Death after Villa v Blues derby: both the victim and accused driver were Villa 'fans' (and why The Sun can at times be a sick, irresponsible paper)
Yesterday's excitement in Birmingham over the Villa v Blues derby quickly turned to sadness when news of the fatal traffic collision near the ground came through.
Things got even grimmer when police arrested a man on suspicion of murder. Disturbingly, many websites quickly speculated that the victim was a Villa fan, the driver a Blues fan. Nothing attributed, mostly anonymous 'tips' and therefore, of course, ignored by the Birmingham Mail. Just as well, because it was wrong.
Our report last night on the web and in today's paper was straight: "A man is being questioned on suspicion of murder after a pedestrian was killed in a collision with a car close to Villa Park shortly after the Villa-Blues derby."
Yes, it happened after the Villa v Blues match, and yes, we said that a fan was believed to be the victim.
But we were careful, most properly and responsibly, not to suggest rival fans were involved. Even if it had turned out to be true, no-one knew this to be the case and it would be virtually inciting violence to say so.
Not such care was taken be The Sun today. Their splash today is headlined: 'MURDER AT THE MATCH - Villa fan run down by rival' and directly reports speculation that the car involved was "said to be driven by a Birmingham fan". They wildly used words like 'grudge', and referred to 'bitter rivals' in copy so close to the details of the arrest that the average reader might be forgiven for assuming this was a Blues-Villa incident.
This was irresponsibility in its most repugnant form. The Sun has a record of stating 'facts' before they are confirmed. And on this occasion, they have really let themselves - the the profession of journalism - down.
This morning, at 10am, West Midlands Police confirmed that the victim and the driver arrested on suspicion of murder were BOTH Villa fans. No Blues fans were involved.
The Sun should be ashamed of itself.
Older/Newer
« Villa 5, Blues 1 | The Sun, Villa and Blues and a wider debate on crass reporting in the nationals »
21 Comments
Leave a comment
Profile
Steve Dyson - Blog from the Editor on recent issues and events.
Whilst I applaud your attempt to 'get one over on the Sun' for its sensationalist and disturbing non-story, it seems a bit rich of you trying to take the moral high ground. After all was it not your newspaper who promoted the launch party for a book by a former Villa hooligan, which was subsequently cancelled because of fears of violence?
The book launch will only have been cancelled by police with nothing better to do
Very moral high ground for a paper that has over the years never let the facts get in the way of a good story and I have been at the sharp end of one of your female reporters a few years ago who got totally the wrong story and facts. Not just did the story get printed with false information, the Birmingham Mail then covered this up by not printing any further information and kept quiet. Dont criticise those who are trying to do a job, things sometimes get reported wrong, the Sun I am sure will do the right thing and apologise which is the least the mail did!!!
Apart from that, my thoughts go out to the family of the young man who lost his life and I am ashamed that the paper see this as an opportunity to have a go at others - that is as low as it gets!!!
Anon may have personal reasons for taking issue with the B'ham Mail but the fact is that the Sun DOES have a reputation for irresponsible reporting and is very often taken to task in the high court for some very slanderous articles.
A good illustration of this is the Sun's coverage of the Hillsborough disaster where they made several unfounded allegations of Liverpool fans going through the pockets of the dead, urinating on police rescue workers, etc. It is for this reason that very few copies of the Sun are sold on Merseyside.
Now, as regards the post-derby incident, clearly, the Sun has been at it again!
Truth and lies: I'm always trying to highlight the disgusting way The Sun can sometimes operate in the regions. Happy to discuss the hooli book story, but it's kind of a completely different topic. But here goes. From memory, the book was published by a mainstream publisher and was being launched at an event at a local bookshop. Er, that's a story.
Anon: If you have any issue with any story we have published, please contact me directly. You can do this via steve.dyson@birminghammail.net
Re. my criticism of The Sun, I will continue with that. While you say they are trying to do a job, I say they are only trying to grab headlines in a way that could very easily have caused violence and misplaced retribution.
Stellachiave and Luke: Thanks for your comments.
Generally: I despise the way newspapers like The Sun sometimes go about their business. They and others were directly criticised by me in Chapter 10 of The Battle For Longbridge (Brewin, 2000), 'The London bias that nearly killed Rover'. They at times show little respect for anywhere north of Watford gap. It is crucial that editors in the regions kick out to show up their occasional (and in some cases frequent) ineptitude and crass handling of facts.
Before you apportion blame on others please check your own original report yesterday evening which stated it happened as "fans were pouring out of the ground" amongst other insinuations.
It is a shame the truth is twisted so easy to fit a story
How fantastic to yet again see a newspaper article come down on the wrong side of the argument! Though the sun's approach to the story with apparant wreckless disregard for all the facts is inexcusable, the proverbial pat on the back that this article is giving itself for the weight it places on getting the facts correct is surely not the salient issue of the story. Please be more focused in future releases of this story on the tragedy that the death took place not on a vendetta against a rival newspaper.
Douggie:
Tell me then, what were 40,000+ fans doing if not pouring out of the ground? Is that not a factual description of post match crowds 30 mins after final whistle?
Er, you said it, Michael. "the sun's approach to the story with apparant wreckless disregard for all the facts is inexcusable". nuff said
Colin, the match finished at 1.55. The incident occurred at 3pm. If that is 30 minutes then your maths is as poor as the original story on this website.
It does not help when even the basic facts are twisted
Douggie:
Where are you facts from? The 3pm quoted and given out by police to all media is the logged time of 'death on scene'. The original call out was 2.20pm (first 999 call).
Colin, I was nearby and I reckon the incident happened closer to 2.45.
Douggie, whatever time it actually happened, we were still pouring out. 40k fans don't diappear in five mins! 20k stayed til nearly half past, 15 mins cheering and singing and 20 mins to get away from the ground.
Anyway, its detail.
For my money the sun was disgusting. The mail doesn't always get it right in my book, but on this death they have been the best source of information. Sun should be ashamed.
Colin, FYI I was on call. So I would hope you agree first hand knowledge is better than speculation. It was only the hangers on who were left in the immediate vicinity and most of those were only due to a long walk around the diversion.
There has been lazy and inaccurate reporting from most media, the worst of which is The Sun. It is a shame that those who cry foul forget they too have cried wolf one too many times now.
Douggie: Actually sounds like you work for The Sun!
Seriously, any issue with Brmingham Mail reports, please let me know particulars.
When we get things wrong, and we all do, we admit and apologise. Couldn't see that in The Sun yesterday...
steve.dyson@birminghammail.net
Steve, I will take your first comment with the pinch of salt I am sure it was meant with. My original point still stands and note the story I refer to was on your website before any official communications.
Bar the excellent Colin Tattum I do not follow the Mail in great details these days due to the very number of inaccuracies you refer to. Nevertheless I will use the contact details provided as and when and thank you for your reply
I
Douggie: Am I right in thinking that your original point was "fans were pouring out of the ground"? If so, we wrote that because that was the description we believe was accurate. Emergency services (two) and eyewitnesses (two) said crowds of hundreds were in the actual spot near the incident, with hundreds more being turned away. They were part of a crowd of 40,000+ that would have recently poured out of the ground. How else would you describe it? The times this occurred have ranged everywhere from 2.20 to 3pm from the police themselves in different communications/conversations.
If we find the actual number of people around at the time of the incident was meagre, I'm happy to change the archives on the web and to amend future references.
Do you know of (are you) an official source who can provide us with such information that is contrary to earlier sources?
You have my email if you need to send anything.
Regards
You believed was accurate ? So much for verifying the facts Mr. Dyson before jumping on a story. Inconsistent sources did not stop the story being filed inaccurately. Not quite as bad as The Sun but along the same lines in my opinion.
I can only speak for myself though I know my colleagues also get frustrated with the lack of responsible reporting that does little to represent the actual events. I understand your need to sell your product, at the expense of sensationalism is now old hat and unhelpful to those of us involved with dealing with an incident and aftermath.
I am happy to leave it to the official inquest which will bring out the timing of all events and in the meantime I just wish to confirm my personal condolences to the family of Mr. Priest
Er, yes, Douggie, we believed a story was accurate - based on four primary sources, two of them emergency services. You've still to tell me what was inaccurate. If 40,000 crowds don't pour out of grounds, what do they do? As to verifying the facts, we did NOT run the Blues line despite one copper suggesting it. We felt he was guessing and sparking inaccurate speculation.
We don't jump on stories, Douggie, we report in good faith what's happening out there.
One of my jobs IS to sell newspapers as you suggest, but NOT with sensationalism. That would be easier, but wrong. If we'd wanted to do that, we would have gone along the same lines as The Sun. Re. "those of us involved with dealing with an incident and aftermath", I'd advise that some of your colleagues desist from the fat wallets of red-tops which often start the rumours. We pay no-one for any stories.
As I said I will let the inquest show the times involved and let those who attend football matches note that the only pouring out was adding two and two to make five.
I take most of your other comments with the defensive attitude I expected any reply to contain. The only thing I and my colleagues detest is normally national and local media trying every trick in the book to get information instead of listening to what has already been advised. Your comments about payment show up the lengths media go to and I find laughable but also inaccurate and in some ways offensive to the very who have the respect towards family and incidents that others fail to show
The one complaint you appear to have made about the Mail: "... fans were pouring out of the ground."
The verb 'pour' has four main alternative verbs: 'transfer'; 'move'; 'empty'; and 'spill'. I think the description was fine... there was no hint in our copy that the 'pourng' (or transferring, moving, emptying or spilling) in any way caused the accident. It's just that lots of people were leaving the ground. You would have preferred "... fans were emptying the ground" or possibly "... towards the end of the transfer of fans from the ground". This then becomes police speak which can be spotted in many police statements. It's kind of trivia.
As for "defensive", the Mail has no need to be. Our treatment of this very sensitive story has been exemplary, both to readers, fans and especially towards the family who we visited personally (AFTER the story they asked us to carry) to pay our respects.
As you may find out if you are really a police officer, the way we are currently dealing with the factual information about the alleged driver is also pretty responsible...
We are currently discussing this with senior force officers to make sure the real story is told BEFORE The Sun whips it up again.
Watch this space (or a new blog re. it come the weekend).
Pretty huge development in this story in tomorrow's (Saturday's) Mail, including specific details of what happened.