Great journalism is surely defined by accuracy, not speed? The point is to get the story right, not to get a half-arsed version out first. I note that Advertiser said having to have your copy cross an editor's desk could result in unnecessary delays. Some would say having to have your copy cross an editor's desk first is the hallmark of a better quality publication that cares about what it prints. There was a time when this was standard practice.

Like everything else in the age of "I demand everything now," media thoroughness has fallen by the wayside in pursuit of speed. Ironic that many of those who criticised (and in some cases rightly) my own impatience over our transfer activity are now defending a similar lack of patience but in another arena. You can't have it both ways.

I don't have much respect for the modern media but I come by my disrespect far more honestly than I come by judgments on how to run a football club having at least been there, seen that, and got the t-shirt. And I'd quite happily debate my conclusions face-to-face (since someone asked).

Why not show some humility and apologise to the advertiser guy that you abused, it's there in black and white, he was correct and you weren't.

Plane - That's fair enough, actually. I think if nothing else I have consistently apologised on this board when I've been wrong about something (amazingly, it's happened once or twice) so whatever other criticisms can be levelled at me, a failure to admit when I'm wrong isn't one of them.

TBH I had not apologised because I lost track of/interest in the thread and only just returned to it (hence the last post). It's also quite dense and I didn't really have time to decode it all. But point taken...you're right. And I apologise.