Tim Ireland has more on the unfolding events in the Usamanov takeover of Arsenal Football Club. He accuses various sports journalists of taking hospitality from Usmanov (visiting him in Moscoe, all expenses paid) without mentioning the fact in the resulting articles.
If a politician did THIS, they'd get chucked out of the House of Commons. Isn't it about time that journalists conformed to the same standards of integrity which they expect politicians to? They may not be elected, but it is arguable that their influence is greater than an insignificant backbencher.
If I were an Arsenal supporter I would be very worried about what is happening to my club. Very worried indeed.
23 comments:
I know you like Football and support a rival team, but what is the point of posting this on a politics blog. Your excuse that if an MP did what a journo did was worthy of a Gordon Brown link really. Some people like football; others like Rugby or even fishing. But they dont have to mention it all the time. Also you do seem like the type to refer to Arsenal; as 'the arsenal' ala Fast Show.....
which is why journos usually come somewhere between politicians and estate agents in 'most despised' lists.
I'm sorry.
Anyone who believes journalists tell teh truth and are without bias or have been fed and dined to give a good story.. is an idiot.
You could say the same about estate agents and politicians.
They are all effectively unregulated and make second hand car salesmen (who are regulated) appear to be honest and hard working.
It's a non story.
And it's about Arsenal. A non club.
Like all London clubs.. waste of space but puffed up by all the London journalists who have no idea of good football.
For example: see West Ham.
:-))
I think Iain has a genuine story here. There are serious accusations re the gentleman seeking to take over Arsenal. Sadly, he has been prepared to close blogs but refuses to sue Mr Murray who made the accusations.
I know that there are many unsuitable people running football clubs but this case is very significant.
I know that there are often lapse kournalistic standards but the public has a right to knw if they are written by those beholden to the subject.
Therefore, I would argue that this is a political and moral matter as well as a football matter.
As an Arsenal fan I can tell you I'm very worried, very worried indeed.
I just don't want it. We are not Chelsea - it's not about success at any price, but success as a result of the right principles.
Well Craig Murray led with this some considerable time ago. His blog has, at the insistence of Schillings - Usmanov's henchmen, oops sorry, lawyers - been taken down.
Be very afraid indeed. This man is extremely dangerous.
I've always had a good deal of respect for Simon Calder the travel writer in the Independent and elsewhere. His strap line used to be 'the man who pays his own way' as he refused to take the hospitality deals that so many other travel writers do before they pen their 'impartial' advice. I hope he still does.
And yes I agree with you Iain, it would be good to know who's treating our noble journalists. And it's not a bad thing to be reminded how much the top ones get paid especially when they're blustering on about MPs' pay and conditions!
I did read somewhere that Usmanov had invited journalists to Moscow at his expense to hear his side of the story. Although I hope he doesn't get in at Arsenal, I can't see anything wrong with his actions.
"Isn't it about time that journalists conformed to the same standards of integrity which they expect politicians to? They may not be elected, but it is arguable that their influence is greater than an insignificant backbencher."
Hmm?
I wonder a) the influence of bloggers and b) their standards of integrity?
I think we all know most politicians do not have much integrity, and most journalists are the same. At least anyone on the national stage that is.
I have more time for local councillors. And I like to think (cough, cough) people have more time for local reporters.
And yes Iain, as well you know, I can reveal my interests as a local reporter...
Shame some bloggers don't reveal their interests up front, eh?
Ahem...
Usmanov truly does sound like a very bad man indeed. Those journalists may think they are getting an easy ride now - hoovering up lots of free food and booze, and pretty much writing what they want for the moment.
But it is rather like those cops in the mafia films. It won't be long before they are asked to look the other way, or to take some cash to be on the payroll. And not much long after that before when the Mob say 'Jump!' they'll be responding 'How high ?'.
And we all know how those films end when the cops try to back out or say no or upset their paymasters..
Alisher Usmanov may or may not be a vicious thug, criminal, racketeer, heroin trafficker and accused rapist.
But if I had to choose between the word of Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzekistan, and a man who communicates with the world through libel lawyers, I know who would get my vote.
However, to suggest that Lunchtime O'Booze is a corrupt, freeloading muppet who will write anything for a bottle of vodka and a kneetrembler in a Moscow nightclub goes too far.
I doubt his cooperation requires anything like that degree of extravagance.
P.S. I understand that the new Arsenal anthem will be "You'll never walk again".
If I were a West Ham fan I'd be very worried too. The Guardian has already reported how the current owner of West Ham helped broker Usmanov's shareholding in Arsenal. He was also convicted for fraud in Iceland and had extensive business interests in Russia.
Given that questions can also be asked as to how the owners of Chelsea and Man City (and probably others) came by their wealth the FA need to look very seriously as to how they apply their fit and proper rules. And if they don't the government should act - football clubs belon to their communities in a different way from private companies and different standards are required.
As for British journalists accepting hospitality this is nothing new whatsover (there is a limited register of interests for some parliamentary journalists) - some (but not all) have had their snouts in the trough for years - look at the holiday and motor pages for starters and anyone in PR knows that you need to give journalists nice goodie packs if you want them to say nice things about your client (or at least print your press release as gospel). By comparision our politicians are paragons of virtue - and the same probably applies to personal as well as financial matters.
The reason politicians are different from journos is to do with the fact that politicians are voted into power by the public and paid for by the public purse.
Now if we were able to vote journos out of a job, neither the guardian or the indie would exist!!
Guardian report I referred to can be found here.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2172307,00.html
Now if we were able to vote journos out of a job, neither the guardian or the indie would exist!!
but then you'd have to pay for it yourself. Why else should you have a say?
Your argument might work for the BBC, which is funded (almost) by public money,* but not for newspapers. which are private enterprises which stand or fall by profits.
Which brings me on to the most important point. All too often, people seem to assume that the job of a journalist is to tell the truth. It isn't. The job of a journalist is to sell newspapers.** That might often involve exposing little-known truths, or facts that people wanted hidden, but it needn't.
* Yes, okay, license payers' money but the difference is liminal
** or advertising space, but that's part and parcel of the same thing. If you don't have readers, you won't get advertisers.
"All too often, people seem to assume that the job of a journalist is to tell the truth. It isn't. The job of a journalist is to sell newspapers.**"
Er, no, the job of the proprietor/owner is to sell the newspapers - or the guy who shout's "Ee'nn stannard" outside the Bank of England.
The editor - appointed by the proprietor - assumes a political stance on every given issue (assuming we're talking about a national and not a regional/local).
The reporter writes it, the news editor and sub fillet the story, it's cut into a shape by the sub-editor. If it follows the agenda set, it goes in, if it doesn't, it gets rewritten.
Until national newspaper owners take a truly hands-off approach, you'll regularly see this kind of reporting. Meanwhile, they know which side their bread is buttered when it comes to billionaires... including Aussie/US ones.
Although, saying that, you wonder what the BBC's excuse was.
Although, saying that, you wonder what the BBC's excuse was.
Carl,
It has just come to my attention that the BBC correspondent is actually based in Moscow. My post has been updated accordingly.
If a politician did this, they'd get chucked out of the House of Commons
Are you sure about that Iain?
Maybe it was true in the old days when even politicians had a sense of honour. But now? I know you want to be an MP one day and I hate to destroy your illusions, but nowadays your average pol seems to display about as much honour as a rattlesnake. Remember Prescott and his trips to Anschlus Acres?
Man Utd came in for a lot of stick for the Glazer takeover with worries about debt levels. Similar concerns have been voiced at my own team (Liverpool)since Statler and Waldorf took over. Whilst I have my concerns regarding the future financial stability of my club I would be far far more worried if we were the subject of Eastern European interest. Chelsea are no more than a Russian billionaire's plaything and the mess at Hearts would be laughable if it didn't threaten the existence of a great club.
Recent results (both on the pitch and financial) show that Arsenal is a well run club and business. Arsenal fans should be asking serious questions about this Usmanov guy.
P.S. I like West Ham. They loathe Neil Warnock more than Sean Bean does.
Er, no, the job of the proprietor/owner is to sell the newspapers
Ok, carl, in the interest of pedantry rebuttal I'll rephrase. The job of a journalist is to write copy that sells newspapers, or even "to draft the first form of copy that fits in with the editorial vision of an editor who has been selected by an owner who believes that he/she - the editor - will cause more newspapers to be sold. However you wish to phrase it, it is not, contrary to popular and consistent misunderstanding, to be a ceaseless truth hunter, which was my point.gxsrqo
Reading some of the other comments I am surprised that people don't see this as a story worthy of political comment.
As a politically (other side) interested Arsenal fan I find it abhorent that this man has surpressed the freedom of speech without having to prove the validity of his complaint about what was said. I would find it equally abhorent if he were interested in another club or indeed entirely different sphere. It is fundamentally wrong.
Which brings me to the next point which is the serious question of the types of people we want to invest in our football or other businesses. Certain criminal convictions bar you from even entering the UK never mind companies house or FA rules about who is right to run a business.
As an aside, MPs are hugely regulated, hugely scrutised and have to declare more about their income and interests than any other person in any other walk of life. And quite right too.
Let me let you into a little secret Iain - a very large proportion of all journalist trips to interview pop stars, authors, celebrities, film stars, sports stars are at the invitation of the subject or their record company and may be largely paid for by them. This does not stop the artistes etc getting stitched up or treated unkindly.
The grander and richer the publication the less likely the journo will have to pay their way. It's the same the whole world over ...
Post a Comment