Birmingham Mail and Villa coverage

[Dave]

I don't see what benefit it would be to have the local press as just another set of cheerleaders.

Sorry? What?

You see no benefit of our biggest local newspaper being a cheerleader for a club in it's catchment area who have been going through a fuck of a tough time and now have the chance of winning THE FA Cup?

For what seems to be the hundredth time, they should be praised when it is due and criticized when it is due.

Are you saying that if the club does something worthy of criticism then the local press shouldn't criticize them?

[Toronto Villa]

I want the local paper to be balanced. But when there is something really good to talk about and get behind they should be doing that. We've given the local media loads of ammunition over the past few years to hammer us. Balance would be getting behind us 100% and wanting Villa to win the cup.

[Dave]

I want the local paper to be balanced. But when there is something really good to talk about and get behind they should be doing that.

Exactly.

[ciggiesnbeer]

Why is that a higher standard though? I am genuinely curious. The Mail & WM are local media. I would hope and expect that local media want the best for the area and local teams, certainly thats the way most local papers operate. Here in the USA there is universal support for local teams. I mean what would the the "balance" in sports be for? People stopping off in Birmingham motorway services looking for general football coverage and not wanting to see Birmingham area teams covered supportively?

I am not being antagonistic I am genuinely curious why you wouldn't want the Mail to be supportive of all the local teams? Balanced should be for national media surely?

Apologies for the delay in replying - meant to last night before the laptop battery died.

The club have their own media for universal positivity - the official site, the matchday programme etc. The supporters have their own platform to give their opinions - fanzines and websites such as this one and others. I don't see what benefit it would be to have the local press as just another set of cheerleaders.

If there were something newsworthy that reflected negatively on the club, would you want it to be reported? To give a couple of examples, if the Mail had got hold of the Cowans/Dunne/Collins incident from a few years back, would you want them to not mention it? Or the more recent Culverhouse/Karsa kerfuffle. Neither incident showed the club if a particularly positive light, but when something like that happens then I don't think there are many supporters who wouldn't want to be aware of it.

There's also the the grey area of what actually constitutes supportive coverage. PWS gave the example earlier in the thread that while Carson Yeung was running Blues into the ground the Mail barely reported on the mess that he was making of it. Is that supporting the club by not calling the owners out on the shit job that they were doing?

If we were ever in a similar position I wouldn't want the local media running "everything is fine" stories, I'd want them to be criticizing wherever and whenever it was necessary.

Thanks for the response. I think that makes complete sense.

However the attack opinion piece about Beneteke by the music journo isn't criticizing anything the club has done, it is just desperately trying to be negative about Aston Villa for no reason at all. Thats not balanced, or reporting the news, its just trying to find anything to say so long as it is negative. In this case criticizing the hypothetical reaction of fans to a hypothetical negative event which has not happened.

Combine that with the same time the paper quite overtly making the most negative spin possible on a comment by Prince William and I think you can see why many of us threw our arms up in the air with the cry of "really?"

[Dave]

Why is that a higher standard though? I am genuinely curious. The Mail & WM are local media. I would hope and expect that local media want the best for the area and local teams, certainly thats the way most local papers operate. Here in the USA there is universal support for local teams. I mean what would the the "balance" in sports be for? People stopping off in Birmingham motorway services looking for general football coverage and not wanting to see Birmingham area teams covered supportively?

I am not being antagonistic I am genuinely curious why you wouldn't want the Mail to be supportive of all the local teams? Balanced should be for national media surely?

Apologies for the delay in replying - meant to last night before the laptop battery died.

The club have their own media for universal positivity - the official site, the matchday programme etc. The supporters have their own platform to give their opinions - fanzines and websites such as this one and others. I don't see what benefit it would be to have the local press as just another set of cheerleaders.

If there were something newsworthy that reflected negatively on the club, would you want it to be reported? To give a couple of examples, if the Mail had got hold of the Cowans/Dunne/Collins incident from a few years back, would you want them to not mention it? Or the more recent Culverhouse/Karsa kerfuffle. Neither incident showed the club if a particularly positive light, but when something like that happens then I don't think there are many supporters who wouldn't want to be aware of it.

There's also the the grey area of what actually constitutes supportive coverage. PWS gave the example earlier in the thread that while Carson Yeung was running Blues into the ground the Mail barely reported on the mess that he was making of it. Is that supporting the club by not calling the owners out on the shit job that they were doing?

If we were ever in a similar position I wouldn't want the local media running "everything is fine" stories, I'd want them to be criticizing wherever and whenever it was necessary.

Thanks for the response. I think that makes complete sense.

However the attack opinion piece about Beneteke by the music journo isn't criticizing anything the club has done, it is just desperately trying to be negative about Aston Villa for no reason at all. Thats not balanced, or reporting the news, its just trying to find anything to say so long as it is negative. In this case criticizing the hypothetical reaction of fans to a hypothetical negative event which has not happened.

Like I said at the very start of this, I don't think they necessarily are being balanced at the moment. I just said that I don't want them to report in a biased fashion, either for us or against us.

Others seem to want them to be purely positive about the club, which I think is daft. But each to their own.

And without wanting to start this merry-go-round again, I still can't see what makes it an 'attack opinion piece'.

The worst thing that I can see in the entire article is "If he does leave, and it’s by no means certain, hopefully some will be able to refrain from giving him the label of greedy and appreciate his years of contribution to the Aston Villa cause." That's hardly Bill Howell levels of opprobrium.

The sub-editors have put a silly title on it, but that's not the writer's fault. Which parts of it have got people worked up?

[ciggiesnbeer]

Why is that a higher standard though? I am genuinely curious. The Mail & WM are local media. I would hope and expect that local media want the best for the area and local teams, certainly thats the way most local papers operate. Here in the USA there is universal support for local teams. I mean what would the the "balance" in sports be for? People stopping off in Birmingham motorway services looking for general football coverage and not wanting to see Birmingham area teams covered supportively?

I am not being antagonistic I am genuinely curious why you wouldn't want the Mail to be supportive of all the local teams? Balanced should be for national media surely?

Apologies for the delay in replying - meant to last night before the laptop battery died.

The club have their own media for universal positivity - the official site, the matchday programme etc. The supporters have their own platform to give their opinions - fanzines and websites such as this one and others. I don't see what benefit it would be to have the local press as just another set of cheerleaders.

If there were something newsworthy that reflected negatively on the club, would you want it to be reported? To give a couple of examples, if the Mail had got hold of the Cowans/Dunne/Collins incident from a few years back, would you want them to not mention it? Or the more recent Culverhouse/Karsa kerfuffle. Neither incident showed the club if a particularly positive light, but when something like that happens then I don't think there are many supporters who wouldn't want to be aware of it.

There's also the the grey area of what actually constitutes supportive coverage. PWS gave the example earlier in the thread that while Carson Yeung was running Blues into the ground the Mail barely reported on the mess that he was making of it. Is that supporting the club by not calling the owners out on the shit job that they were doing?

If we were ever in a similar position I wouldn't want the local media running "everything is fine" stories, I'd want them to be criticizing wherever and whenever it was necessary.

Thanks for the response. I think that makes complete sense.

However the attack opinion piece about Beneteke by the music journo isn't criticizing anything the club has done, it is just desperately trying to be negative about Aston Villa for no reason at all. Thats not balanced, or reporting the news, its just trying to find anything to say so long as it is negative. In this case criticizing the hypothetical reaction of fans to a hypothetical negative event which has not happened.

Like I said at the very start of this, I don't think they necessarily are being balanced at the moment. I just said that I don't want them to report in a biased fashion, either for us or against us.

Others seem to want them to be purely positive about the club, which I think is daft. But each to their own.

And without wanting to start this merry-go-round again, I still can't see what makes it an 'attack opinion piece'.

The worst thing that I can see in the entire article is "If he does leave, and it’s by no means certain, hopefully some will be able to refrain from giving him the label of greedy and appreciate his years of contribution to the Aston Villa cause." That's hardly Bill Howell levels of opprobrium.

The sub-editors have put a silly title on it, but that's not the writer's fault. Which parts of it have got people worked up?

Cheers. I get where you are coming from. To maybe help us get off the merry go round I can tell you what pisses me off about the piece. Its existence. I question why it is there.

For me it is identical to as if the mail had asked the local crime journalist who never writes about sports for an opinion about Villa and he wrote something like

"If Villa are relegated in 2016, and it’s by no means certain, hopefully some will be able to refrain from giving Lerner the label of greedy and appreciate his years of contribution to the Aston Villa cause."

And the mail happily printed it.

Again I come back to why are we discussing a negative event that has not happened and having a pop at fans for a speculated reaction?  Why would the mail commission such a piece? It serves no purpose other than a negative one.

Anyway hopefully that explains why I am so royally pissed off about it particularly when combined with the other two negative stories they ran at the same time.

Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get us

edit: I REALLY hate mac's autocorrect

[tomd2103]

I think they should be doing all of the pre final excitement stuff - pullouts and competitions and all that

Fair play to them, they did have a piece on the FA Cup final in the Villa section yesterday.  It was about Arsene Wenger and Arsenal, but there you go.

[Steve R]

....

I reckon it's just a "Liverpool Echo" article, reposted to the Mail site.  Free content.

It's been a couple of years since I've read The Mail, and it was a pretty thin read; they seemingly had only 2 non-sports reporters judging by the bylines.  Whenever I read articles on it's website, I'm surprised by how few comments it has - rarely more than 10 even on big or contentious articles.

I just had a quick sniff around and can't see it on the LE website. I did come across this though from earlier this month -

 'Barnes: Liverpool FC will be too strong for United'

He's hardly got a reputation for insight and perception.

Many years ago I used to fly into Manchester Airport a lot, they used to hand out free copies of the MEN as you got on the plane. You were more likely to find 'balanced' in a matchday programme.

I have long since given up trying to work out why the Mail takes the stance that it does. It makes no sense at all.

[pauliewalnuts]

edit: I REALLY hate mac's autocorrect

Turn it off then.

System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Text and uncheck "correct spelling automatically"

[PeterWithesShin]

[PeterWithesShin]

From a few hours ago

Aston Villa v Arsenal - when is the FA Cup Final?

Here at the Birmingham Mail we pride ourselves on offering the best information possible for Aston Villa fans.

Believe it or not one of the most searched for phrases around big sporting events is 'when is it?'

True, and whilst we are hoping that you do actually know when the FA Cup Final, here is some information just in case.

The match will be played on the 30th May, 2015.

It will kick-off at 5.30pm UK time.

Gates open at 3.30pm.

We hope you all knew that already!

[Toronto Villa]

I am assuming they had to Google the answer themselves before writing that.

[Percy McCarthy]

Shit info. I know when it is. WHERE is the cup final? That's what I need to know.

[oldtimernow]

file under heading  "Villa haters just pissing on our chips"

[pbavfckuwait]

Shame it's quite thin paper , or I could use it for what it was meant, wiping me arse