Dominion Post vs Phoenix

For lack of anything better to do at work on a Saturday morning (curse you Japan), I felt the need to vomit opinion all up in Stuff's feedback system:"Just felt the need to give my two cents regarding the "Time for Wellington Phoenix to look in mirror" article by Jonathan Millmow published on 27/11/2010. As there was no space for comments on the online article I'm doing so through here.First of all (as I'm sure you're aware), a great range of opinions on the article (some intelligent, others not quite so) are available in a forum topic dedicated to it on the Yellow Fever website.As far as I'm personally concerned, while being miffed at the team deciding to take a No Comment approach suddenly is warranted, writing an article on it (regardless of how fairly it is worded) is right up the street of the so-called "negative attitude" they're talking about. Though I think a better word for it would be "destructive attitude". Reporting "without fear or favour" is a noble mission statement, but in the end I'm sure you're aware that what a publication chooses to report on and what not to, what language it chooses to use, inherently contain bias. There's no such thing as a neutral press, despite anyone's best efforts.Trying to get to the point as I realise it's going to get a bit lengthy, but at times the points The Dom Post has chosen to highlight or the people whose comments you choose to print on a subject, for me, have been a bit beside the point or skewing the feel of a story. eg. -How is asking (and reporting the response of) Leo Bertos about Terry's situation valid? Why should he or Chris Greenacre be fully informed of the financial workings of the club? Saying "Bertos isn't sure if his paycheck's gone through" only provides speculation that makes any reader jump to the conclusion that he PROBABLY hasn't been paid. While trying not to resort to name-calling, it just feels a bit like a tabloid gimmick.- The reporting on Herbert dropping Simon Elliot from the squad for 1 game again felt like it was asserting more than was necessary of straight news. I think the phrase "fell out of favour" was used at some point - again, language that conjures up imagery of Ricki personally unhappy with Elliot. The fact that much talk has been made of how Herbert probably needs to shuffle things around in response to the recent poor results was never paired with the talk of dropping Elliot, adding to the assertion that his dropping was some scandalous mystery.The Dom Post have indeed written a lot of great articles about the Phoenix, both when they're winning and when they're not (though the jibes about the crowd size were a bit biased, especially when not much was made of the Lion's dwindling crowds of late). It's just at times the spin, how an article reads to the average joe, does get a vibe of "the Nix are doomed to failure", something which none of the fan club nor team believe, and a vibe that does nothing but greet those who may well become supporters in the future with the warning "don't waste your time". At least that's how it feels, and while the line taken by the Phoenix is hardly deserving of any medals either, I can relate to their sentiment."In the end it's kinda pointless and I missed out a bunch of disclaimers for the sake of brevity, but damnit why should Millmow be the only one who can spout BS

Any media manager knows that media protocols are there for the staff of an organisation to follow, not necessarily for the media to observe. They are put there to control the message and so naturally the media want to skirt them when they see these protocols as being obstructive.

All these stories are newsworthy - regardless of how readers view the tone. The clubs owner, his finances, the players and performances are all closely intertwined and are relevant as news. Asking players what effect finances are having on performances is valid, just as is it valid to ask if the club's performances are related to poor management or tactics.

Serepisos created his high profile to help raise support for the club and he did so magnificently. Some of the profile raising was perhaps for his own ego when you consider his TV gig. It made him newsworthy so naturally he has to keep his nose clean or face the critics. Owners of clubs all around the world face the same scrutiny - it's how they handle it that matters.

I'd say a few players have had a hairdryer from their media man for being caught not following the club's media protocol by talking about their owner's finances and have decided it's safer not to comment as a result.

It's not a good approach as the papers can always make you look like you're defensive.

If I was in the media manager's shoes (not that I'd want to be right now)I'd be looking at how his high profile players could be supporting the owner's situation by letting the media know every time they are asked that as far as they are concerned all's well on the financial front with regard to their own situations. Simply because 'no comment' leaves the door open for someone else to fill the space with negative comment, and no comment also looks like things are not well with the club. The more they say things are A OK the more the media will get tired of this angle and move on to something else.

For those who think that the media should just focus on the team and it's performances, it pays to remember that football is always about more than what happens on the pitch, it's about people, money and finances, culture and life.

Here's a simple definition for what makes something news: if it's being talked about at the pub, it's news.

The Phoenix and the owner just need to manage it a bit better and realise that sometimes critical press comes with the high media profile and not get too defensive about it.

And before anyone asks I'm not from the Dom, I've never worked in the press here but trained as a journalist and work in public relations.

What was Browny's goal celebration?

Can I ask people, if you were a journalist and you found out that the IRD was going to liquidate one of the richest men in your city, what would you do?

There are a lot of people being very precious on here about what is compltely legitimate news gathering. While we might not like seeing terry splashed on the front page, I can't understand the complaints. Terry has sought a profile, both from football and from the apprentice. He must have known that these things would come of it

It isn't just the IRD story..

But to an extent doesn't the fact that financial issues keep emerging show that they are right to keep going after him??

He doesn't own the wgtn racing club, he's just a sponsor. The reason all of this is completely relevant is if he goes under so does the phoenix (according to the popular dialogue)

Herald on Sunday has also printed a negative story this morning saying RH hasn't been paid by Terry for a bit. Do any of you find that interesting? or should that kind of thing be kept under the hat?

Any media manager knows that media protocols are there for the staff of an organisation to follow, not necessarily for the media to observe. They are put there to control the message and so naturally the media want to skirt them when they see these protocols as being obstructive.

All these stories are newsworthy - regardless of how readers view the tone. The clubs owner, his finances, the players and performances are all closely intertwined and are relevant as news. Asking players what effect finances are having on performances is valid, just as is it valid to ask if the club's performances are related to poor management or tactics.

Serepisos created his high profile to help raise support for the club and he did so magnificently. Some of the profile raising was perhaps for his own ego when you consider his TV gig. It made him newsworthy so naturally he has to keep his nose clean or face the critics. Owners of clubs all around the world face the same scrutiny - it's how they handle it that matters.

I'd say a few players have had a hairdryer from their media man for being caught not following the club's media protocol by talking about their owner's finances and have decided it's safer not to comment as a result.

It's not a good approach as the papers can always make you look like you're defensive.

If I was in the media manager's shoes (not that I'd want to be right now)I'd be looking at how his high profile players could be supporting the owner's situation by letting the media know every time they are asked that as far as they are concerned all's well on the financial front with regard to their own situations. Simply because 'no comment' leaves the door open for someone else to fill the space with negative comment, and no comment also looks like things are not well with the club. The more they say things are A OK the more the media will get tired of this angle and move on to something else.

For those who think that the media should just focus on the team and it's performances, it pays to remember that football is always about more than what happens on the pitch, it's about people, money and finances, culture and life.

Here's a simple definition for what makes something news: if it's being talked about at the pub, it's news.

The Phoenix and the owner just need to manage it a bit better and realise that sometimes critical press comes with the high media profile and not get too defensive about it.

And before anyone asks I'm not from the Dom, I've never worked in the press here but trained as a journalist and work in public relations.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=james dean]Can I ask people, if you were a journalist and you found out that the IRD was going to liquidate one of the richest men in your city, what would you do?

There are a lot of people being very precious on here about what is compltely legitimate news gathering. While we might not like seeing terry splashed on the front page, I can't understand the complaints. Terry has sought a profile, both from football and from the apprentice. He must have known that these things would come of it

Herald on Sunday has also printed a negative story this morning saying RH hasn't been paid by Terry for a bit. Do any of you find that interesting? or should that kind of thing be kept under the hat?

I advocate posting in this thread until it's 50 pages long.

That would be a story!

What in the blue hell is this????

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10690582

Is it just me or was there not a single source in that entire article?!? I know it's the HoS but seriously.

What in the blue hell is this????

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10690582

Is it just me or was there not a single source in that entire article?!? I know it's the HoS but seriously.

JAIL TERRY HIRE THE TRADE ME GUY

You see, this is where doom merchants like you have lost the plot. The HoS story is not "negative". It's stating the facts (or what appear to be the facts) about Terry S's money troubles plainly and without the DoomPost's tabloid, witchhunting bias. I see nothing wrong with this HoS story, as opposed to Kitchin/Burgess's beatups.

So I'm a doom merchant now am I? That is a totally baseless opinion. Of course RH not being paid is a negative story against the Phoenix, it's hardly positive is it?