essay

Asses the effects of press attention on Watergate

By Tom Lee

Watergate is seen as a key piece of investigative journalism in modern times, it is an event in American history which included a presidential scandal. I will be looking at how the press played a key role in developing this incident and how the press actually affected Watergate's eventual conclusion.

It started in 1972, the Washington Post wrote a story involving five ex-CIA employee's who were arrested for trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate hotel and office complex. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward report on a followup as the GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars, and former attorny general John Mitchell denies any link between the Nixon re-election campaign and the burglary.

Soon after on August 1st 1972, a $25,000 cashier's check ended up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar which was originally earmarked for the Nixon campaign. On the 1st October the FBI stepped in and established that the Watergate break-in was founded through a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage which was linked to the Nixon re-election campaign. However, November 7th saw Nixon manage to win a landslide victory in the polls and was re-elected as President.

Yet on January 30th 1973 Watergate again returned to the news, the Washington Post reported that former Nixon aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. were convicted of burglary, wiretapping and conspiracy, another five men pleaded guilty to the Watergate break-in. On April 30th, three of Nixon's top White House staff resign over the alledged scandal, and another is fired. These included Attorny General Richard Kleindienst, H.R. Haldeman and Jogn Ehrlichman.

As 1973 moved on more of the scandal broke amongst the press. June 3rd, John Dean claimed he discussed the Watergate cover-up with President Nixon atleast 35 times. A key story was covered by the press as a former presidental appointments secretary revealed to the press that Nixon had recorded all his telephone calls and conversations in his offices since 1971. Which lead to Nixon ordering the disconnection of the White House tapping system but then refused to turn over the presidential tape recordings to the Senate Watergate committee or the prosecutor in July.

On October 20th, the Washington Post then reported on an event labbelled as "Saturday Night Massacre" which involved President Nixon firing Archibald Cox and abolishing the office of the special prosecutor against him. A memorable speech from Nixon was televised and wrote about in the Washington Post on November 17th, as he declared: "I'm not a crook," which was an attempt to show his innocence in the Watergate case. To increase speculation against Nixon, on December 7th the White House was unable to explain an 18½-minute gap in one of the tapes, Alexander Haig was quoted by the Washington Post as saying: "Some sinister force," erased the segment. 

In 1974 the White House released more than 1,200 pages of edited transcripts of Nixon tapes to the House Judiciary Committee but the committee insisted that the tapes be turned over themselves. In July the supreme court unanimously ruled that Nixon had to turn over the tape recordings of 64 White House conversations. Richard Nixon became the first U.S. President to resign, the scandal lead to his demise. Even though the press had been reporting stories which were given to them by a mysterious informant using the alias "Deep Throat." 

Carl Bernstein and BoB Woodward followed information given to them from this informant who eventually became known to the world as Mark Felt who was the former number two official at the FBI. He had leaked them key information and a trail to follow during the entire scandal, he was the source of information in the Watergate cover-up and many journalists question whether the incident was actually a key piece of investigative journalism or not. Although, the important fact is that Mark Felt needed the information to become public knowledge through the press, the Washington Post in particular developed the story until its conclusion. 

I will be using the hypothesis that, "Press attention on Watergate had a major effect on the incidents development." I aim to study evidence from the 1970's as part of my methodolgy, reports from the Washington Post and editorials from the same newspaper in a chronological order to investigate how much of an effect the press really had on the Watergate cover-up. 

Firstly, an editorial from the Washington Post written in 1973 said, "Plainly, the President would like to turn the whole ugly matter over to the courts. And plainly took that is where the prosecution of specific criminal violations should be." (Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18) This quote shows that the press believe that the courts should settle the matter, unknowing that the President was actually involved in the scandal. Which shows a reliance on the authority figure in America's society this figure is seen as the role model and leader. The connotations of the quote lead to the way in which the press may be trying to seperate the President from the accusations against his campaign, manipulating public opinion to keep their respective leader "clear" of convictions and maintaing the purity of the presidential post.

However, the same editorial wrote: "An equally important test has been whether these men met certain minimum standards of decency, propriety and honor, to borrow a word much invoked by the President." (Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18) This time the same article is questionning the quality of the men involved in the original break-in, these were all people who the president hand picked as his aides. The way the editorial implies that the President did not judge these people properly could lead public opinion against him by questionning his judgement.

Even further, the editorial begins to use phraseology which includes the public and is trying to imply that the writer knows exactly what the public want from certain positions of power by saying: "When one speaks about public confidence and trust, that is the heart of the matter: people are entitled to something more than confidence that their highest public officials do not break the law; they are also entitled to know that these officials do not lie and cheat and corrupt the institutions of government." (Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18) Here the editorial could of been used as a way to determine the public interest story, it includes the public's needs and desires from the officials in charge of the country. The way in which it uses the words "lie, cheat, corrupt" are all negative terms used to imply the officials involved in the scandal are thieves or spies as an assumption. All words associated with criminals, not presidential aides which leads me to believe that the editorial is trying to get the public on the writer's side by trying to write on their behalf, including himself as one of them. It also is asking a question about the mystery itself, and it does not explicitly show any sign of knowing the potential outcome of the writing. Which means that Mark Felt's influence was progressing in stages rather than telling the press everything at once. 

After determining the editorials position on the event, it begins to state its own bias as it states: "But it is precisely in this area of earning (or restoring) public trust that Mr. Nixon's remedies fall short." (Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18) The way in which faith was originally given to the presidential position in the same editorial earlier, it begins to question the actual figure in charge. "Remedies fall short" shows that the public's faith in Nixon's solutions wasn't strong, and so the effect of this would be that the Washington Post is trying to portray a sense of false hope, whilst urging the public against the man in charge of the White House. The knock-on effect may be that the story would itself develop against the president from this point on, it appears as though a contradiction between Nixon and the presidential position is present, the public would be strongly against a president who was corrupt himself. Another effect this attention caused would be doubt over whether or not Nixon was suitable for his post, it shows a clear false belief in the man in charge.

The Washington Post's own opinion can be seen throughout this editorial as negative against Nixon, and as an effect of this the public would be fully aware of the President's wrong doings. Yet the way in which it is written, it does not appear to know what is going to happen next, there is a clear sign of concern but not any indication to the way in which the whole scandal links to the president. This shows that the press would be writing based on public interest rather than a vendetta against a certain person, the effect this has is that the public may be enticed onto the press' side as the press are appearing to write for the general society at the time as a whole. 

Yet so far the press attention on Watergate did have an effect on its outcome, as the public began to want to know more about the mystery and how far the president was entangled in the cover-up. It meant developing stories would be written to include more information on the proceedings. The way the press handle the affair is from a public interest angle allowing a developing story to be written. Especially with the Washington Post being leaked information from Mark Felt it meant that the informant wanted the information to be published, almost as though it should be published because it effected everybody in the country. 

The press began to show some signs of knowing where the whole scandal coverage would lead, Nixon's demise. By saying: "The dramatic news of the dismantling of the White House command staff that served Mr. Nixon through his first four years in the presidency was the most devastating impact that the Watergate scandal has yet made on the administration." (Editorial: 3 Top Nixon Aides, Kleindienst Out; President Accepts Full Responsibility; Richardson Will Conduct New Probe, Laurence Stern and Haynes Johnson, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A01) Therefore, it is showing that the effect "yet made" or so far, would lead to more problems for the president. The term "devastating" identifies exactly how much of an effect the press has made on Watergate. This analysis shows that the editorial is trying to use words which would emphasize the scale of how negative the press coverage has been towards Watergate. A term like "Dismantling" shows how a structure has been slowly taken apart through press coverage, supporting my hypothesis even though the ultimate outcome wasnt achieved so rapidly. The press may of known what would happen, as the sense of mistrust in the President was being portrayed by them would leave the public with little choice but to follow the information given to them, as the President had not been cleared from the scandal itself.

To further this, a news story published by the Washington Post confronted the speech Nixon gave in 1973 declaring "I'm not a crook." A reporter followed Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal by covering a televised question and answer case by the president. It states "In an hour-long televised question-and-answer session with 400 Associated Press managing editors, Mr. Nixon was tense and sometimes misspoke" (By Carroll Kilpatrick, Sunday, November 18, 1973; Page A01) As this statement is based on personal opinion from the actual event itself, it would give the effect that the reader would question the way in which the president was nervous, and why he was nervous. It also would effect how the rest of the article would be written, as it shows doubt over the president's recollection of key events, which would of lead to him being misspoke. 

To follow onto this, the newspaper covered a speech given by Nixon which lead to him taking responsibility for the scandal itself. An editorial from the same writer states: "The President's address was both a somber confession of failure and an emotional appeal for trust in him and in the office." (Editorial:Nixon Pledges No Whitewash On Watergate, Carroll Kilpatrick, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A01) The writer is showing emotion in the way it seeks sympathy for the president after seeing Nixon's speech to the country, showing human interest through humanity's hopefulness in society over people in positions of power. The way it confirms the failure would have an effect that would cause more information to be revealed by the press, showing that the failure would want to be uncovered. I believe that the effect of emotion being portrayed here was to try and sympathize with Nixon, it is trying to imply that he is only human. But at the same time, the previous editorial assumed that the position should be filled by someone who is pure, and perhaps in some ways above normal human mistakes. Which evidently Nixon was not. 

Another key quote shows that the effect that the press had was massive. In terms of how there coverage effected Nixon directly, and how the follow-on stories about Watergate meant that public faith in the president was failing. It says: "He almost plaintively asked for confidence in himself." (Editorial:Nixon Pledges No Whitewash On Watergate, Carroll Kilpatrick, Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A01) This quote in particular shows how the press know they are effecting the president. The issue of confidence in the leader seemed to be fading at the time through press coverage about Watergate, this meant that the effect press attention had on the public was causing unrest whether or not the president in particular was right for his job. 

This editorial is mainly derived of quotes from a press conferance Nixon gave, but it appears to show sympathy towards him. This would affect the public's previous interpretations against Nixon because it is showing that Nixon is "one of them" in a manner of speaking, through human error it classes the president as a member of normal society. However, the press attention also claims that the whole scandal causes a lack of confidence in the president. This effect would need to be turned around as it states that trust was being asked for by him, showing that the press attention has actually caused damage. 

In conclusion, I believe that my hypothesis is argued for well. As the press attention clearly shows an impact on the public, the way events happened and were followed upon by the press lead to a lack of faith being shown in Nixon and his administration. The Watergate scandal lacked information which the investigative journalists followed up on, with editorials and stories urging for more information to be found. The trail of content was pathed out, as slowly more and more would be found. Now I feel that the press originally did not know exactly how far their own coverage would lead them to, and how big a scandal it actually was. 

Especially as the first editorial appears to show little remorse for the president but doesn't show any indication to events after it. The other articles however, seem to urge the public against the man in charge. They show more sign of knowing what will happen, but do not explicitly say it. The mere assumption that knew what would happen can suggest that the press attention wasn't a major player in the incidents development. But the fact that the press opinion was so heavily against Nixon it could lead to only one outcome, even with some sympathy being shown towards him. I feel my hypothesis is not entirely proven because the press seem to know that the president in question will not be able to re-gain the trust he lost through the mysteries initial impact. But I believe the downfall of Nixon can be claimed by the press to some extent as the attention may of been overlooked originally. 

Had it not been for the press the scandal may of not been covered at all, yet through investigative techniques the attention caused development in the story, which would lead to a massive leak of corruption in American politics. The press cannot be given full praise for it though as they had an informant leaking information, but the way in which Mark Felt himself needed the information to be written shows a reliance on the press to deliver the truth. 

Blue is the colour

Chelsea lift the Premier League crown

Chelsea secured the title yesterday with a convincing victory where they ran rampant over a poor Wigan side.

In truth, the neutrals were probably hoping for some last day drama which just did not happen as Chelsea scored within the first ten minutes and then the flood gates opened.

However, this was not without controversy which has plagued Chelsea’s title charge. With the most recent offside incident against Manchester United, yet again the officials failed to see a blatant offside. Malouda strayed off, but the flag stayed down as Anelka struck the ball home, and the Chelsea fans could feel the title finally being theres after three years.

The crowd at Old Trafford was silenced completely, even though Manchester United were dominating Stoke the fans knew their title hopes were sinking unless Wigan pulled it back at Stamford Bridge.

This was just not to be on the day as Chelsea got a clear-cut penalty where one of the most bizarre Didier Drogba moments followed. Frank Lampard, Chelsea’ token penalty taker was under pressure from Drogba who was aiming to become the golden boot winner. Drogba’s personal claims to fame were immediately turned down by Lampard as it was only one nil to the Blues. What a different day it might of been had Lampard not been so professional. Nonetheless he buried it and Stamford Bridge erupted with a deafening roar.

As the news spread to Old Trafford United began to play even more freely almost trying to do one better than Chelsea on the day. Both sides went two nil up, yet Chelsea took Wigan apart with relative ease after the half-time break. It finished 8-0 and Chelsea lifted the trophy, while Manchester United’s manager Sir Alex Ferguson thanked the Old Trafford faithful for their support and claimed his side would bounce back next year.

A gleeful Chelsea team began their celebrations with their fans in full voice, as their manager Carlo Ancelotti made his last day speech which could barely be heard.

The question still remains whether decisions favoured Chelsea over the course of the season but in reality they fully deserved it, after fighting back from a defeat to Inter Milan at the hands of the special one Jose Mourinho they took the table by storm. Winning four games with seven goals or more, and Didier Drogba becoming the leading scorer and golden boot winner following a last day hat-trick. Unsung heroes of the season like Ivanovic, Kalou and Lampard who were all criticized for poor form outrageously earlier in the season when all three played a crucial role in securing the Premier League crown.

In a season of many downs for the blues with John Terry being stripped of the England captains armband, Ashley Cole’s off-field scandals and highly publicized divorce from Cheryl Cole. And none more so than the way the club got beaten by a strong Inter Milan team and knocked out of the champions league. Yet it was their year in the league, the new champions demonstrated resilience and character by holding off Manchester United.

United must of thought they were out of it when Chelsea beat them, yet both sides kept it going right to the wire. Chelsea edged across as United have some tweaking to do in the summer and can all expect them to be back with a vengeance.

Whereas Chelsea’s players may think there safe, Roman Abramovich is surely thinking this year wasn’t a success as the coveted Champions League is still not his. Chelsea have an aging team made up of numerous 30+ year olds, so expect to see plenty of personnel changes at Stamford Bridge in the Summer.

State of the game

Farnham football fans have expressed there overwhelming support of a rematch between Ireland and France after the “Hand of Henry” goal, a poll shows.

Nearly 80 percent of people voted in favour on the poll for a rematch between the two international sides. One sports shop worker said: “Replay, the referee should be good enough already but technology would make it much clearer.”

FIFA officials concluded that it was not in the best interests of the game to replay the match even though French skipper Thierry Henry helped France to the World Cup finals by blatantly using his hand to control the ball and set William Gallas up for the goal.

The controversial decision has caused gathering support for technology to be used in the game as long as it doesn’t interrupt the game’s rhythm. Almost 60 percent of fans want technology to be introduced according to the poll conducted in Farnham. One 18-year-old female student said: “It would take 3 hours between decisions, it would be like American Football. Where would you stop?”

Another participant, a 19-year-old male fan stated: “With all the stoppages and time wasting already in the game it would disrupt the natural flow of a match.”

It also seems England’s hopes for winning the World Cup seem bleak as only 20 percent of Farnham sports fans believe in their national side, the poll shows. A student studying sports journalism, 20 said: “Capello is good enough, but Spain are a class above the rest.”

A clear indication that this poll heavily ways in the support of other countries according to the participants in the local area of Farnham. From student’s to builders they need something to spark, or someone to really impress to get them behind there national side.

The poll taken in Farnham’s town centre represents a lack of faith in the England team after numerous disappointments at previous tournaments. But it does show that the majority of sports fans would like some form of technology to be brought into the game, but as long as Sepp Blatter is in charge of FIFA the hope of any fan influence appears to be bleak.

Have your say in the poll below!

Tango Down

Game – Modern Warfare 2
Platform – PC

Modern Warfare is back with a blast. With more terrorist conflicts than ever before it offers the best single player campaign the series has to offer. Along with top quality graphics it makes Modern Warfare 2 really come to life.

The franchise turns its attention to detail as every aspect of the game has been improved. The game feels as though you are there, or even in a movie. The graphics are simply that good. You could easily be mistaken when you get up and start pretending to breach your kitchen, it really feels as though the player is the game now. Every move you make affects the sequence of events to follow, from how quickly you kill an enemy to where you position yourself on the map.

Yet its very hard to find something truly bad about it. Only slight improvements could really be made to the multi player side of things, perhaps more maps or even more detail on certain ones which offer limited tactical play. New and improved perks and kill streaks do offer a wider variety to public online gaming though, there are plenty of ways to counter somebody and get better as you play for longer. Those who have played previous versions of Call of Duty will notice it is very similar in that regard, you can see yourself progressing as your leg shots turn to head shots over time.

With endless amounts of achievements and accolades, players will find it difficult to put the game down. However, it does offer something for every type of player. A casual player could pick it up and enjoy themselves, whilst a more hardcore gamer could sit there for hours working through the achievements. Each aspect of the single player game really shines, the story line is terrific with twists and turns at every corner. I found myself watching the story line in the same manner of watching a film, you will be shocked at some points but you will be in awe at everything else.

As winter is upon us, it really does offer the perfect supplement to a night in with your mates, you’ll be shouting and screaming at the person next to you then finally turning to them with your anti-terrorist lingo. When you start saying threat neutralized and roger that it really has become time to leave the apartment. But that will be hard with this installment, the sequel definatly delivers. It is now flagship for the shoot-em-up genre and it doesn’t dissapoint on a any front.

Rating – 4/5 A near perfect sequel in a really strong franchise, the future of FPS games.

Vintage Eastwood

Gran Torino –

Directed by – Clint Eastwood

*Contains spoilers*


Clint Eastwood hit yet another masterstroke on the big screen with this moving tale about

Korean war veteran Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) struggles to cope after the loss of his wife and manages to keep onto his racial prejudices in a Michigan Neighborhood not short of ethnic groups. His troubled character cannot get on with anybody except for his pet Labrador Daisy and his vintage 1972 Gran Torino.

His once all white neighborhood is now made up of South-East Asian families, one of which is right next door. A Hmong teenage boy name Thao who lives next door gets forced into a gang initiation by his cousin, his task is to steal Walt’s Gran Torino. Eastwood produces a masterful performance straight away by scaring the life out of poor Thao with a gun who soon runs away leaving Walt’s prejudice to become even stronger.

Typically Eastwood plays the role with remarkable pride and aggression which lets you understand his past sins from the Korean war. Walt’s past burdens soon become ever present as young Father Janovich (Christopher Carley) begins making regular trips to preach to misguided Walt.

Father Janovich slowly seeps into Walt’s conscious as he made a promise to Walt’s wife to look after him, and get him to confess his sins. Christopher Carley plays his role strongly which comes across in a moving manner, the way he tries to understand Eastwood’s character and help him is a key part to the plot.

Walt is soon burdened with Thao as his own personal worker, eventually persuaded by Hmong girl Sue. Sue bonds with Walt and over time the friendship blossoms in the film as you witness two vastly different cultures coming together. Walt’s own son’s have no idea about who their father really is, and strikingly the Hmong teens break through to his real self.

Soon after Walt is ready to make real sacrifices to help them and their family who have taken him as one of their own. The culture shock is depicted through the gang, Thao’s cousin makes the audience really want Eastwood to take a stand against them in violent fashion.

However, Eastwood has developed a clever plot rich in emotional attachment to his new found family. You soon become wishing he would react to the gang’s vile acts, and even Father Janovich starts to push Walt out of a decision he will regret.

But Walt uses his own experiences to hit the gang where it really hurt. The most enticing part to the whole film is the way it ends, how Eastwood uses his character’s bluff to force the gang into an act of violence infront of plenty of witnesses leaves him down and out but takes a whole gang with him, only they will be in prison.Letting Thao and Sue grow up free of gang pressure.

In the final scene you see a truly inspiring moment as Walt Kowalski’s will is being stated. His sons expect to receive everything, yet he leaves his mind condition 1972 Gran Torino to his friend Thao. A great finish to a film which really showed how one stubborn war veteran was changed by a couple of teenagers who held a prejudice against. But his own conscious battle is won, with his dieing sacrifice which would surprise you in the best possible way.

Not only does Eastwood deliver a moving performance but classically includes humor into a very serious story, and he does it brilliantly. It adds to the emotional depth of the film as you can connect to the way the character is feeling, from his stubborn gruff exterior to the prideful and mentoring inner being he really is. A film anyone will enjoy from start to finish.

Rating – 4/5 – A true classic, Vintage Eastwood.

Special enough?

With the latest news that Jose Mourinho is set to take over at Old Trafford when Sir Alex Ferguson eventually retires, Manchester United fans are forced into an unfamiliar position.

On one hand Manchester United is a club which demands a big personality to manage the team and develop them, which Mourinho has got in abundance. However, he has also never managed to last longer than two years at Chelsea and so far at Inter Milan he is almost certain to level in the Summer to Real Madrid. This could be a problem, as United welcome long term success and as Fergie has produced several teams in his twenty year era. Can Jose follow-suit?

This is definatly uncertain as he hasn’t stayed at a club for a long enough period, which in fairness is down to the modern game and the way billionaire owners dictate club management. But on the other hand, managers must deal with these uncertain terms and make an immediate impact which Mourinho is especially good at, in his first year at Chelsea he lead them to title success and won the FA cup.

He is now in the process of leading a mediocre Inter side into the Champions League semi-final against favourites Barcelona. But as we all know, the special one always has a plan and a betting man would not bet against him.

They are very similar characters in the way they manage, one of Fergie’s best qualities is the way he man manages players and molds young players into great talents like Ryan Giggs or Gary Neville. The main difference is that Ferguson has been in charge of United for twenty years and still going, and has the freedom to control his team as he likes.

Yet Mourinho has been forced to make big impacts under pressure and in a short time period. He succeeded at Chelsea and won the title under the pressure of Roman Abromovich’s spending power. Tactically, Jose is parallel to Fergie if not far above him. When something isn’t going quite right, or the opposing team start entering the game Jose Mourinho makes changes to his formation or a substitute to change the match in his favor.

Ferguson sometimes does the same, but the main quality which Mourinho has is that he makes bold decisions quickly, he doesn’t give his team another ten minutes when they could well be out of the game unlike Ferguson. Which may be the reason why so many late goals have been scored by United, and in some ways luckily.

Jose Mourinho relies on his tactical awareness and man management. The main question marks arise over whether Mourinho can last the distance at a one club. Sir Alex Ferguson has made a mockery of Liverpool’s English dominance and has built each of his teams with the desire to play matches until the final whistle and never give up. Jose installed some of that philosophy at Chelsea but he also relies on his own skills to distract attention and pressure away from his team and put the weight on his own shoulders.

Just look at the semi-final against Barcelona. Normally, Barcelona would be the favorites without any questions asked, they can outplay anyone most people would say. But then Inter Milan enter centre-stage and could disrupt that flow of possession football the Catalan giants love to play.

But the only reason they can do this is really down to the twelve man factor. Normally that would be the fans, but in this case Mourinho counts as an extra player. The way he manages to create a plan for his team to follow like he did against Chelsea, but then seem to be still a step ahead when Chelsea manager Carlo Ancelotti changed his team, Mourinho not only followed suit but did it in some style.

Only at Inter have we seen the special one use attack as the best form of defence as effectively as a side like United. At Chelsea he showed glimpses of style and class football which the United fans crave. If he can repeat it, and keep the consistency that a club like United demand then he is surely the only man for the job. The other simple factor is, who else is there?

Madrid here they come

As we near the second leg’s of the Champions League Quarter Finals it seems no teams but Lyon have a real foothold in the Semi-Final.
The final will be hosted at the Santiago Bernabeux in Madrid.

Quarter Final first leg roundup –

• Manchester United got there vital away goal at Bayern Munich but are still a goal down. Bayern Munich 2 – 1 Manchester United
• Arsenal Conceded two away goals to narrowly draw at home even though they were overpowered and outclassed in the first half, Walcott sprang to their rescue. Arsenal 2 – 2 Barcelona
• Jose Mourinho’s Inter missed chance after chance until there breakthrough goal to take to Moscow. Inter Milan 1 – 0 CSKA Moscow
• The battle of France ended in Lyon’s favour even though Bordeaux scored one away goal they may be able to claw back in the second leg, but Lyon’s European experience proved vital. Lyon 3 – 1 Bordeaux

Please cast your vote on the poll below to see who you all predict will win the competition.

Roo-who?

It was the sight all Manchester United and England fans were fearing, when Wayne Rooney writhed on the pitch in pain on Tuesday night.

Since then he has been diagnosed with a sprained ankle, which is a relief to England fans especially as it is not long term. He is expected to be out for between two to four weeks in which time Manchester United could well be out of both the Champions League and the run-in for the Premier League.

Rooney has been instrumental for club and country, he has been United’s talisman this season and with him on the sidelines it falls to the rest of the team to keep there dreams alive. My main fear is that besides Rooney, we lack a goalscorer with Michael Owen also out it falls to Dimitar Berbatov. I once loved the class and guile of his touch, but this season he has ended up going backwards purely down to his goal threat being near enough non-existent.

Against Chelsea on Saturday and Bayern Munich on the Wednesday United need a driving force, there team spirit will be tested to its fullest and some players need to step up to the plate which is Old Trafford. The Theatre of Dreams will host both matches which is a huge advantage, but I am still concerned over who will score our goals for both matches.

Perhaps it is time for United fans to queue in Martin Tyler once more as he screamed Frederico Macheda’s name last season following his late surge onto the English football scene. Or perhaps Mame Diouf will cause an upset, yet it is more likely to be that one of our rising star’s will get the match winner.

Nani has had a season of ups and downs after his media outburst about his boss, yet he has fully redeemed himself with fine form and earnt himself a new contract. The United boss said: “He has great potential.” Now Sir Alex doesn’t make statements that are wrong very often, we have seen Nani grow and develop into a fine professional, his consistency has vastly improved and his class is evident. Just look at the way he picked apart Arsenal and Bolton, he is our main threat and could cause Chelsea all sorts of problems as they are missing Ashley Cole.

I only hope that the next two matches go down in United’s History as memoriable victories rather than the fading point of our season.

My starting eleven against Chelsea – Van der Sar, Evra, Ferdinand, Vidic, Neville, Nani, Valencia, Fletcher, Carrick, Park, Berbatov

Get out or go under

Ambition versus loyalty

Fernando Torres, in one word, class. But in some ways he is so like other players imprisoned by blind loyalty and a lack of true ambition.

Clouded in blind loyalty he must get past the grip of the Kop. Look at the likes of Alan Shearer as just one in a long list of world class talent which turned down the chance to be a Manchester United player.

Since Shearer’s change of heart to go to Newcastle he has failed to receive the rightful medals a player of his stature deserved. Instead he got none. Not one single medal worth mentioning.

However, Torres is now right and ready in his prime. He chose to snub Sir Alex Ferguson’s tempting offer when he was at Atletico Madrid. Since then Sir Alex has lead United to Premier League and Champions League success, but Torres is still trophy less.

How he can not see that himself and Steven Gerrard carry that Liverpool side is beyond me, and this season is one too far. If either of them have any sense they would jump ship to another club in the summer. Sure their loyalty would be in question, but footballers only get a few years of there careers, and look at players like Giggs and Neville who have a full trophy cabinet. Being the best is surely what they want, so why not play with the best?

As a Man. United fan I do not see either player coming to us nor Sir Alex actually pursuing an interest but it is painstakingly obvious that Barcelona or Real Madrid would come in for either player and they’d end up with at least an honest chance of glory.

Liverpool like the clubs mentioned are steeped in history but sweeping wholesale changes are needed from management to personnel. Their squad has too many players which aren’t up to par. To many “maybe today I’ll turn-up” boys. Change or fall out of history for another few years.

first year mass debate

Our very own UCA today podcast!
Us journalism students have taken time out of our busy schedule to discuss some news topics from prison weaponry and Ian Huntley to student loans.