Joe Kosich, David McNally and THAT story
Having been pointed in its direction, I’ve finally heard the radio interview David McNally gave before Saturday’s game on my story in the Evening News last week.
The main body of the story is here – missing a few extras that went in the paper.
Mr McNally was clearly not a happy man, but then I know that from when I spoke to him on Wednesday.
Now, I was going to put a couple of points across – but I actually think PurpleCanary’s post on the Pinkun message board says plenty enough. You’ll find it below.
In addition to the interview on the BBC website, the live broadcast included calling me a junior reporter and stated I seemingly ignored him in printing the story.
Well, the conversation I had with Mr McNally was off the record. I’m sure if it was me deciding to suddenly report one of those he would be livid.
Everything I had on the record went into the paper – and I kept asking for more.
The only factual error I’ve seen from Wednesday or Saturday is the statement I am a junior reporter, which I’m not. I am a senior. So there. Ner.
I don’t appreciate my integrity as a journalist being questioned for a perfectly reasonable story and despite mud being flung my way, I’m still to hear an objective reason why the story should not have been printed.
“Firstly, Bailey’s original story is a perfectly respectable, sober, fact-laden piece of journalism. It sets out clearly who Kosich is and what he does (with Kosich himself making fun of the Tranmere stunt).
It sets out clearly the process by which potential investors contacted Kosich, and what happened next – that he contacted the club and the club told him to contact Deloitte’s.
And Kosich makes it quite clear that things are very much at an early stage and, by implication, that fans should not get any hopes up prematurely. ‘In my view nothing is serious until there are letters of intention.’
At no point does he remotely say or suggest that that stage has been reached, that he has investors lined up. On the contrary he warns that ‘capital is hard to find’. He also praises the process the club has set up to find investment: ‘They are going about it in the right way.’
So what do we get from McNally?: ‘I think that to some extent the supporters have been misled by some sensationalist press this week.’
Well, if there are some Canary fans out there so dense they can’t understand a simple, well-balanced story that’s not the paper’s fault. Or that of Joe Kosich.
Then we get this: ‘We have not had any American investor contact the football club.’ Er, well, you wouldn’t have had, would you? Since you told Kosich not to pass on any names to you but to contact Deloitte’s.
Then we get ‘I’m staggered then to read that Joe Kosich is waxing lyrical about all these American investors he has lined up. Well he hasn’t brought them to the football club’ when Kosich very clearly has done no waxing lyrical at all. On the contrary, he has made it clear all he has had are preliminary expressions of interest that might not lead anywhere.
In other words McNally is using the old trick of setting up a false target and attacking that. And, again, HE told Kosich not to pass on any names to the club.
Then we get this: ‘I’ve had Canary fans say to me, ‘what about this American money?’.’ Again, we are back with supporters who can’t understand a simple story. McNally is attacking Kosich for what some idiot fans thought he said, not what he actually said. Not Kosich’s fault. Or that of the paper.
Then it is put to McNally that it is a legitimate piece of journalism and should have been published. His response? ‘No.’
In other words, Archant should have suppressed what by any standards is a newsworthy story. That doesn’t really do it for me. So, yes, unimpressive.”
posted on 22 February 2010 14:34 byMichael Bailey - Sportsdesk