by plenty of righteous irritation at Terry's appointment. Even the broadsheets have joined in the chorus, with The Daily Telegraph pompously announcing as its back-page headline that there was 'unease at the FA over Capello's decision' and chief hack Henry Winter complaining: 'Capello appears to have given Terry the armband because he shouts a lot, because the coach is keen to get his message through to nervous players, and because the Italian's good friend, Luiz Felipe Scolari, rates his Chelsea leader highly.'

 

Nor were the assembled hacks impressed with the difficulty they encountered attempting to interrogate the Italian.

 

'Like a footballer who spends his close-season indulging himself and returns out of shape, so this summer Capello has allowed his hitherto improving grasp of the English language to become flabby and sluggish,' thundered The Independent's Sam Wallace. 'No-one would blame him for wanting to spend his holidays as far away as possible from the dreadful weather in London but unfortunately the result yesterday was that no-one knew what he was talking about.'

 

In fairness, it has to be accepted that Capello has failed to deliver on his promise, made almost ten months ago, that he would be fluent in English in a month. Yet Mediawatch can't help but suspect that such criticism would have been non-existent had Capello delivered the news that Fleet Street had promised.

 

Fabio, beware. The knives are being sharpened.

[Skirge]

'Rio Ferdinand looks like he will today win the race to be Fabio Capello's new England captain...Ferdinand, 29, is favourite to get the job around the England camp - even among those pushing the Chelsea man's case' - The Sun.

 

'Capello chooses between Ferdinand and John Terry today and sems certain to give the armband to Manchester United defender Rio' - The Daily Star.

 

'Rio Ferdinand is the favourite to take the armband on a permanent basis ahead of Terry. Capello was impressed with Ferdinand when he led the side for the first time in a friendly international defeat to France in March, regarding him as a naturally assured leader who is guaranteed his place in the side' - The Times.

 

'Rio Ferdinand is the strong favourite with the bookmakers and his selection does look plausible, even if the manager is so discreet that he will surely not have revealed his intentions in a loose-lipped moment. There will be a sense of occasion when he breaks the news' - The Guardian.

 

'Capello's willingness upon accepting the England job to try to persuade Jamie Carragher out of retirement was driven not by a desire for him to replace Ferdinand, but to play alongside him, immediately cast doubts on Terry's standing. To have someone with Ferdinand's cultured style as the on-field leader would also send out a subtle message that England are trying to move away from the up-and-at-'em English bulldog approach which has been found wanting. Consider, too, that in contrast to a series of infamous escapades earlier in his career, Ferdinand has also shown in recent seasons that he possesses a new-found sense of maturity' - The Daily Express.

 

---

 

Even after eight months in the job, it remains unclear whether Fabio Capello now understands that the English take the identity of their captain far more seriously than the Italians. It is also unclear whether he has realised that if Fleet Street hates one thing above all others, it is being proved wrong. Hopelessly, hopelessly wrong.

 

If the decision to reappoint John Terry as captain over strong favourite Rio Ferdinand was met unfavourably by the nation's football supporters then their indignation paled alongside that of the fourth estate.

 

Presumably someone at the FA realised that Capello had put himself on a dangerous collision course with Fleet Street yesterday because the press conference called to unveil the new armband-wearer was called to a halt after just 12 minutes. Official records do not exist for such matters but it is nonetheless believed to be the shortest-ever conference in history with the exception of Steve McClaren's "You write what you want" meet-and-walk-out two years ago.

 

The void of explanation has, predictably, been filled by plenty of righteous irritation at Terry's appointment. Even the broadsheets have joined in the chorus, with The Daily Telegraph pompously announcing as its back-page headline that there was 'unease at the FA over Capello's decision' and chief hack Henry Winter complaining: 'Capello appears to have given Terry the armband because he shouts a lot, because the coach is keen to get his message through to nervous players, and because the Italian's good friend, Luiz Felipe Scolari, rates his Chelsea leader highly.'

 

Nor were the assembled hacks impressed with the difficulty they encountered attempting to interrogate the Italian.

 

'Like a footballer who spends his close-season indulging himself and returns out of shape, so this summer Capello has allowed his hitherto improving grasp of the English language to become flabby and sluggish,' thundered The Independent's Sam Wallace. 'No-one would blame him for wanting to spend his holidays as far away as possible from the dreadful weather in London but unfortunately the result yesterday was that no-one knew what he was talking about.'

 

In fairness, it has to be accepted that Capello has failed to deliver on his promise, made almost ten months ago, that he would be fluent in English in a month. Yet Mediawatch can't help but suspect that such criticism would have been non-existent had Capello delivered the news that Fleet Street had promised.

 

Fabio, beware. The knives are being sharpened.

 

WOW

[AyeDubbleYoo]

To be fair to press pretty much everyone thought it would be Rio. I think it's a shame Capello has gone for the old guard rather than freshened things up a bit.

 

As someone said, it's open to debate whether Terry should even be playing in the first team.

[ATB]

To be fair to press pretty much everyone thought it would be Rio. I think it's a shame Capello has gone for the old guard rather than freshened things up a bit.

 

As someone said, it's open to debate whether Terry should even be playing in the first team.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Thanks for that.

[Mike]

So they look like fools because the manager did what he assumed was for the best, and they're pissed?

 

It's not even about what may or may not be best for the team, it's about them being able to say "You read it here first!"

[GM]

The press are, quite literally, a law unto themselves. They are the single most pernicious, undemocratic force for evil in this country, and they are charlatans to a man (or bitch, in Louise Taylor's case). Unaccountable, agenda-driving, insidious and poisonous. If we kick Capello out on a press-inspired whim, it won't surprise me one bit. They do and have done the same to NUFC for too long.

 

But, what's the answer? Boycott the press - and live in an information vacuum? No. Nobody wants to do it do they?

[OzzieMandias]

The press are, quite literally, a law unto themselves. They are the single most pernicious, undemocratic force for evil in this country, and they are charlatans to a man (or bitch, in Louise Taylor's case). Unaccountable, agenda-driving, insidious and poisonous. If we kick Capello out on a press-inspired whim, it won't surprise me one bit. They do and have done the same to NUFC for too long.

 

But, what's the answer? Boycott the press - and live in an information vacuum? No. Nobody wants to do it do they?

 

Read widely, and figure things out for yourself. It's not ALL bollocks and they're not ALL charlatans.

[afar]

A question I have always had is why are the British Press such a strong force. In the two countries, Canada and the US, I have lived recently, the press does not have anywhere near the influence it ihas in the UK.

 

Perhaps it's down to the British need to get it's fill of scandal and sleeze through this medium. Although I don't generally buy one, the papers on this side of the atlantic seem mostly fact based, yes they have their share of gutter stories but it's nowhere near on the scale of the UK.

 

Maybe it's because there are few national circulations, USA today is about the only US national I can think of, and I have no idea if Canada have a national at all. There was a paper in New York which was pretty trashy, can't remeber it's name but I've not really come across any other paper that you would say are like, the Sun or Mirror or star or News of the world or anything of that ilk.

[OzzieMandias]

Don't know how you measure comparative "influence".

 

The paper you're thinking of is the Murdoch-owned New York Post.

[Dinho lad]

I look forward to the day the press ask question of capello on how to do his job.

[afar]

Don't know how you measure comparative "influence".

 

The paper you're thinking of is the Murdoch-owned New York Post.

 

For me it's directing peoples thoughts. That's exactly what the press does in England, a large chunk of the population think how the press tells them to on issues.

 

The internet generation is a little more savvy but there is still a sizeable few who's main window on the world outside big brother is what is printed in the red tops.

[OzzieMandias]

Don't know how you measure comparative "influence".

 

The paper you're thinking of is the Murdoch-owned New York Post.

 

For me it's directing peoples thoughts. That's exactly what the press does in England, a large chunk of the population think how the press tells them to on issues.

 

The internet generation is a little more savvy but there is still a sizeable few who's main window on the world outside big brother is what is printed in the red tops.

 

I don't think it's any different in the US.

 

In today's world power is all about the control of public opinion -- never an exact science, and particularly not in a democracy, but huge amounts of time and money are spent trying to influence the media agenda in the US, successfully to a degree.

[afar]

Don't know how you measure comparative "influence".

 

The paper you're thinking of is the Murdoch-owned New York Post.

 

For me it's directing peoples thoughts. That's exactly what the press does in England, a large chunk of the population think how the press tells them to on issues.

 

The internet generation is a little more savvy but there is still a sizeable few who's main window on the world outside big brother is what is printed in the red tops.

 

I don't think it's any different in the US.

 

In today's world power is all about the control of public opinion -- never an exact science, and particularly not in a democracy, but huge amounts of time and money are spent trying to influence the media agenda in the US, successfully to a degree.

 

Media yes, I totally agree, but the with the written press I think the two countries are different.

 

[Guest Coubury]

Terrys an utter cunt

 

In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, he and Chelsea team-mates Frank Lampard, Eidur Gudjohnsen and Jody Morris were accused of drunkenly mocking American tourists at Heathrow, stripping naked, laughing and vomiting.

 

Having paid his share of the £130,000 fines imposed by Chelsea, Terry was then involved in a 1.30am fracas at London's Wellington nightclub in 2002 in which a doorman was injured.

 

He was arrested, spent a night in the cells but was later cleared of charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, unlawful wounding, possessing a bottle as an offensive weapon and affray.

 

In 2004, Terry's passion for gambling emerged. He was reportedly one of three Chelsea stars, along with Wayne Bridge and Scott Parker, said to have risked £40,000 a week between them on horse and dog races.

 

One day, Terry and Bridge were said to have blown £13,000 in three hours as they clutched rolls of £50 notes and enjoyed the 'buzz' at Coral's betting shop in Cobham, Surrey.

 

 

Meanwhile, Terry's love life has been no less colourful. He is engaged to beautician Toni Poole, 24, and in their first seven years together is said to have strayed at least eight times, but has always been forgiven.

 

Last September, he said: "I really regret what I've done to Toni. I'm not going to cheat on her ever again and want to marry her more than anything in the world."

 

But two months later lurid revelations were made in The Sun about how Terry enjoyed a passionate clinch in his £100,000 Bentley with a busty teenager who had asked for his autograph and then sent her lewd text messages suggesting a threesome with one of her friends.

 

[chicago_shearer]

Don't know how you measure comparative "influence".

 

The paper you're thinking of is the Murdoch-owned New York Post.

 

For me it's directing peoples thoughts. That's exactly what the press does in England, a large chunk of the population think how the press tells them to on issues.

 

The internet generation is a little more savvy but there is still a sizeable few who's main window on the world outside big brother is what is printed in the red tops.

 

I don't think it's any different in the US.

 

In today's world power is all about the control of public opinion -- never an exact science, and particularly not in a democracy, but huge amounts of time and money are spent trying to influence the media agenda in the US, successfully to a degree.

 

I don't think it is the same, because you've identified two different problems.  I don't know which is worse.  The media over here frequently seem to be in the pocket of powerful interests, but they are essentially conservative, weak and afraid to rock the boat.  We get watered down coverage of the war, Obama's glowing media coverage, the Edwards affair gets swept under the rug....there are many recent examples.  The organization is also different, because there is essentially one national daily - USA Today - and nobody reads it.  TV is the source for news in this country, and the style of journalism is basically just to read the major local headline, give the sports scores, the weather, the traffic etc.  Every nightly local television newscast in the US usually ends with a cuddly human interest story about a cat in a tree being rescued or a child with some disease making a miracle recovery.  The media in the US get told the agenda to pursue, as you said.  That means that we don't get people like Paxman on TV.   When it comes to sports, you simply don't get the level of media criticism that you find in the UK.  That may be because sports coverage is local, people rarely travel to support their team away from home and you don't find national dailies.  The closest you get is cable sports coverage like ESPN, and lots of annoying Alan Oliver types covering their individual market and occasionally contributing to national television coverage.  But on the whole they have no personal or collective agenda.  It is more entertainment/show business than journalism.

 

Unlike the US, the media in the UK seem to decide the agenda they want and also have the power to influence popular opinion.  They are a law unto themselves.  Who The Sun decides to back in an election apparently seems to matter.  In the US, we know that Fox News is conservative and MSNBC is a little more liberal, so you just decide which slant you want.  Of course, there are columnists and reporters that matter when it comes to national politics in America, but there is no "Fleet Street" equivalent that can really affect national or local sports coverage.   If Henry Winter or Martin Samuel don't like Capello's choice for captain, they can spend the next year undermining him during the qualifiers.  As I said, the closest equivalent in America is ESPN or talk radio but even then it just isn't the same level of influence or intensity.

 

 

[afar]

Don't know how you measure comparative "influence".

 

The paper you're thinking of is the Murdoch-owned New York Post.

 

For me it's directing peoples thoughts. That's exactly what the press does in England, a large chunk of the population think how the press tells them to on issues.

 

The internet generation is a little more savvy but there is still a sizeable few who's main window on the world outside big brother is what is printed in the red tops.

 

I don't think it's any different in the US.

 

In today's world power is all about the control of public opinion -- never an exact science, and particularly not in a democracy, but huge amounts of time and money are spent trying to influence the media agenda in the US, successfully to a degree.

 

I don't think it is the same, because you've identified two different problems.  I don't know which is worse.  The media over here frequently seem to be in the pocket of powerful interests, but they are essentially conservative, weak and afraid to rock the boat.  We get watered down coverage of the war, Obama's glowing media coverage, the Edwards affair gets swept under the rug....there are many recent examples.  The organization is also different, because there is essentially one national daily - USA Today - and nobody reads it.  TV is the source for news in this country, and the style of journalism is basically just to read the major local headline, give the sports scores, the weather, the traffic etc.  Every nightly local television newscast in the US usually ends with a cuddly human interest story about a cat in a tree being rescued or a child with some disease making a miracle recovery.  The media in the US get told the agenda to pursue, as you said.  That means that we don't get people like Paxman on TV.   When it comes to sports, you simply don't get the level of media criticism that you find in the UK.  That may be because sports coverage is local, people rarely travel to support their team away from home and you don't find national dailies.  The closest you get is cable sports coverage like ESPN, and lots of annoying Alan Oliver types covering their individual market and occasionally contributing to national television coverage.  But on the whole they have no personal or collective agenda.  It is more entertainment/show business than journalism.

 

Unlike the US, the media in the UK seem to decide the agenda they want and also have the power to influence popular opinion.  They are a law unto themselves.  Who The Sun decides to back in an election apparently seems to matter.  In the US, we know that Fox News is conservative and MSNBC is a little more liberal, so you just decide which slant you want.  Of course, there are columnists and reporters that matter when it comes to national politics in America, but there is no "Fleet Street" equivalent that can really affect national or local sports coverage.   If Henry Winter or Martin Samuel don't like Capello's choice for captain, they can spend the next year undermining him during the qualifiers.  As I said, the closest equivalent in America is ESPN or talk radio but even then it just isn't the same level of influence or intensity.

 

 

 

I guess that pretty much the point I was trying to make.

[Robster]

I think that Capello has enough about him to just think

"Fuck them, I am Italian, I am getting paid a squillion pounds a day, I have the track record of success all over Europe. If they want to hound me out then let them"

 

Its just going to keep carrying on this; that he press will just pound on the England Manager.

We just keep ending up at square one with a new manager who can do very little with a limited ability squad of players

 

[madras]

Don't know how you measure comparative "influence".

 

The paper you're thinking of is the Murdoch-owned New York Post.

 

For me it's directing peoples thoughts. That's exactly what the press does in England, a large chunk of the population think how the press tells them to on issues.

 

The internet generation is a little more savvy but there is still a sizeable few who's main window on the world outside big brother is what is printed in the red tops.

 

I don't think it's any different in the US.

 

In today's world power is all about the control of public opinion -- never an exact science, and particularly not in a democracy, but huge amounts of time and money are spent trying to influence the media agenda in the US, successfully to a degree.

 

Media yes, I totally agree, but the with the written press I think the two countries are different.

 

theres an argument to be made that society gets the press it wants and the press pander to it.

[Dr Venkman]

i was pretty impressed by the way he spoke english to be fair

[ATB]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport/football/article-1047600/HATCHET-MAN-Toon-owner-Mike-Ashley-offers-Newcastle-fans-free-pain-relief--pint.html?ITO=1490

 

HATCHET MAN: Toon owner Mike Ashley offers Newcastle fans free pain relief - by the pint

 

By Hatchet Man

Last updated at 11:31 AM on 21st August 2008

 

Mike Ashley

 

The landlord: Mike Ashley

 

Mike Ashley has given up on trying to win over the Newcastle fans with stunning new signings and successful football and has gone for the lowest common denominator: fans' liking for free beer.

 

That he is having to bribe the Toon army in an attempt to fill St James' Park for the first home game of the season against Bolton despite their creditable draw at Manchester United speaks volumes.

 

But maybe it is a humanitarian gesture from Ashley: if supporters drink enough before games, they won't feel the pain.

 

:colo: