The Stockhausen Blog..

BRISTOL CITY BLOG: Why a growing number of football clubs are seeking to shoot the messenger.

please log in to view this image

By excluding the local newspaper, former Bristol City manager Gary Johnson forfeited any control he might have had over content.


One aspect of the sports writer’s role I particularly enjoy is the opportunity it affords me to converse with fellow journalists in this country and beyond.

Very often, you simply engage in a straight exchange of information. On other occasions, the conversation embraces wider issues and, in particular, the burning topic of the day.

When I called Stoke Sentinel reporter Mike Baggaley recently, the big topic just happened to be the growing trend among football clubs of banning local newspapers from covering their teams.

Of course, there have always been fallings-out between clubs and newspapers and there will continue to be in the future. But talking to Mike helped me realise just how many journalists now find themselves excluded from press boxes up and down the country.

He turned up to cover a recent home game at Vale Park, only to be told he had been banned from the press box following publication of a Sentinel report into alleged financial irregularities at the League One club. When contacted about the matter, Port Vale owner Norman Smurthwaite demanded an unprecedented financial contribution of £10,000 from the Sentinel to gain access to the club.

A similar situation has developed on Tyneside where the stable of regional papers – The Journal, The Chronicle and the Sunday Sun – have all been excluded from Newcastle United’s press box following their coverage of a fans’ protest march.

And Nottingham Forest has limited the city’s daily newspaper The Nottingham Post’s access to its management and playing staff to post-match press conferences only. I have heard of similar restrictions being imposed by Southampton, Portsmouth, Derby County and Cardiff City in recent years.

All of which invites the question why are clubs suddenly adopting such an uncompromising stance towards local newspaper coverage?

Times are clearly changing and many clubs, especially those in the Premier League and Championship, feel they have a brand to protect. A dirty word to most football supporters, branding is nevertheless becoming a factor in the game in these financially-challenging times.

Most professional clubs now have their own media team and a website via which they convey news to supporters. All breaking news is now released through the website and various social media channels, some of which subscribers are required to pay for.

Given that information is now an important source of revenue for many football clubs, they are seeking to control the output of news in a way that would never have happened 15 or 20 years ago.

Supporters are given the facts and it is the clubs themselves that determine what they need to know. The problem with this is that some facts are more palatable than others and, in an attempt to provide fans with the inside line, local newspapers inevitably come into conflict with the clubs they cover.

Although restrictions may be galling to newspaper editors and worrying for defenders of press freedom, local newspapers have a duty to report football clubs objectively and not toe the party line. I have known some journalists who, in the interests of a quiet life, opt not to risk upsetting the status quo by asking searching questions, instead submitting to a degree of control from the club.

Such journalists, while no doubt enjoying a cosy relationship with their respective clubs, do supporters an immense disservice.

In an ideal world, the coverage provided by local newspapers should be honest, knowledgeable and objective. And that is what the vast majority of them attempt to do.

Of course, journalists who seek to be objective are inevitably going to come into conflict with football clubs from time to time and I have experienced a few difficulties in this respect down the years. I remember once being prevented from speaking to the management and players at Bristol City by Gary Johnson, who was upset by a headline that appeared in the Bristol Evening Post.

Unable to influence editorial content generated by individuals who were not on Bristol City’s payroll and seeking to control the message, Gary could think of no better way to express his frustration than by denying the newspaper access.

It has been suggested that banning local journalists from the press boxes of Premier League clubs does not affect supporters, who can still glean information about their clubs in various national media and on TV and radio. But this is certainly not the case further down the Football League food chain and, since relegation to League One, Bristol City have scarcely featured in national titles. The press box is nowhere near as full as it was between 2007 and 2012.

Of course, City fans can access the club website for information regarding their favourite team, but the only other regular source of stories in the written press are those that appear in the independent local newspaper. The smaller the club, the narrower the range of outlets covering it, so the bigger the impact of any media ban.

Which leads us to the question of who needs who the most. My temporary difficulty with Gary Johnson was quickly resolved when it was suggested to someone in the boardroom at Ashton Gate that the Bristol Evening Post was not duty bound to advertise the football club without charge.

Instead of charging the football club to promote matches and off-field events, local newspapers are often prepared to donate thousands of pounds of free advertising to clubs every year in the interests of building a harmonious relationship.

While banning journalists makes life more awkward than it need be for them, it does not prevent them from covering events at the club and the team. There are sufficient media outlets these days to enable a reporter to get by without any undue difficulty.

A trick clubs often miss is that, by working with journalists rather than against them, they give themselves an opportunity to shape what is written and said about their particular club. What Gary Johnson and others fail to realise is that, by excluding the press, they instantly forfeit any control over what appears in the newspaper.

At this point, I have to say there are far worse clubs to cover than Bristol City. Believe me, I covered some of them before moving to Bristol!

The Bristol Post is granted access to every home game and its journalists are provided with a car park pass and use of press room facilities at Ashton Gate. Majority shareholder Steve Lansdown has always been media friendly and there have been many instances of close co-operation, most notably when the paper sought to support the club’s quest to build a new stadium at Ashton Vale.

Apart from one or two notable exceptions, access to players and management has always been unfettered and the club’s media team, headed by Adam Baker, has sought to help and support the work of the newspaper. He understands I have a job to do and tries, wherever possible, to work with me rather than against me.

Yet it seems there is little the media in general can do about the growing band of club owners who seem intent on controlling the message. In some extreme cases, this trend gives the impression that football clubs are reluctant to even begin to understand the idea of free speech.

This was always going to happen with the advent of private ownership by multi-millionaire businessmen. Having put their money in, they expect to have control.

What they conveniently forget is that they are custodians of the football club and are accountable to the fans, without whom there would be no club in the first place.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/BRISTO...tball-cluibs/story-20048210-detail/story.html


An interesting, different read....