The People's Forum
[ Post a Response | The People's Forum ]
The academic explanation would
use the concept of news values. There can be no impartial or neutral way to choose what to cover in the news, its all based on cultural, personal and organisational values. These values are really wide ranging an influenced by all sorts, but some attempts have been made to produce lists of news values. Things like proximity, so the closer the story happens to the audience the more likely it will be covered. Negativity, bad news is more newsworthy than good news. The one that relevant here is continuity, so an ongoing story, or story relating to one thats been recently covered is more newsworthy. A famous example was the spate of media stories about dog attacks that led to the Dangerous Dogs Act. There never was an increase in dog attacks, just an increase in media interest driven by the news value of continuity. Thats why anything negative about Everton will be covered for the foreseeable, its not an agenda, its just how the news works.
Has Kenwright taken out a subscription to The Telegraph, or something?
As for the article, it looks like "let's get a couple of architects to say it's late, then write a load of conjecture, then present it as fact and hope everyone swallows it".
File under "fu cking desperate cobblers".