News broke this week that Manchester United had banned certain journalists from their press conference ahead of Wednesday’s Premier League clash with Chelsea. Manchester United Evening News’ chief Manchester United correspondent Samuel Luckhurst, Kaveh Solhekhol and Rob Dawson of ESPN were among those denied access to the Tuesday briefing.
United released a statement explaining their decision. "We are taking action against a number of news organisations," the club said. "Not for publishing stories we don't like, but for doing so without contacting us first to give us the opportunity to comment, challenge or contextualise. We believe this is an important principle to defend and we hope it can lead to a re-set in the way we work together."
READ MORE:
There are two clear perspectives on decisions such as this one. The first is the implications for the idea of free speech and a free press. Are United’s actions contravening the media’s right to report on them? While the individual journalists might disagree, I’d argue there is no contravention of rights here. Access to the press conference is United’s to give and no outlet is promised a space in perpetuity. The same is true of matchday press access. Every single outlet that applies isn’t waved through to cover the match simply for doing so. A whittling down process is necessary and it is United who do it.
Obviously when the time comes to cut down the numbers, Sky Sports and the MEN are not who you expect to miss out. Nobody is suggesting United have banned Solhekhol or Luckhurst for space. Sky in particular, as a broadcaster who pump untold billions into the game, have every right to feel aggrieved. But what I am trying to demonstrate is that ultimately the buck stops with United and, rightly or wrongly, they can have whoever they like at their press conference.
What they have not done is prevented any of the journalists involved from reporting on United. That would be a denial of free speech. The content of a Premier League press conference is available instantly online, with the events streamed live. Though there is an embargoed section they will have missed, the banned parties are perfectly free to cover the majority of the content of Erik ten Hag’s pre-match missive. But the fact they must do so from outside the Old Trafford press room is evidence of United sending a clear message.
It is a message United have sent before, but with a very different reaction. Sir Alex Ferguson regularly banned journalists from the United inner sanctum. The great Scot refused to speak with the BBC for a number of years. Ferguson would often call out members of the press corps face-to-face in tense news conference exchanges. In Sir Alex’s siege mentality iteration of the Red Devils, journalists were a bigger enemy than Arsenal or Chelsea.
But this take-no-prisoners approach has been widely lauded, often by the same press pack he was gunning for so relentlessly. It is held up as a symbol of the ruthlessness that powered United to 13 league titles and a brace of Champions League trophies under Ferguson’s stewardship.
Ferguson took his war with the press to an extreme far beyond that which Ten Hag and United are currently waging. And yet the reaction to Ten Hag doing it has been far more extreme. Of all the complaints you could level at the current iteration of United, this feels like a strange one to pursue. Ten Hag’s tactics have been lacking, his substitutions have been questionable and he has failed to get the best out of the likes of Raphael Varane and Marcus Rashford this season. But his stance on the press feels perfectly in-line with Ferguson.
The manager is not the only person to fall victim to confirmation bias at United this season. Poor results and performances have seen behaviour that would otherwise be lauded instead berated by pundits. Roy Keane regularly calls out Bruno Fernandes largely for doing the same things Keane did as captain. Talking sternly to referees, berating teammates who fall below his standards, remonstrating wildly when a decision doesn’t go his way. Keane did all this stuff himself but wants Fernandes stripped of the captaincy for his perceived petulance. Pot and kettle, Mr Keane.
But this will be United’s lot until they improve. The siege mentality was a positive under Ferguson. The combative style of Fernandes was seen as leadership when Keane did it. These things aren’t what is wrong with Manchester United and it is reductive to act like they are. United’s issues stem from the boardroom and the tactics board. The club isn’t run well and the team isn’t set up properly on the pitch. Just don’t expect certain journalists to acknowledge that, particularly from outside the press room.
*18+ | BeGambleAware | Odds Subject To Change
