Interesting article here from football365 that discusses a piece from the Guardian by Daniel Taylor. It nicely exposes the appalling behaviour and personality of Ronaldo and also the press bias towards United.
First of all, let's begin by recounting the tale that was the centrepiece of Daniel Taylor's latest column for The Guardian. Despite the length, it's worth a read, so cut Mediawatch a little slack:
'First of all a little story to tell you what kind of man we are talking about. It is January 9, 2008, and in an upstairs room at Manchester United's training ground five elderly men in smart blazers are struggling with their emotions in front of a hushed audience. It is the club's media day building up to the 50th anniversary of the Munich air disaster and Sir Bobby Charlton's polite smile does not hide the fact he is trembling as he takes his seat. Bill Foulkes is straight-backed and dignified but only a couple of questions have been asked before the tears appear in his eyes and he reaches for a glass of water.
'In an adjacent room Wayne Rooney has agreed to offer a modern-day perspective of that seminal day when 23 people, including eight members of Sir Matt Busby's team, were killed in the wreckage of the burnt-out BEA Elizabethan. It is not his specialist subject but he handles the occasion with dignity and more eloquence than some people might imagine. But then Cristiano Ronaldo comes through the double doors and the mood is broken.
'He is wearing a white suit jacket and ripped jeans, looking every bit the boy-band hunk, but it is very obvious he is in a bad mood. He begins by berating Karen Shotbolt, the club's press officer, because he is waiting for Rooney and the event has over-run. He is banging his watch with his hand, flapping his arms and gesturing in the way that Portuguese footballers usually reserve for fussy referees and, at first, he is so animated it appears as if it might be a wind-up.
'When he flounces back through the doors, cursing loudly, it is very obvious he is being deadly serious. Rooney is professional enough to carry on with his tribute but the attention is no longer exclusively on him. Thirty seconds later Ronaldo appears again, first rapping his forefinger against the glass in the door, then opening it by a fraction and starting to whistle at Rooney in the way that a farmer beckons his sheepdog.
'It was such an unpleasant scene the journalists decided not to write about it because we had been invited to the training ground to cover a far more important subject and, when you have sat with men as noble as Charlton, Foulkes, Albert Scanlon, Harry Gregg and Kenny Morgans and seen the hurt in their eyes, it felt incongruous to veer off-track.'
It is a riveting and fascinating tale and one that has prompted a great deal of comment since it appeared in Saturday's edition.
But from Mediawatch's perspective, the interest lies not with the story itself but the newspaper's refusal to tell it until six months after the event. Taking responsibility for the censorship, Taylor depicts the decision as the only honourable option given that the assembled hacks 'had been invited to the training ground to cover a far more important subject'.
Rather than merely revealing the secrets of Ronaldo's behaviour, Taylor has instead confirmed what has long been suspected - namely, that journalists tend to toe a party line agreed between themselves and only spill the beans at a moment that is convenient to them. There's nothing particularly surprising in the disclosure but - in a story that is intent on depicting Ronaldo as a man not to be admired or trusted - it is ironic.
Not, of course, that Mediawatch is buying this 'we didn't publish because it would have been hurtful' guff. Journalists are, after all, not renowned for their delicacy or sensitivity. The suspicion must be that Taylor - and his chums - didn't publish the story through fear of repercussions. As The Guardian's man on the beat in Manchester, Taylor is reliant on staying in the club's good books in order to maintain access to their star names - such as Rooney, who, as you might have noticed, is depicted as the hero of the story, and Charlton, with whom he subsequently held an exclusive interview to mark the 50th anniversary of Munich.
It's worth remembering, too, that Taylor wrote a warts-and-all book on Sir Alex last year. According to some, Ferguson was less than pleased. Was staying quiet on Ronaldo the equivalent of a favour being returned? In any case, the belated (and highly convenient) decision to publish now is the clearest indication yet from inside Old Trafford that Ronaldo will be leaving the club. If the story wasn't published in January or beyond because it would have upset Manchester United, it's a Tuesday-follows-Monday certainty that Taylor has only published now in the knowledge that ManYoo no longer care if Ronaldo's character is discredited. Why? Because he's off and no longer their problem.
And in a scrub-my-back-and-I'll-scrub-yours world, look out for a Guardian exclusive bylined by Daniel Taylor with Rooney in a couple of months' time.
'First of all a little story to tell you what kind of man we are talking about. It is January 9, 2008, and in an upstairs room at Manchester United's training ground five elderly men in smart blazers are struggling with their emotions in front of a hushed audience. It is the club's media day building up to the 50th anniversary of the Munich air disaster and Sir Bobby Charlton's polite smile does not hide the fact he is trembling as he takes his seat. Bill Foulkes is straight-backed and dignified but only a couple of questions have been asked before the tears appear in his eyes and he reaches for a glass of water.
'In an adjacent room Wayne Rooney has agreed to offer a modern-day perspective of that seminal day when 23 people, including eight members of Sir Matt Busby's team, were killed in the wreckage of the burnt-out BEA Elizabethan. It is not his specialist subject but he handles the occasion with dignity and more eloquence than some people might imagine. But then Cristiano Ronaldo comes through the double doors and the mood is broken.
'He is wearing a white suit jacket and ripped jeans, looking every bit the boy-band hunk, but it is very obvious he is in a bad mood. He begins by berating Karen Shotbolt, the club's press officer, because he is waiting for Rooney and the event has over-run. He is banging his watch with his hand, flapping his arms and gesturing in the way that Portuguese footballers usually reserve for fussy referees and, at first, he is so animated it appears as if it might be a wind-up.
'When he flounces back through the doors, cursing loudly, it is very obvious he is being deadly serious. Rooney is professional enough to carry on with his tribute but the attention is no longer exclusively on him. Thirty seconds later Ronaldo appears again, first rapping his forefinger against the glass in the door, then opening it by a fraction and starting to whistle at Rooney in the way that a farmer beckons his sheepdog.
'It was such an unpleasant scene the journalists decided not to write about it because we had been invited to the training ground to cover a far more important subject and, when you have sat with men as noble as Charlton, Foulkes, Albert Scanlon, Harry Gregg and Kenny Morgans and seen the hurt in their eyes, it felt incongruous to veer off-track.'
It is a riveting and fascinating tale and one that has prompted a great deal of comment since it appeared in Saturday's edition.
But from Mediawatch's perspective, the interest lies not with the story itself but the newspaper's refusal to tell it until six months after the event. Taking responsibility for the censorship, Taylor depicts the decision as the only honourable option given that the assembled hacks 'had been invited to the training ground to cover a far more important subject'.
Rather than merely revealing the secrets of Ronaldo's behaviour, Taylor has instead confirmed what has long been suspected - namely, that journalists tend to toe a party line agreed between themselves and only spill the beans at a moment that is convenient to them. There's nothing particularly surprising in the disclosure but - in a story that is intent on depicting Ronaldo as a man not to be admired or trusted - it is ironic.
Not, of course, that Mediawatch is buying this 'we didn't publish because it would have been hurtful' guff. Journalists are, after all, not renowned for their delicacy or sensitivity. The suspicion must be that Taylor - and his chums - didn't publish the story through fear of repercussions. As The Guardian's man on the beat in Manchester, Taylor is reliant on staying in the club's good books in order to maintain access to their star names - such as Rooney, who, as you might have noticed, is depicted as the hero of the story, and Charlton, with whom he subsequently held an exclusive interview to mark the 50th anniversary of Munich.
It's worth remembering, too, that Taylor wrote a warts-and-all book on Sir Alex last year. According to some, Ferguson was less than pleased. Was staying quiet on Ronaldo the equivalent of a favour being returned? In any case, the belated (and highly convenient) decision to publish now is the clearest indication yet from inside Old Trafford that Ronaldo will be leaving the club. If the story wasn't published in January or beyond because it would have upset Manchester United, it's a Tuesday-follows-Monday certainty that Taylor has only published now in the knowledge that ManYoo no longer care if Ronaldo's character is discredited. Why? Because he's off and no longer their problem.
And in a scrub-my-back-and-I'll-scrub-yours world, look out for a Guardian exclusive bylined by Daniel Taylor with Rooney in a couple of months' time.
Comment