FAN'S EYE - Will the real Norwich City stand up now please

[Pete Raven 276]

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/commentary/FansEye.aspx

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

This from the Aiken piece:

”Peter Cullum has popped back into view this week, and I have to say I find myself slightly confused about what''s going on.

”It was Cullum himself who revealed in the summer that he''d been in contact with Delia and had wanted to invest in the squad - as long as he could become majority shareholder. And it was Cullum who wrote to Delia recently telling her there would be no offer to buy the club after all.

“Now he is back on the scene telling us he won''t let the club go under - although he added that he won''t be giving us a ‘big fat cheque’. It is all a bit puzzling.”

What’s hilarious about those comments is that Aiken, though he doesn’t seem bright enough to realise it, is slagging off the EDP’s own journalism. If what Cullum said this week was confusing, and it was, why on earth didn’t the paper''s business editor, who conducted the interview, have the nous to ask a few follow-up questions to discover what it meant.

Questions like would this emergency bail-out be entirely altruistic or would Cullum want something in return? Does he still hanker after control? What is his definition of something less than “a big fat cheque? A guess would say nothing like as much as £20m but that is only a guess. Is he talking about paying for a player or two, Carl Moore-style, or does he mean buying a minority stake to boost the coffers? What is his definition of “precarious position”? Etc, etc etc.

Sadly, the one constant in Cullumgate has been the inert, uninformative and unchallenging journalism from Archant Towers. The Cullum interview was just the latest example.

[BGG&YPOS 0]

Had a chuckle with it saying the Essex boy''s next Sunday. Have they been re-located?

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

Lets face it they are Essex boys as any cultured fan from North Suffolk comes up the A140.

 

It would be good to get a reaction from Adam to purplecanary''s post.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

What would be interesting, in fact what I think should be done, is to find out the truth about why no investment happened after the story originally broke. The whole Cullum issue divides the fans and they deserve to know why it didn''t happen. My one question above all others that I would like an answer to is this: Did any deal break down through Smith&Jones rejecting it for selfish reasons?

 

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

NN - that is purplecanary''s big complaint that various journalists seem to have failed to ask questions just like that.

 

[Mister Chops 7]

It''s a strange train of thought to suggest it was more important we beat Forest than Palace.  Last time I checked you still get 3 points for a win and you have to finish outside the bottom 3 to avoid relegation.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

:o), I''m not holding my breath! I think Aiken would find himself in an invidious position. However, there are some questions raised by the EDP''s inadequate journalism all though Cullumgate that may be relevant in any future takeover, given that the club is effectively up for sale, and possibly even relevant to a future role for the NCISA.

Something to mull over during the weekend, and perhaps post on next week, by way of a reply to the NCISA questionnaire.

[jetstream 0]

Careful Purple....Mr Aiken is very prickly when criticised about his column.

I''d check your bed carefully for horse heads and such like.

[Peter 0]

[quote user="Count Chopula"]It''s a strange train of thought to suggest it was more important we beat Forest than Palace.  Last time I checked you still get 3 points for a win and you have to finish outside the bottom 3 to avoid relegation.

[/quote]

Never heard of a six pointer? What Fans Eye means is that if Forest had beaten us instead of Palace then they would be four points behind us instead of sven. This could be crucial if we are to be involved in a relegation scrap as is widely expected.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Peter"]

[quote user="Count Chopula"]It''s a strange train of thought to suggest it was more important we beat Forest than Palace.  Last time I checked you still get 3 points for a win and you have to finish outside the bottom 3 to avoid relegation.[/quote]

Never heard of a six pointer? What Fans Eye means is that if Forest had beaten us instead of Palace then they would be four points behind us instead of sven. This could be crucial if we are to be involved in a relegation scrap as is widely expected.

[/quote]Bogus argument.  If we''d beaten Palace we''d have been equal on points with them... so what?  What matters is not being in the bottom 3 on the last day of the season and I don''t think it matters who we beat in order to achieve that.

[Peter 0]

[quote user="Count Chopula"][quote user="Peter"]

[quote user="Count Chopula"]It''s a strange train of thought to suggest it was more important we beat Forest than Palace.  Last time I checked you still get 3 points for a win and you have to finish outside the bottom 3 to avoid relegation.

[/quote]

Never heard of a six pointer? What Fans Eye means is that if Forest had beaten us instead of Palace then they would be four points behind us instead of sven. This could be crucial if we are to be involved in a relegation scrap as is widely expected.

[/quote]

Bogus argument.  If we''d beaten Palace we''d have been equal on points with them... so what?  What matters is not being in the bottom 3 on the last day of the season and I don''t think it matters who we beat in order to achieve that.

[/quote]

Or after today 4 points v 1 point.

[fleggy 0]

Isn''t Adam Aitken the EDP''s Business Editor ?- least way that''s what it says in my EDP today.  So Purple Canary is suggesting that Adam interviewed Cullum and didn''t ask the right questions? That makes today article even more bewildering-even apart from relocating Ipswich.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

I can''t say what Adam Aiken is described as in today''s EDP, but the interview with Cullum in question was carried out by Paul Hill who is (or at least at the time was, according to the EDP itself) the paper''s business editor. Steve Downes appeared in the byline as well.

So, no, I am not saying Aiken carried out the very interview he is now saying has left him confused and puzzled, much as I like the idea!

[jetstream 0]

Over the summer Aiken was certainly listed as the EDP''s Business Editor.

Maybe they job-share.

At any rate they surely share the same office - why didn''t he just ask Mr Hill across the desk, or send an internal email if he was so confused?

It would seem that all he has done with his column is add to the very confusion he is complaining about.

[ca 1]

[quote user="fleggy"]Isn''t Adam Aitken the EDP''s Business Editor ?- least way that''s what it says in my EDP today.  So Purple Canary is suggesting that Adam interviewed Cullum and didn''t ask the right questions? That makes today article even more bewildering-even apart from relocating Ipswich.[/quote]

 

No, this is his title

	Adam Aiken - EDP Deputy Business Editor and Personal Finance

[mavis enderby 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]Careful Purple....Mr Aiken is very prickly when criticised about his column. I''d check your bed carefully for horse heads and such like.[/quote]

On the contrary. I should imagine he is absolutely delighted. He would be much more concerned if nobody read it. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

[jetstream 0]

Oh, I don''t know Bagpuss.

When I criticised a particular column this summer he sent a few PMs via this site - all of them very defensive and prickly.

[ca 1]

That doesn''t sound like Adam who''s always been very polite and interested in feedback when I''ve met him.

[jetstream 0]

Well, we''ll have to agree to disagree.

[Fans Eye 0]

PurpleCanary

You’re not the first one to point out that I’m not very bright. It’s not for me to comment either way, but you may well be right. But I’m pleased you had a laugh at the column. Thanks for reading it.

 

I don’t want to get into a debate about the quality of the EDP’s journalism. Being a journalist there myself, you’ll be unsurprised to learn that I disagree with your views.

 

But the point here is that whatever your views are of the EDP’s journalism, my column was making no comment on it. I was simply pointing out that Peter Cullum’s own comments from the summer and from more recently don’t fit comfortably together. All the EDP has done is report his comments from now and from last week. Like I say, you’re obviously entitled to your views about the EDP’s journalism, but it doesn’t strike me as being poor journalism to report someone’s comments in June and then report his latest comments now.

 

And for what it’s worth, the questions you pose about Cullum are ones that I too would like answered. Having never spoken to the man, I don’t have any more information about the situation than you do.

 

One last thing – in your post, you accuse me (an EDP writer) of slagging off Archant’s journalism in the EDP, but you end by saying that the EDP has not challenged Cullum. Which is it – are we all in cahoots with him or not?

 

BGG&YPOS

Saying that Ipswich is in Essex is indeed incorrect. And deliberately so. In the same way that chanting “You’re a small town in Portsmouth” to Southampton fans is also incorrect.

 

PurpleCanary has already made the point that I’m not very bright – but take it from me that I did know that Ipswich is not really in Essex. I promise . . .

 

Count Chopula

My point was simply that if our league form continues as it is now, we could be in a dogfight at the end of the season with teams such as Forest (and probably not Palace). Therefore, the most important games to win are the six-pointers. When you’re at the bottom of the league, it’s vital to beat the teams around you.

 

Of course, I agree with you that if we ultimately stay up, it doesn’t matter who we have beaten to do so. But we’re not in that position yet, so to give ourselves the best chance of achieving safety, beating the teams around us is the most important thing.

 

Fleggy

I am not – and never have been – EDP business editor. But even if I had carried out the latest Cullum interview (which I didn’t), I would still have raised concerns in Fan’s Eye (as a fan as opposed to a journalist) about what he is saying.

 

And once again, I am well aware that Ipswich is not really in Essex!

 

Jetstream

I was never listed as business editor.

 

Last week I didn’t share the same office as the colleague who wrote the story. I was away from the office all week. It’s a bit hard to ask someone a question across the desk when you’re 360 miles away from that desk.

 

Even if I had been in the office, you totally miss the point of the Fan’s Eye column. Whether you like the column or not (you clearly don’t, which is fine), its aim is to raise issues that I as a supporter think are important. In my role as a columnist, I’m not interested in what my colleagues on the EDP think. I’m interested in Peter Cullum’s public comments about our club.

 

As far as the “prickly” exchange of messages over the summer, I think it should be put into context. As you know, that exchange came after someone you know very well contacted my editor and threatened to make comments about me which – if they had been repeated publicly – would have constituted slander or libel. As far as I’m concerned, that matter is closed. I mention it here purely to put your comment into context.

 

For what it’s worth, I’ve had many PMs over the years regarding my column – some positive and some negative. No one else seems to have had a problem with my tone, though. Most seem grateful for a reply – even if I am not very bright!

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

Dear Fan’s Eye,

Thanks for the admirably cordial response. All you have done is – again – make my case against the EDP for me:

”I was simply pointing out that Peter Cullum’s own comments from the summer and from more recently don’t fit comfortably together. All the EDP has done is report his comments from now and from last week. Like I say, you’re obviously entitled to your views about the EDP’s journalism, but it doesn’t strike me as being poor journalism to report someone’s comments in June and then report his latest comments now.”

What you are describing there is not journalism. “ALL [my emphasis] the EDP has done is report his comments.” Precisely. That’s not journalism; that’s PR. Journalism consists of more than just reporting comments, especially when those comments don’t, as you say, “fit comfortably together” with previous statements. Journalism involves highlighting the inconsistencies and trying to explain them.

”For what it’s worth, the questions you pose about Cullum are ones that I too would like answered.”

Again, precisely, but to be answered they have to be asked in the first place. So why were they not? PR involves asking questions people want to be asked. Journalism involves asking questions people don’t want to be asked. Of course the interviewee may refuse to elaborate, but then you at least tell the public that, list the questions that were not answered and explain their significance. You might not get at the truth, but you’ve tried, and the reader understands what the inconsistencies are.

Good journalism leaves the reader better informed. PR masquerading as journalism, as exemplified by most of the EDP’s coverage of Cullumgate, leaves the reader no better informed. Last week’s story marked a new low in that it left the reader, as you admit, not only no better informed but now also “puzzled” and “confused”.

And finally. “One last thing – in your post, you accuse me (an EDP writer) of slagging off Archant’s journalism in the EDP, but you end by saying that the EDP has not challenged Cullum. Which is it – are we all in cahoots with him or not?”

To be clear, I have never suggested the EDP is in cahoots with Cullum. My accusation is not one of partiality. It is actually the much more serious one of plain incompetence.