What does the actual news story tell us? Wayne Rooney was out for a meal with his fiance and some other friends. Michael Gray was at the same restaurant and approached Rooney's table, uninvited. Rooney asked Gray to leave them alone. Rooney's spokesman said "It was a brief incident" and "As far as Wayne is concerned, he bears no ill-feeling towards Michael." So, presumably, Gray did as he was asked. We're told that "Wayne asked him to go several times" but does that equate to a row?
The headline implies a full-scale bust-up, raised voices, shouting... yet none of that is reported to have taken place. Just what is the BBC's definition of a row? This is the kind of sensationalist journalism that we really don't want to see. It's about as far from public service broadcasting as you can get, because the headline does not match the facts given in the report. That's hardly public service, is it?
In the BBC's defence, other news sources are giving slightly different versions; Sky report "Wayne Rooney is alleged to have punched Blackburn defender Michael Gray in the face". But this still doesn't make the BBC's headline correct - that's a fight, not a row!
There are a couple of other moans to be groaned about this story. Yes there are footballers involved but is it really a football / sport story? It's nothing to do with sport, and it's not a major incident, so why is it the lead story on the country's leading sport website? My final moan is the whole "alleged" thing. I know the journalists don't want to be sued but do we really have to hear and read the word "alleged" in every sentence? If their sources are that unreliable that they have to put such a disclaimer in every statement they make, why bother publishing the story at all?
"Alleged" isn't news, "alleged" is speculation. Will somebody please bring back real journalism?!
