Issue Looking for the truth in the local paper

As told by Michael Wood

The truth about Luke O’Brien’s absence from the City squad under Peter Jackson, that was the promise. The left back went from sure starter to not being able to get on the bench and now Simon Parker would lift the lid in the Telegraph and Argus.

I simply wasn’t in (Peter) Jackson’s plans. End of story – Luke O’Brien

And there it was. The end of Parker’s story and nothing else with it. No investigation as to why O’Brien might have fallen from those plans in the space of a few weeks and – in the article at least – no attempt to question O’Brien for that piece of information.

Likewise during his time at the club there was no question poised to Jackson about O’Brien and why one of the club’s players had been frozen out – or if there was it was not answered – but after Jackson’s exit there was this article saying that O’Brien was “(shooting) down the conspiracy theories regarding his lack of action for City.”

Let me say at this point that I’ve no ace to grind with Simon Parker or anyone else who writes about City. Jason, myself and the other writers of BfB pretty much write when it occurs to us rather than having to hit a deadline and are not bound by the need to maintain relations with the club. Parker does a tough job and he does it under pressure from his employers and (indirectly) the club on one side and a demanding readership on the other. I’ve no axe to grind with Parker or anyone else who covers City.

However the reporting on the club seems to slip into condescension far too often. If a person covering City is not able to get to the truth of a situation then I’d rather that they did not present a half truth, and present it in such a dismissive manner.

We have no idea of the truth of O’Brien’s absence before or after Parker’s article and the reaction to being told that he was not in Jackson’s plans is to find out why. If that is not possible then do not write a story which talks about “conspiracy theories” that you are not able to cast any light on.

Likewise when BfB found out that Omar Daley had been offered a new two year deal at Bradford City within an hour Derm Tanner had tweeted that there was no truth in the story. Three weeks ago we found out that Daley was heading for Motherwell, Daley headed for Motherwell two weeks later. The information came from the same place. Tanner might have been right to say that Jackson did not believe there was any truth in it, but simply repeating what he was told is hardly the stuff of investigative reporting.

Again, this is not to criticise Tanner, but rather to point to the idea that if the people who cover the football club are not able to investigate stories beyond asking a single person and dragging very little out of them then I would rather that they did not present their version as “the truth” especially if it is so obviously limited. If it is not possible to do more than asking O’Brien and print the words “end of” then it might be best to change the tone of articles.

Of course this is not important. In the end getting to the truth of why Luke O’Brien did not play or even why Omar Daley said he was getting a deal and Peter Jackson said he did not really do not matter in the scheme of things but for he people who report on the club to be in the habit of not asking questions, or not attempting to dig into stories, of not looking any deeper than the first thing they are presented with is not a good position for the club to be in.

After all if the history of this club’ boardroom tells us one thing it is the supports are not always presented with an accurate version of events. At the moment Bradford City may be being run superbly, as well as possible, but that has not always been the case and the current board would appreciate the fact from the situation they inherited and the reasons for that.

If the reporters who cover City are not able to question the official line it would be good if they did not present that as truth.

There are no comments on this article, Michael is on holiday.