2page spread in Sunday’s Mail about the bust up at Oakwell

Also they mention chanting towards Barton at our Shrewsbury game. Wasn't it like just the once early on? Can't mention that though that Barton was forgotten about as our fans directed their energy towards chants for our team.

 

Fully agree. However, notice that unlike there other main sport pieces no option is given to pass comment. Cowards.

 

It's what you come to expect from rags like that and the Sun. Gutter journalism

 

When you have media contracts and therefore rely on your reputation to continue making money, you hire PR people and pay them a lot of money to foster said reputation

The bloke is vermin, as is that ‘newspaper’

 

Guilty or not the bloke is a cap end. He'll end up getting paid as an opinionated pundit . Fleetwood were one of the worst sides I've seen all season . Not a patch on the likes of Shrewsbury, Plymouth, Coventry, Wycombe to name a few .

 

Nothing to do with which paper its in, in my opinion someone at or connected Fleetwood has really good media connections .
From very early days there has been a negative subtle and not so subtle media campaign aimed at us to counteract whatever happened to DS.
Various statements have appeared by, or on behalf of Barton but they always peter out at the end and ignore never mind explain the physical damage

 

A typical tabloid article, very little substance behind the sensational headlines. It's the first time anyone's pointed out that we film on the pitch every game though.

 

That's ********. If a witness is considered to be reliable in a court of law it won't matter what colours they wear on a Saturday.

 

Terrible journalism from the Mail. They've missed the REAL angle on this one.

Given how EU migrant worker Stendel had snubbed the Great British custom of a post-match drink and shown how ill-adjusted he is to our way of life, we should be glad that plucky Brit Barton took him to task for it!

I'm going to write in and complain.
Yours
Anne Angard-Gammon

 

They can't even get his name right who the hell is stern?

 

Christopher Stern. Our first team coach.

 

Doh

 

It's the editor/sub-editor that people have a problem with, not the journalist. I actually think the article itself is a decent piece of balanced investigative journalism. He's tried to find out what happened and why. He's cited both the incidents in the match last week and the fixture earlier in the season. He's quoted sources from both sides and offered possible explanations for the alleged assault. Not excuses but what led to it. And he's given our position, the fact that the police and football authorities are involved and that Barton denies it. I think it's a good effort.

Where it goes wrong is the headline, completely at odds with the tone of the rest of the article. Sensationalist ******** in comparison to the measured approach of the copy. That's because the journalist didn't write it, his editor did. And all he wants to do is sell newspapers.

Then there's the last couple of paragraphs when it turns from an investigation into an opinion piece. I'd be very surprised if the journalist wrote that either. It's inflammatory xenophobic garbage entirely in keeping with the rag in which it's published. And as the incident is under police investigation, something The Mail could easily be fined for. They've given verdict on an open police investigation. You're not allowed to do that.

Pity really as the journalist made a very good attempt to investigate a serious incident.

 

I agree. I was impressed with the way the journalist found out about the previous fixture and has clearly done a bit of research and digging around. I found out things I didn’t know before rather than it just being a rehash of the police or club statements. They actually put a bit of effort into this. The crap angle of it I expected from it being in the Mail so glossed over.

 

I thought exactly the same. I was fine with it until the last couple of paragraphs and particularly the penultimate one which is disgraceful. As an 'opinion' it is worthless given they are not party to any of the facts (or video/audio evidence, if that indeed exists). To take one side or another as a newspaper before the case has been heard could IMO be considered detrimental to a fair hearing and, rightly, the paper should be taken to task for it.