Archant Poll

[TILLY]

This morning the Archant papers were running a poll on their home pages regarding the future of Adams with a simple yes/no/undecided

vote as to whether he should be sacked. That poll has now mysteriously disappeared with the finger being pointed towards influence from Carrow Road.

Four threads also went off the PinkUn yesterday all surrounding a senior club official yet that story is here for all to read on this forum on a different thread. Was pressure applied from NCFC for those also to be removed ?

Freedom speech is something I sincerely hope is allowed to continue for us fans regarding our football club and to that end this new site may well thrive in this difficult time.

 

[Din]

*Thread gets deleted*

 

[morty]

Pffft, they are such followers, we had a poll here ages ago.

 

[splutcho]

Half of the reason I'm not much of a fan of the Pink'Un. It's a bit 1984.

 

[The Great Mass Debater]

We know this forum has hit the big time when we come under such similar pressures!

 

[morty]

I had this discussion last night with someone in pm, and unless something was libelous, nasty, or potentially damaging to the club, then I would see no reason to censor.

 

[Gaffer]

It was running at nearly 80% in favour of sacking him when I voted.

 

[Watling the Gnome]

Half of the reason I'm not much of a fan of the Pink'Un. It's a bit 1984.

And that's just the forum software...

 

[admin]

Well, this is why I felt we needed an independent forum which was fit for purpose.

I have checked the norwichtalk email account, no email from the club requesting a take down of any content. If I did receive one and it was in respect of something that I didn't feel was libelous, I'd possibly insist on a formal cease and desist which states clearly which content is libelous, depending on circumstances. 

Obviously I wouldn't be able to ignore one of those, I'd have to comply.

But I do wonder whether any request from the club to Archant would have been made so formally. As I've pointed out before, we already know the following:

• Archant own a stake in the club (a few percent)
• Stephen Phillips a club director was the MD of Archant until 2011.
• Archant rely on the continued goodwill of the club for access to players! 

I still get most of my news from Archant, and I really value their news service. But there are a few posters on the Pink'un who have the cheek to say that NorwichTalk is censored, au contraire! 

 

[Boyerboy]

Can we just slay the canard of free speech.   Subject to the law, you have a right to free speech in your own property and in public spaces.  Elsewhere, you are subject to the rules and morals of the owner of the property. 

If you say something I disagree with in my home then I am free to tell you to shut up and leave.

Internet forums are not public spaces.  They are owned by whoever set them up.  Archant and Norfolk Talk are free to tell any of us to shut and leave.  That is their right as the owners. 

If it happens, you can question and criticise their motives.   It is not an issue of free speech.

If you want free speech then set up your own forum.  Otherwise, follow the rule of the forum you use.  I am not prepared to follow the Archant rules so I left.  I do not though dispute Archant's right to run the forum it pays for however it wishes.

 

[Beauseant]

As someone who writes for Archant but isn't employed by them I can see both sides of this. There is no question that the club exerts pressure on them. Michael Bailey has twice been banned from the ground and forced to make personal apologies to McNally for writing something that the club didn't want to see in print.

There is an element of pragmatism, as the way in which the club controls information out of Carrow Road means that if Archant is banned they can't cover City which would have a profound influence on their ability to sell papers. Equally, there is a element of symbiosis in that the club needs the local publicity.

To some extent the ground rules have changed since relegation as we are no longer of much interest to the nationals, which strengthens Archant's hand a bit, but the relationship is still very strained.

I do get annoyed at the blanket abuse of Archant. The likes of Michael, Paddy Davitt and Chris Lakey are bloody good journalists working in difficult conditions, but as anyone who's read Paddy and Mike's more recent stuff will know they push criticism as far as they can.

 

[Personal Trainer]

Must say over the years I have always found these types of poll offensive. I know football is different but we are being invited to vote on somebodies livelihood. 

I'm sure nobody would find it acceptable if Archant decided it had to make cuts and ran a poll on which sports journalist should be made redundant!

 

[SussexYellow]

Must say over the years I have always found these types of poll offensive. I know football is different but we are being invited to vote on somebodies livelihood. 

I'm sure nobody would find it acceptable if Archant decided it had to make cuts and ran a poll on which sports journalist should be made redundant!

But we are not voting on somebodies livelihood though. It's results that determine that. Even then it's not a case of shipping them off to the poor house. They are highly paid and getting the boot will probably mean they get the balance of their contract paid up. While they get the opportunity to join the managerial merry go round and the opportunity for another lucrative contract.

Somebody pointed out recently that the average tenure of a manager is 2 years. There is also an active betting market on appointment and dismissal of managers. They know that, they know the score and no doubt have thick skins accordingly.

The big salaries stem from the the public paying big money to consume it. So is it that unreasonable to indulge the paying publics hunger to discuss and have views on the sport?

 

[SussexYellow]

OK we do not know who exerted influence to pull the poll or even why it was pulled. It's all speculation.

But I hope it was not Carrow Road. To have done so would be, in my view, over sensitive. It would suggest they did not want to hear the message. Odd when most businesses want to know exactly what their consumer's opinion is and pay good money to survey it. If they are getting it wrong, they want to know so they can correct it. I am really not sure what to make of this.

On the other matter again we do not know what the influences were. However whatever they were I can see sense in trying to keep a lid on it.