Rashford PR backfires as Manchester United forward launches ‘attack’ on the wrong people

Marcus Rashford wants people to ‘understand’ his situation and how he feels his Manchester United ‘commitment’ cannot be doubted. The media saw an ‘attack’.

Rash decision
Marcus Rashford would be the first to say he has not been his usual self this season, either on or off the pitch. He skirted around it without ever making that specific admission in his column for The Players’ Tribune, referring to ‘mistakes’, ‘doubters’ and more broadly of how ‘the world has not seen the best of this United squad and these players’.

He also dedicated a couple of paragraphs in a wide-reaching piece of more than 2,000 words to offering his thoughts on the media coverage he receives, suggesting ‘there’s a tone to it that you don’t get with all footballers’. He went into more depth in a sit-down interview with the same outlet, saying among many things that “stuff that gets written about me, like 90% of it is false”.

And that was the gravest of all his errors, attracting the attention of some writers with whom the crux of his issue does not lie.

The point Rashford was making, prefaced with him saying, ‘I’m not trying to have a go at the media,’ was:

It’s got to be about how much my car costs, guessing my weekly salary, my jewelry or even my tattoos. It’s got to be about my body language, and questioning my morals, and speculating about my family, and my football future.

His entirely understandable and justified problem is with what one might call MailOnline syndrome, the dog-whistle churnalism nonsense which focuses on the money he spends and how and where he spends it. It’s something he’s spoken about before.

And it’s a category certain journalists just do not fall into, such as Oliver Brown of the Daily Telegraph.

The sub-headline to his article is a fine place to start, saying as it does that the ‘Manchester United forward has been given a platform to mount an attack on the media but his form and conduct do warrant proper scrutiny’.

Give Mediawatch a second to get over the idea that actual Marcus Rashford, actual Manchester United actual footballer, needs a specific ‘platform’ to do much of anything. The bloke can log onto social media any time and send a message out to millions of people whenever he likes. The Players’ Tribune is not a ‘platform’ he needs.

And good lord, if any of what Rashford has either said or ‘written’ was ‘an attack on the media’ then there are some awfully thin-skinned people working in such an industry.

Apropos of nothing, Brown jumps into Rashford’s attempt to ‘escape legitimate scrutiny’ by ‘portraying any criticism as a cynical attempt to knock him off the pedestal he assumed during the pandemic’.

At which point Brown has already made as many references to the pandemic and Rashford’s work during it as Rashford himself. Almost as if the England international does not consider himself to be on a ‘pedestal’ beyond censure. No possible sane read of Rashford’s article or interpretation of his spoken words can suggest that he feels ‘any criticism’ is ‘a cynical attempt’ to undermine him.

READ MORE: Rashford’s Manchester United actions must speak far louder than his thousands of empty words

But Brown continues raging against Rashford’s ‘self-justifying screed’ in which he paints himself as ‘essentially beyond reproach’. Was that the bit where he says ‘I’m a human being. I’ve made mistakes that a lot of lads in their 20s make, and I’ve tried to learn from them’?

So, while Rashford would like to frame his deteriorating public profile as the media’s fault…

And at this stage it really must be said that that isn’t what Rashford was trying to do whatsoever. He doesn’t say he’s only scored five goals this season because the Daily Mirror wrote something mean about him. His very specific, very obvious and very clear point was about the coverage his cars, his wages, his jewelry, his tattoos, his body language, his morals and his family receive. He says as much. There was no attempt whatsoever to ‘frame’ his poor form or disciplinary issues this season as ‘the media’s fault’ and Brown has to know that.

Plenty of this is on Rashford for conflating two arguments: against the criticism he has received this season for playing and at certain times behaving poorly; and against the irresponsible media reporting on certain aspects of his life. In an article geared towards offering his side of the current situation and first and foremost emphasising his commitment to Manchester United, it was a strange time to air those grievances with the media.

But that does not excuse pretending he blamed them for anything to do with his form or discipline, or that he tried to ‘mount an attack’ on anyone or anything.

‘Much as it might infuriate him to hear this,’ Brown continues, ‘his harsh depictions in the media are not some act of calculated malevolence. They have nothing to do with “tall-poppy syndrome”, or with an eagerness to bring him down after his noble efforts helping to feed underprivileged children who were not receiving their free school meals.’

A reminder that it was the Telegraph – not Brown himself, of course – who once heavily implied that Rashford had to pick between playing well for Manchester United and feeding children. So it feels that might still be a factor for some. And it feels like this entire article is a disproportionate response to a footballer questioning some of the coverage he garners in certain quarters of the media. That’ll show him.

Damn and blast
How, by the way, do the Daily Telegraph present their story on Rashford’s article more than 2,000-word article spanning a range of subjects?

Marcus Rashford blasts criticism over lifestyle and commitment to Man Utd

The bar has been lowered an awful sodding lot if any of what Rashford said qualifies as a ‘blast’. Or maybe you could say there’s a tone to that headline that you don’t get with all footballers. Let’s just leave it at that.

Rash cream
But Brown is not fighting the good fight against nasty, media-bullying Rashford alone. Ian Ladyman is here in the Daily Mail and it is a strong old start:

Rashford, the United forward, is not an easy target, he is the opposite.

Reckon he might be an easy target at times, you know.

But no, ‘the reality is that if you are going to come for Rashford then you had better have good reason and you had better not miss. And even if you don’t, then you should still be ready for a backlash.’

In which case, the thoughts of Mediawatch are with the brave Ian Ladyman at what is presumably an incredibly difficult time, sifting through all the ‘backlash’ he’s definitely received for criticising a player who has been criticised more than most this season.

Rashford, rightly or wrongly, currently appears to believe he’s being victimised.

He thinks certain aspects of the coverage he receives is vacuous nonsense and that is difficult to argue against. Rashford never even implies that he is ‘being victimised’. Not even by Ladyman, who once tried to stoke some anti-Rashford sentiment when he flew to New York while injured.

Rashford believes that people have it in him for him.

Way to say the same wrong thing in two different ways within a couple of paragraphs.

This is an interesting tactic by the 26-year-old. His delicately written polemic reads a little like a plea for love, for understanding. It’s clearly from the heart and he has every right to put it out there.

It reads exactly like a ‘plea for understanding’. Rashford writes in the first paragraph of his piece that ‘sometimes, certain lines get crossed, and I can’t help but want people to just understand who I am as a person.’ That’s some GCSE English Literature-level analysis, Ian. But it’s good of you to approve of Rashford trying to have his say.

In particular, he seems upset that his commitment to United is being questioned. By whom exactly, he does not explain, but it’s not difficult to understand how that may hurt.

It’s a real mystery who might have questioned Rashford’s commitment. Earlier this week Alan Shearer criticised his body language and said “you as an individual have to take responsibility for your actions on the pitch,” so maybe let’s not rule him out. But also literally a couple of paragraphs later Ladyman writes ‘his work rate has been questioned by supporters’.

Some wise soul will figure out who Rashford was talking about at some point, but alas it will not be this day.

Ladyman concludes in much the same way as Brown before him: with some variation of telling Rashford to do his talking on the pitch. Which is fine but let’s not pretend that even when Rashford has done precisely that, the media didn’t do the exact things he spoke about.

Custis pie
And finally, the thoughts of everyone must be with Neil Custis at this most difficult time:

The SJA have announced invites to their awards but continue to recognise the lovies and their inverted full backs rather than those who have been at the coal face for decades.

Mediawatch is equally baffled at the exclusive story of Sheikh Jassim’s imminent Manchester United takeover not being nominated for scoop of the year.