NUFC media bans - Telegraph now banned from club

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We barely feature in the national press as it is, except for match reports.

[AlanSkÃrare]

Good question regarding SportsDirectNews. Wonder whether they'll pay for exclusives as well?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Good question regarding SportsDirectNews. Wonder whether they'll pay for exclusives as well?

 

As they make them up, they'll get them for free.

[AlanSkÃrare]

Good question regarding SportsDirectNews. Wonder whether they'll pay for exclusives as well?

 

As they make them up, they'll get them for free.

 

Rumours is one thing. Not the interviews (and there has been several).

 

Mark Douglas just said the club "accomodated Tioté and Pardew for exclusives" this summer.

[TK-421]

Good question regarding SportsDirectNews. Wonder whether they'll pay for exclusives as well?

 

They'll probably just pay a similar amount as SD do for the in/around ground advertising.

[jdckelly]

I find myself rather unconcerned with this. The level of offended squealing from the media should be amusing.

[Chris_R]

We get nothing interesting from the players anyway, all the important topics that we'd like the papers to address are banned anyway.

 

I couldn't give 2 shits if I can no longer read what Steven Taylor had for lunch. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

 

Maybe this closing-off of such inane drivel will force the nation's hacks to finally do a bit of proper journalism?

[Wallace]

I quite enjoy the more in-depth interviews that e.g. Caulkin does with a player and that tell you something you don't know.  Player interviews pre and post games are a waste of time - same old soundbites and towing the party line.

 

I wonder when the club want to promote something such as their Wonga deal or anything that promotes the club in a more positive light whether they might find a lack of interest from the newspapers.

[AlanSkÃrare]

It's their way of controlling reporting on the club and subsequently adjust the perception of the way things are being done. That's a concern in my view.

[Guest icemanblue]

It's their way of controlling reporting on the club and subsequently adjust the perception of the way things are being done. That's a concern in my view.

 

Is it, though? How exactly can we control what's being reported, outside of a few player interviews? The gossip, opinion, shite, will remain. The press won't suddenly forget about us, because they're not paying.

[Elliottman]

From my view, apart from a few snidey remarks, the Journal and Chron has been exactly the same. By that, I mean shite. Much prefer reading the articles from .com or the Mag, something like that.

[AlanSkÃrare]

It's their way of controlling reporting on the club and subsequently adjust the perception of the way things are being done. That's a concern in my view.

 

Is it, though? How exactly can we control what's being reported, outside of a few player interviews? The gossip, opinion, s****, will remain. The press won't suddenly forget about us, because they're not paying.

 

You maybe right, but the way things are have evolved latelyI think there's every reason to suspect they're looking to control more of what's being said and done. Changing the power to the club - i.e. getting the upper hand in the relationship to the press, would go some way to control what's being written. It goes hand in hand with the decision to ban the local media. In this new packaging, papers will most likely get access to a specific amount of features on a number of conditions. Reporting negatively on the club's ambition and finances would probably not be appreciated in that agreement.

[ScottishMagpie]

It's their way of controlling reporting on the club and subsequently adjust the perception of the way things are being done. That's a concern in my view.

 

Is it, though? How exactly can we control what's being reported, outside of a few player interviews? The gossip, opinion, s****, will remain. The press won't suddenly forget about us, because they're not paying.

 

Very good point.  I could maybe just begin to see their point IF the press had been mis-reporting or  purposefully biased based on these 1-2-1 interviews.  As far as I can recall I don't think that's happened. 

[NUFC]

From my view, apart from a few snidey remarks, the Journal and Chron has been exactly the same. By that, I mean s****. Much prefer reading the articles from .com or the Mag, something like that.

 

nufc.com's "articles" (using the term very loosly) are awful,  waste of internet bandwidth tbh.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Good question regarding SportsDirectNews. Wonder whether they'll pay for exclusives as well?

 

As they make them up, they'll get them for free.

 

Rumours is one thing. Not the interviews (and there has been several).

 

Mark Douglas just said the club "accomodated Tioté and Pardew for exclusives" this summer.

 

I didn't know they actually did proper interviews. Fair play to the lads.

[Tiresias]

We're going to be the only club ignored a lot by the media for good reasons

[BottledDog]

We're going to be the only club ignored a lot by the media for good reasons

 

You what? The press can still write as much as they want, but if they would like interviews outside of scheduled press conferences etc, then pay for club employees time, as I suspect the tv companies do as part of their contracts.

 

Also, if this is even implemented, I'd be amazed if we were the only club doing it. Just seems like an extra revenue stream that avoids hitting the rest of us in the pocket.

[captainhaircut]

The papers will moan about this but it's only right if you ask me. They should pay for access and share the profits they make by having these exclusive interviews.

 

They will say that they provide publicity- like someone from Apple giving an interview to a technology journo.

 

The problem is that those in charge of papers are hugely wrong if they think football clubs need them to drum up interest in this day and age. Not with the amount of tv coverage and material on the Internet.

[Tiresias]

I know what you mean but I suspect the papers will be so offended (a lot hardly loaded unlike tv) that they'll rather not give us the publicity.

 

It just seems a scroungy pathetic commercialization of every last aspect of the club, just petty to the absolute last.

[jdckelly]

my only surprise is no other prem club hasn't tried this before, tv and radio pay for access already so I'm surprised no one tried this before now.

[Slim]

Do people even read papers these days.

[Tiresias]

I admit bringing it into line with radio and tv does make sense on one level, but papers apart from the murdoch owned are hardly that cash rich. Access should be a reward for good journalism on the club, will always be biased towards pro club stuff but a solid media keeping clubs honest is beneficial for all (except maniacal owners)

[BottledDog]

Petty my arse. The press profit from us like any other media organisation. This isn't going to stop anyone writing shit about us, you just have to look at the Journals posturing to see that.

Seems like you're just getting in a tiz over it because you don't enjoy the idea of us trying to increase revenues (without hitting us supporters in the pocket I might add) as long as you see it as an Ashley backed initiative. All power to his elbow.

[Tiresias]

Petty my arse. The press profit from us like any other media organisation. This isn't going to stop anyone writing s*** about us, you just have to look at the Journals posturing to see that.

Seems like you're just getting in a tiz over it because you don't enjoy the idea of us trying to increase revenues (without hitting us supporters in the pocket I might add) as long as you see it as an Ashley backed initiative. All power to his elbow.

 

I can't imagine it is going to be any big gain in revenues though. Fair enough.