comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)

posted 8 minutes ago

VC,

Tell me something. If you have been briefed by the club, why wouldn't you quote who briefed you?
-------------------

Surely even you can figure that out?

.....................

No I can't. Help me out?
----------------------

I've already written (albeit brief, there's more to be said) about the institutional make up of corporate media. No major news outlet wants to be frozen out by leaking sources by name and being behind its competitors on the major story of the day/week/month.

The same is also true when other institutions and organisation (government, for example) want to 'leak' a story or get their BS PR/propaganda out. We often read what "anonymous officials" or a "US/UK official" has to say.

See the 3rd Filter from Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model (the leading/seminal works in the field), Sourcing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

"The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest."

1982

I always write articles on a news story that has potential legs. That comes down to the reputation of the outlet/journalist. When the papers are being briefed by Woodward, I also link you guys to every single paper reporting it for evidence as well.

VC

But everyone seems to understand except you and even when things are explained you usually just dismiss it.

I'm a big critic of the tabloids in this country as well, few weeks back I said how disgusting The Sun were in persecuting Van Gaal for his 'sorry' rant. I never read those sort of papers nor do I write about their news.

I thought that headline was pretty funny myself.

Berba

Nice narrative, totally irrelevant to my question though.

Unless you are talking about leaked stories rather than actual media briefings.

As far as I am concerned they are not the same thing.

What do you mean exactly?
--------------------------------------
My only point here is that if a story breaks in all papers, it doesn't guarantee there has been a leak form the club invloved, which is what Arab was basically saying.

On a few instances, that may be the case, but it is far from a given.

It's not on a few instances though Ji, it's mostly the case with every type of story like that. The Fergie resigning/Moyes sacking is just one of many examples.

Ji

Yeah I agree with that but like I said I thought Mata was talking about specific situations, not every single time multiple papers write the same/similar stuff.

I've explained how the corporate print media operate; that their primary role is to sell audience to businesses (advertisers) and that they are run for profit like any other business (including the Guardian, which people often misconceive as being an exception because of the Scott Trust *LTD*).

I've also linked him and referenced him the Sourcing Filter from the Propaganda Model, which is from the most important work in the field, a book called Manufacturing Consent (a very important book that everyone should have read if they have an wish to have an understanding of corporate media performance).

It perfectly answers his question. So if he's still playing silly billy after that he's beyond help.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 4 minutes ago
Berba

Nice narrative, totally irrelevant to my question though.
---------------------

It explains quite clearly the answer to your question.

It's not in the media's interest to give away important sources and key strategic ties to institutions from which it depends on stories that generate readership and therefore advertising appeal.

comment by manutd1982 (U6633)

posted 2 minutes ago

VC

But everyone seems to understand except you and even when things are explained you usually just dismiss it.

...............

Just as you dismiss what I have said to you. And you are yet to explain this to me.

'Tell me something. If you have been briefed by the club, why wouldn't you quote who briefed you'?

I think you, Arab and Berb are confusing what is a media briefing and what is someone leaking something to the media and not wanting to be quoted.

I have also said, which you conveniently ignored, that some of this stuff will be leaked by the club.

It's not in the media's interest to give away important sources

............

If it is a media briefing they are not giving away anything. The club have obviously called them in to make the brief. every one who is there has heard the same thing.

You are confusing a leaked story with a media briefing.

VC

Because maybe, just maybe the person briefing the media doesn't want his identity known and it isn't relevant either. What you seem to think is a leak is what the rest see as briefing, there just happens to be multiple ways to brief people, some more public and open than others.

Just as you dismiss what I have said to you. And you are yet to explain this to me.

'Tell me something. If you have been briefed by the club, why wouldn't you quote who briefed you'?

I think you, Arab and Berb are confusing what is a media briefing and what is someone leaking something to the media and not wanting to be quoted.
--------------------------------

The reasons are exactly the same as I've already described for both 'leaks' and 'briefings'. Whether something is defined as being 'leaked' or 'briefed', what ultimately matters is the content of that information. If it's fairly sensitive information, which the Moyes sacking was, it doesn't look very good at all if Ed Woodward or an official is being quoted, does it?

And it seems most likely that if in doubt, the club or organisation will stipulate what can be cited/quoted and what can't. I'm sure there's grey areas. Any analysis of complex systems - particularly those that involved humans - are never exactly 100% perfect.

briefing

-the action of informing or instructing someone.

The identity of the person briefing isn't important to a briefing.

Can anyone tell me how the club benefitted from 'briefing the media' they were sacking Moyes???

Because maybe, just maybe the person briefing the media doesn't want his identity known and it isn't relevant either.

...............

You are talking about cloak and dagger leaked stories. Not media briefings.

Two completely different things.

comment by Reddevilsdouble- il just say it was a joke (U12215)
posted 1 minute ago
Can anyone tell me how the club benefitted from 'briefing the media' they were sacking Moyes???
-----------------------

You've already had two answers to this question.

Firstly, no one has necessarily said they did benefit.

Secondly, the club must have briefed (or leaked, whatever you want to call it as there's barely a difference) the information as it felt there was some benefit. What that benefit they felt they were getting we can't be sure, but again, see the quote from filter three and apply:

"The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest."

Operative phrase here being *reciprocity of interest*.

Basically, currying favour with the media. All sorts of obvious benefits to the club or any organisation doing this.

Why do they have to have benefited from it?

If it's common media practice for clubs to do this then it's irrelevant.

Moyes ended up finding out he was sacked through the media brief two years ago, which is pretty awful. Same with Benitez two days ago.

The identity of the person briefing isn't important to a briefing.

.................

Really? I find that rather odd.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 57 seconds ago
Why do they have to have benefited from it?

If it's common media practice for clubs to do this then it's irrelevant.
-----------------------

Given that the club are an organisation run for profit, run buy astute businessmen, they must have felt that they would benefit.

Whether or not we as onlookers thought the club benefitted is a different question entirely. Frankly I thought it was poor taste that Moyes wasn't informed first and I think that left a sour note among many of the fans and indeed Fergie.

You get used to how your club works with the media
I always take note of anything that comes out of the independent as I believe that's where we feed the media

Secondly, the club must have briefed (or leaked, whatever you want to call it as there's barely a difference)

...............

There is a very big difference.