Jump to content

The Sun Today


ScottW1886
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Surely then they could've been named and shamed in the article, which would have correctly put the disgrace of the incident onto the individuals, rather than 'Motherwell fans'?

 

Also, if the journalist is told what story to write about, and how to write it, what are these people being paid to do? I just don't buy that, I'm afraid.

 

 

Whether or not you buy it, that's the way it works, especially when it is a reporter at the start of his career that is writing it. Reporters do the donkey work and provide the raw material, subs decide the heading, and often re-write. It's a hierarchy - often the subs lower down the chain are told the angle the paper wants to take and work accordingly... and sometimes the angle changes well after the story has been written.

 

Even if he took his own angle, it could, and often would, be changed at the whim of a sub.

 

As far as the newspaper naming them is concerned, it could be that they couldn't get the names in time (I don't know how easy/hard it is to get details from the Welsh authorities), or it could be that they just didn't bother. I can explain the reporting/publication process, but only the Scottish Sun would be able to tell you the specifics of this particular story. Personally, I'd like to have seen them named - but then, personally, I'd like to see them put in stocks outside Fir Park for public justice to be administered, so I'm maybe not coming at that part of the issue from the most objective point of view!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not you buy it, that's the way it works, especially when it is a reporter at the start of his career that is writing it. Reporters do the donkey work and provide the raw material, subs decide the heading, and often re-write. It's a hierarchy - often the subs lower down the chain are told the angle the paper wants to take and work accordingly... and sometimes the angle changes well after the story has been written.

 

Even if he took his own angle, it could, and often would, be changed at the whim of a sub.

 

As far as the newspaper naming them is concerned, it could be that they couldn't get the names in time (I don't know how easy/hard it is to get details from the Welsh authorities), or it could be that they just didn't bother. I can explain the reporting/publication process, but only the Scottish Sun would be able to tell you the specifics of this particular story. Personally, I'd like to have seen them named - but then, personally, I'd like to see them put in stocks outside Fir Park for public justice to be administered, so I'm maybe not coming at that part of the issue from the most objective point of view!

You seem to know a lot about journalism for being a 'Spark' :doh:

 

Edit ... here comes the 'Bright Spark' jokes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ. Its his job for fuck sake. Scotts a good lad and he's writing a story about two absolute bangers attacking some old boy. Lets not forget who the actual bad guys are in all this.

 

He very clearly points out that they have been dealt with and that the club has handled it particularly well.

 

Stick to your guns big man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Scott probably had much of a choice on the matter...

As I've previously said, I'm not into castigating the guy as he seems a decent sort and there is a very decent argument in that he's only earning his crust, but as I also ventured earlier, does he work for the Sun and was he given an assignment (which imo is completely fair enough as it's a rock and a hard place really) or did he indeed prepare this story as a freelance journalist and approach the Sun with it? I suspect it's possibly the latter going by posts from the last few months and as I said, if it were me I'd have gracefully declined the professional gain in that instance and choose not to go after the story; but we're all different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll need to wait until he comes online to clarify.

 

Bet he's wishing it was today the name cock-up happened that he mentioned on facebook yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've previously said, I'm not into castigating the guy as he seems a decent sort and there is a very decent argument in that he's only earning his crust, but as I also ventured earlier, does he work for the Sun and was he given an assignment (which imo is completely fair enough as it's a rock and a hard place really) or did he indeed prepare this story as a freelance journalist and approach the Sun with it? I suspect it's possibly the latter going by posts from the last few months and as I said, if it were me I'd have gracefully declined the professional gain in that instance and choose not to go after the story; but we're all different.

 

 

I would agree. I was defending his position on the assumption that he had been given the the story to work on, either as a staff reporter or a freelance, as freelances who decline to take on a story when asked, don't tend to get asked again. If, however, he took it to them, it is a different matter, but until we know the truth of it, i think it's unfair to criticise the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In saying that, its always disappointing when the club is being shat on in the press and its all the more disappointing when its one of our own who's doing it. Some folk are trying to pin it on the editor or whoever else when the truth is that its Scott's name beside it. As factual as the story maybe, its the last thing the club needed or wanted.

 

But that's nobody's fault other than the two yobs. There was a strong "good news" element to this story, which is how the club rallied round one of their own when they suffered a misfortune - and this element came through clearly in the Sun story.

 

Possibly the club have been too defensive on this aspect of the story, and rather than trying the untenable approach of trying to bury the entire thing, they should have, with the victim's co-operation, approached the media and tried to get this angle on the story front and centre in all coverage. There would have been an important purpose behind doing so - underlining Motherwell's emphasis on creating a safe environment for all fans and having zero tolerance for anyone in our support who crosses the line on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's nobody's fault other than the two yobs. There was a strong "good news" element to this story, which is how the club rallied round one of their own when they suffered a misfortune - and this element came through clearly in the Sun story.

 

Possibly the club have been too defensive on this aspect of the story, and rather than trying the untenable approach of trying to bury the entire thing, they should have, with the victim's co-operation, approached the media and tried to get this angle on the story front and centre in all coverage. There would have been an important purpose behind doing so - underlining Motherwell's emphasis on creating a safe environment for all fans and having zero tolerance for anyone in our support who crosses the line on this.

That's the first sensible post ave ever saw you make ! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those criticising Scott away and have a look at yourself, the guys doing his job and has reported it in as fair a manner as possible, frequently referring to other fans trying to help him out, the club being good to him etc

 

The story was bound to make the nationals sooner or later- if anything the fact it's been done by a 'Well fan is good in my opinion, there's no exaggeration of facts, it's all as accurate as we know it to be- can you honestly say with certainty that would be the case if it was done by a Keevins or someone of that ilk?

 

Indeed, if it's that much of a problem and Motherwell fans trying to keep it quiet etc then why has the old guy agreed to speak to the press? Not happy to press charges it seems but happy enough to give his story out, seems a bit odd to me as without his comments there is no story worthy of print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure The Sun have compensated him in some way.

 

The old guy?

 

As far as I can tell, Scott wrote the story for his employer, Press Team and they in turn have sent it out on the wires, so I don't think he'll have been compensated much, if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those criticising Scott away and have a look at yourself, the guys doing his job and has reported it in as fair a manner as possible, frequently referring to other fans trying to help him out, the club being good to him etc

 

The story was bound to make the nationals sooner or later- if anything the fact it's been done by a 'Well fan is good in my opinion, there's no exaggeration of facts, it's all as accurate as we know it to be- can you honestly say with certainty that would be the case if it was done by a Keevins or someone of that ilk?

 

Indeed, if it's that much of a problem and Motherwell fans trying to keep it quiet etc then why has the old guy agreed to speak to the press? Not happy to press charges it seems but happy enough to give his story out, seems a bit odd to me as without his comments there is no story worthy of print.

I think your inference there is a bit unfair on him.

 

As you said, it was bound to end up being reported on whether he commented or not, and he's obviously been persuaded there were benefits in giving his side of it.

 

Jimmy has given valid reasons as to why he didn't press charges, and just wanted to forget the whole episode. I suspect what was intended as an article highlighting the positive aspects of this sad episode has been twisted by the Sun into a sensationalist story, leaving Jimmy's stance seeming a bit strange.

 

Bottom line is though that the story could not have been reported on if there was no assault and the fingers of blame for any perceived slight on the club or the fans should only be pointing one way.... at the 2 guys who carried out the assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your inference there is a bit unfair on him.

 

As you said, it was bound to end up being reported on whether he commented or not, and he's obviously been persuaded there were benefits in giving his side of it.

 

Jimmy has given valid reasons as to why he didn't press charges, and just wanted to forget the whole episode. I suspect what was intended as an article highlighting the positive aspects of this sad episode has been twisted by the Sun into a sensationalist story, leaving Jimmy's stance seeming a bit strange.

 

Bottom line is though that the story could not have been reported on if there was no assault and the fingers of blame for any perceived slight on the club or the fans should only be pointing one way.... at the 2 guys who carried out the assault.

 

If he wanted to forget it, a simple no comment would have sufficed and that would have been the end of it- the Sun could hardly report it if no one spoke to them, and the 2 others involved were hardly likely to be keen to comment. Not content with speaking to the media, he was also happy to pose for photographs? You'd think if he just wanted to forget about it, that would include media involvement?

 

It's a sad episode on the whole, but lets not lay all the blame at the Sun's door or that of one of our own simply doing his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a journalism student, and hopefully a future journalist, would you have accepted a 'no comment' without trying to persuade him to give a comment? And the counter argument there is that Jimmy wouldn't have spoken without being approached by the press.

 

I've never once blamed Scott, and if you read my post I actually laid the blame squarely at two other sets of feet..... ;)

 

But in the interests of debate, I think you have to blame either The Sun or Scott for the tone of the article - and my money's on The Sun having edited his article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in the interests of debate, I think you have to blame either The Sun or Scott for the tone of the article - and my money's on The Sun having edited his article.

 

Interesting - how would you have wrote it differently, given that you want to be a journalist and you might be confronted with a similar situation? Remember, you're thinking as a journalist about what would be of most interest to tabloid newspaper readers, not what Well fans would be interested in reading.

 

I've never worked for a tabloid in my life and have no real great regard for what they do, but I'm struggling to see what is wrong with Scott's story in terms of structure, how he (or the Sun sub) has arranged the facts, its use of quotes, or its conformity with typical tabloid news style. The one thing missing would be a quote from the club, but we don't know whether that was lost in the editing or simply that the club were not keen on speaking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - how would you have wrote it differently, given that you want to be a journalist and you might be confronted with a similar situation? Remember, you're thinking as a journalist about what would be of most interest to tabloid newspaper readers, not what Well fans would be interested in reading.

 

I've never worked for a tabloid in my life and have no real great regard for what they do, but I'm struggling to see what is wrong with Scott's story in terms of structure, how he (or the Sun sub) has arranged the facts, its use of quotes, or its conformity with typical tabloid news style. The one thing missing would be a quote from the club, but we don't know whether that was lost in the editing or simply that the club were not keen on speaking about it.

I'm not a journalism student - Neil is!!

 

I've no doubt that they would have reported the story the same way regardless of the team involved, but there is a strong feeling in most of this thread that the emphasis is on Motherwell in the headline as opposed to the two culprits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott works for PressTeam an agency that supply's stories to a variety of newspapers on the "wire" it's up to the papers to decide which stories they want to pick, and within guidelines have right to make amendments, so long as the story retains it's factual accuracy.

 

The story that was written was probably longer and more accurate than this, but the sun have picked out the parts they want to use - rightly or wrongly they are able to do that.

 

Scott would be best avoiding this thread altogether, too many people jumping to conclusions about something they know nothing about.

 

He's a good lad, and a big 'well fan, he's only doing his job - and from the articles of his I've read - well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the emphasis is on Motherwell in the headline as opposed to the two culprits.

 

 

You mean the first paragraph as there is no mention of Well in the headline? I think mentioning the club is fairly relevant in this case because readers of the Scottish Sun will want to know what area those involved are from and it's also highly relevant of course to the Europa cup angle of the story which is mentioned in the intro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't actually disagree with you - you've picked up on a conditional comment I made about if someone wanted to blame Scott or The Sun for the lack of mention about the positive elements of the support in Wales, my money was on The Sun.....

 

Peace!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloody hell :huh:

 

Erm...ok...where do I start here?

 

Quite bemused as to the response on here from certain quarters. The story with Mr Miller made it into today's Sun after we followed up on it. I fail to see how it is painting the club in a negative light, considering it makes reference to Mr Miller being helped out by fellow supporters, the club being kind and caring etc. Yes it makes reference to the two yobs who did the damage, however I wouldn't be doing my job if I said a pigeon dropped an ice cream cone on him by accident would I?

 

As others have mentioned in my defence, people are showing a distinct lack of knowledge of the press industry, which is fair enough as not many on here I imagine are involved in it. The story was written in full where it did actually talk about the well behaved travelling support from the 'Well fans. As Neil and others are mentioned, articles that are submitted to papers are trimmed heavily and changed and sub-edited heavily to suit each individual paper style (a wire can have easily 10+ papers on it). It is outwith my control what gets kept and what gets binned.

 

For me the story shows our club from an official point of view being pro-active with their fan base, especially with the lovely touch of Dougie going out to meet Mr Miller in person and also Diane paying him a visit. I did contact the club, but due to the relevant staff being abroad no official comment could be made with the club talking about the well behaved majority (this is the same position as the story in the Wishaw Press).

 

As I said in one PM i received, I'm sorry if some 'Well fans were annoyed by what was printed but at the end of the day it is factually correct. It reports a loyal 'Well fan being attacked by two yobs, and being supported by fellow fans and also the club. Aye it would be nice if the bit about the other 2,000 fans had made it in as well, but that doesn't sell papers...

 

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...