I see your point (Hytner can be a bit know-it-all in his writing style sometimes) but honestly, I agree with milo here: most journos with Spurs 'sources' at the Guardian (there's definitely more than one) probably largely repeat what our press officers tell them, adding a few flourishes for dramatic effect like all journalists are prone to doing. It's a quid pro quo: they break an exclusive story and in return the club makes its feelings known without officially stating anything and hopefully gets a more forgiving reception from these particular journos and publications when the media spotlight turns on it again.
Do they act a bit grandiose and self-important when delivering said club missives to the public? Definitely. Honigstein and co. have their faults, but they rarely issue overarching commandments from the pulpit to their slavering readers, if you know what I mean. Their stories are far more nuanced, far more about romantic narratives and incidental facts leading up to the weekend's biggest results: in short, they provide the reader with a few background facts, then sweep in their overarching theme (underdog club winning, for example) and then ask 'now isn't that something?', leaving the reader to interpret it how he or she chooses.
But I don't see anything 'wrong' with what the likes of Hytner and Jamie Jackson say, per se. It's the club line, just not from club sources.
