Daily Mail replaces Mercury as in-house rag

exiledandy · Post by **exiledandy** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:56 am

Has anyone else noticed that the Daily Mail seems to get all the scoops? At least three times recently they have written stories before the club has released news, and all of these have proved to be almost spot on. The particular events which come to mind are Loffreda being sacked, Meyer coming and Goodey going. My questions are therefore fourfold;

a) Is it right that stories get leaked rather than released through normal channels? This should probably be answered in the context of a highly complex media and marketing strategy.

b) If so, then is the Mail the right paper - given the fact that there are at least three other papers and one TV station which invest more coverage in the game.

c) Who is responsible? Is this something which has only happened since CW's involvement on the Board, or does it have more to do with other high profile names?

d) Is it actually something that we should be proud of? By this I mean that we should be proud that our rumours are now aired in the national press rather than via the Mercury.

I appreciate that some of you will say that the initial premise is wrong, but even if they are not first to the story, their stories are a lot more detailed... maybe Peter Jackson is just a better journo!

Interested to hear thoughts...

Daveyboy · Post by **Daveyboy** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:38 am

Reading the Daily Wail is bad for your health.

Having said that, I have been known to to read the rugby section on the on-line version.

bandido58 · Post by **bandido58** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:09 pm

Strange really cos I think the mercury and the mail are both owned by the same company. At least they used to be.

Kinoulton · Post by **Kinoulton** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:18 pm

The only interest the Daily Mail have surrounding Tigers is:

a) Are we employing some more pesky immigrants;
b) How will this affect house prices;
c) What does Mondeo Man think of it all.

Iain D · Post by **Iain D** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:12 pm

About 5-10 years ago the Mail was always the place to look at for rugby news. The Mail (and to some degree the Telegraph) were the only national papers that gave the sport any coverage. Don't forget that the Mail have been sponsoring the national schools competition for decades....

So.. all in all, there are worse places to leak news if you want a national forum, than the Daily Mail.

wardy · Post by **wardy** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:03 pm

I get the Mail and there are often some useful rubgy news stories in it. Peter Jackson is the main reporter though he doesn't seem to venture north of the Watford Gap. The other week he posted his Guinness Premiership Team of the Season and had Mike Brown as full-back!! He obviously hadn't heard of one Geordan Murphy.

sammy · Post by **sammy** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:13 pm

They're part of the same group. So the Merc, probably Martin Crowson, will be getting the scoops, but the Mail will be having them first. Incestuous business journalism.

Darc Tiger · Post by **Darc Tiger** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:16 pm

sammy wrote:They're part of the same group. So the Merc, probably Martin Crowson, will be getting the scoops, but the Mail will be having them first. Incestuous business journalism.

Ov course! I think most ov us had forgotten that. I spose the mail would get priority on scoops.

4071 · Post by **4071** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:32 pm

"The other week he posted his Guinness Premiership Team of the Season and had Mike Brown as full-back!! He obviously hadn't heard of one Geordan Murphy."

Or had heard of him, but thought that Brown's consistently high level of performance over the entire 22-match season (rather than the half-season's worth of games that Geordan managed) was more worthy of recognition.

teds · Post by **teds** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:26 pm

Iain D wrote:About 5-10 years ago the Mail was always the place to look at for rugby news.

My that takes me back. IIRC the daily mail used to publish a "league" table for first class rugby teams (English and Welsh). Since there was no league structure, ie not everybody played everybody, positions were decided on percentage wins. I think I remember buying the rag for that very purpose back in the 1970s. All disappeared when the leagues were introduced.

I know there are some other old folk on here., Anyone else rememeber that?

PlymouthPaul · Post by **PlymouthPaul** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:22 pm

interesting discussion. ownership of the papers doesn't come into it. it will be down to the individual journalists to nurture their own contacts. it may well be that new board members have their own relationships with various hacks. it's interesting that the tiger's head of comms is a former mercury journalist and the merc is still missing the exclusives.

i think the mail sports desk probably has the better contacts. as the board members come from further afield than leicester, it gives the nationals a better opportunity to make the key contacts. And leicester is a high profile club attracting national and international media attention. the club and its employees will be flattered by the nationals' interest and local papers like the merc get forgotten.