Opinions on sports journalism

therecklessone

First off, this is not a pop at any specific group of fans as I think this thread will deal with universal traits among football fans. It is prompted by a trend I first identified among posters on a UK-based Spurs fan site, but have noticed with increasing regularity on this forum as well. Admittedly a post on the Liverpool superthread this morning did get me thinking about the issue, but that is entirely coincidental.

"Good article" = anything positive about a person's club/manager/players/fans
"Journo scum" = anything negative about the above

Sound familiar?

What I find funny is that despite the poor quality of a good deal of the media coverage of football these days, people still read through the content to arrive at one or other conclusion, regardless of the article itself. The writer could post widely inaccurate lies, but as long as they paint the posters own club in a good light, with the converse applying.

Is it that hard for football fans to read criticism of their club and accept it for what it is: an honest assessment of what the club is, or where they are?

Likewise, is it really that rare that your club gets positive press that you'll accept any old sh1te as long as it's painted in club colours?

Thoughts anybody?

gosplan

therecklessone wrote: »

First off, this is not a pop at any specific group of fans as I think this thread will deal with universal traits among football fans. It is prompted by a trend I first identified among posters on a UK-based Spurs fan site, but have noticed with increasing regularity on this forum as well. Admittedly a post on the Liverpool superthread this morning did get me thinking about the issue, but that is entirely coincidental.

"Good article" = anything positive about a person's club/manager/players/fans
"Journo scum" = anything negative about the above

Sound familiar?

What I find funny is that despite the poor quality of a good deal of the media coverage of football these days, people still read through the content to arrive at one or other conclusion, regardless of the article itself. The writer could post widely inaccurate lies, but as long as they paint the posters own club in a good light, with the converse applying.

Is it that hard for football fans to read criticism of their club and accept it for what it is: an honest assessment of what the club is, or where they are?

Likewise, is it really that rare that your club gets positive press that you'll accept any old sh1te as long as it's painted in club colours?

Thoughts anybody?

People have said this before but in general, the footballing supporting public of Ireland/England have no idea what good sports journalism is.

This is simply because they haven't been exposed to it at all.

This will continue while ex-players are given preference over budding journalists who have put the groundwork in.

Justified criticism is fine but some rags just print lies to sell a story.

Worse is, some people believe what they read in the tabloids.

therecklessone

gosplan wrote: »

This will continue while ex-players are given preference over budding journalists who have put the groundwork in.

Certainly in terms of visual media, but there are plenty of good journalists in written meida, and plenty of opportunities for them to flourish.

Perhaps the problem is that people want to be entertained rather than informed, or better still that is what sells advertising, so that is what broadcasters give us?

You are probably on a loser mixing high brow journalism with Sunday afternoon pints and a big screen in fairness.

therecklessone

rarnes1 wrote: »

Justified criticism is fine but some rags just print lies to sell a story.

Worse is, some people believe what they read in the tabloids.

And some people instinctively dismiss what they read in the tabloids because, well, it's the tabloids...

Oliver Holt is a decent writer in my opinion, is his work devalued because he writes for the Mirror?

applehunter

On Friday Cork City Foras Co-op signed up "The Evening Echo" as media partners for the 2010 season. Now that put me in a bad mood for the day.

The Evening Echo is the equivilant of the Herald in Dublin only that its back page is definately more concerned with local sport than the Dublin paper.

This is the same newspaper who's sports editor sided with the last chairman at nearly every opportunity last season.

I would have welcomed some negative articles last season to try and get the public pressure on Coughlan but more often than not Couglans incompetance was not reported.

So to answer the question.

I have no problem with criticism but blatent editorial spin is "journo scum" in my book.

Tusky

Absolutely agree. I'm studying consumer behavior at the moment and theres a section in the textbook on football fans, and it goes into detail about why they exhibit such extreme bias. Its only natural I suppose. I always try to be as neutral as I can. In regards to Liverpool, The truth can usually be found somewhere inbetween MrAlan Boggles for example

ilovelamp2000

gosplan wrote: »

People have said this before but in general, the footballing supporting public of Ireland/England have no idea what good sports journalism is.

This is simply because they haven't been exposed to it at all.

This will continue while ex-players are given preference over budding journalists who have put the groundwork in.

I have to agree with this.

Getting away from the written end of it, take Sky Sports as an example. It is essentially football coverage for idiots. They never make an attempt to discuss tactics or anything else remotely interesting about the game of football. Take last week for example, they came to conclusion that the reason City didn't beat United was because they were "overawed by the occasion". No mention of the differences in approach of the two teams, how the approaches changed throughout the game etc etc. The pundits they roll out are laughable. They don't add anything to the enjoyment or understanding of the game and if Jamie Redknapp doesn't start wearing looser fitting trousers soon I might strangle him with that super fashionable slim tie of his.

They just constantly look for a bit of controversy, some silly narrative or other storyline. Basically fodder for SSN to repeat ad nauseum until something else interesting happens.

leninbenjamin

therecklessone wrote: »

is his work devalued because he writes for the Mirror?

Obviously. If you're writing for a tabloid you've basically got to simplify all your arguments and restrict your vocabulary. A writers capacity to express his point is much more restricted tbh.

For what it's worth the Guardian have probably the best sports service in Engerland. They don't have much of the whole ex-players ****e, just avoid Pleats nonsensical column. Some of the writers have fairly big egos so you frequently have some absurd metaphors and similes to put up with, but for the most part its fairly objective. Bit of an Arsenal bias though.

Also opinion pieces and interviews in the times can be pretty good, but it's a bit hit or miss. They tend to have a lot of facts, figures and stats so you can usually learn something interesting. But being a Murdoch owned corporation you have to sift through a lot of ****e at times.

Telegraph and the Tribune occasionally decent opinion pieces too, but they seem smaller outfits or something, not half as frequent and their pages tends to be filled with reports I find.

redzerdrog

robbie savage is brilliant in the mirror every week:D

ilovelamp2000

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Obviously. If you're writing for a tabloid you've basically got to simplify all your arguments and restrict your vocabulary. A writers capacity to express his point is much more restricted tbh.

For what it's worth the Guardian have probably the best sports service in Engerland. They don't have much of the whole ex-players ****e, just avoid Pleats nonsensical column. Some of the writers have fairly big egos so you frequently have some absurd metaphors and similes to put up with, but for the most part its fairly objective. Bit of an Arsenal bias though.

Also opinion pieces and interviews in the times can be pretty good, but it's a bit hit or miss. They tend to have a lot of facts, figures and stats so you can usually learn something interesting. But being a Murdoch owned corporation you have to sift through a lot of ****e at times.

Telegraph and the Tribune occasionally decent opinion pieces too, but they seem smaller outfits or something, not half as frequent and their pages tends to be filled with reports I find.

+1 on the Guardian.

In particular Jonathan Wilson is interesting on tactics and David Conn is absolutely tremendous on the political, legal and financial side of the game. Both usually fly under the radar.

redout

Sid Lowe is top notch.

RichTea

As a few people have mentioned, The Guardian is unrivaled in the UK and Ireland for analytical football coverage. The Times is ok sometimes (Oliver Kay in particular) but is let down by morons like Rod Liddle.
In Italy (Corriere dello Sport), France (France Football) Germany (sports coverage in Süddeutsche Zeitung etc) , and even in the United States (see Sports Illustrated) they take pride in high quality sports coverage. It's unfortunate that we're mostly left with sensationalist, simplified coverage that fails to explain the real significance of results and why these results have come to be.

bamboozling

I buy World Soccer every week and some of the jounalistic pierces are fantastic. Brian Glanville is always exceptional, Sid Lowe a real Spanish football expert not somone who watches one La Liga game every week ala Eamo. I like Paul Gardners articles a lot I find them really inforative and he has some good ideas. David Conn as mentioned earlier is excellent. Keir Radnege, Paddy Agnew, I could go on for ages. Just an excellent publication and it's great to see something different rather than the English football saturated media content we usually get.

RichTea

bamboozling wrote: »

I buy World Soccer every week and some of the jounalistic pierces are fantastic. Brian Glanville is always exceptional, Sid Lowe a real Spanish football expert not somone who watches one La Liga game every week ala Eamo. I like Paul Gardners articles a lot I find them really inforative and he has some good ideas. David Conn as mentioned earlier is excellent. Keir Radnege, Paddy Agnew, I could go on for ages. Just an excellent publication and it's great to see something different rather than the English football saturated media content we usually get.

Forgot to mention World Soccer. Fantastic work of sports journalism. To truly understand world football I think you need to see it in other cultures and settings.

cson

Conn is fantastic. Really know what he's talking about and puts forward some very convincing arguments without being in your face up front about it [like Liddle is for example]. I really like Balague too.

In relation to your point OP, journalism invariably is for the masses, and an unfortunate fact of life is that the masses demand something palatable to them or controversial and that's why you have some of the journalism you do.

Boggles

I gave up on all printed media years ago.

2 Reasons

1. Blatant lies and misinformation
2. At the end of the day it's just some lads opinion, hardly worth getting excited about just because it appears in a paper.

The only medium I trust anyway now, is from the horses mouth. And even that these days has to be taken with a large dollop of salt.

Frisbee

+1 on the Guardian

I log onto the website everyday to read what they have to say rather than the shíte we get here.

The Times on a Sunday generally lift all their stuff from the guardian too so I'd read that.

yahoo_moe

rarnes1 wrote: »

Worse is, some people believe what they read in the tabloids.

I'd agree - I think it's people's uncritical approach that's probably scarier. Although it's probably linked to what the OP is saying in that there's an awful lot of unwillingness to think beyond the obvious/familiar.

Frisbee wrote:

I log onto the website everyday

RSS feeds, Frisbee - godsend. The Guardian even offers feeds for particular writers, great service.

Neil3030

therecklessone wrote: »

First off, this is not a pop at any specific group of fans as I think this thread will deal with universal traits among football fans. It is prompted by a trend I first identified among posters on a UK-based Spurs fan site, but have noticed with increasing regularity on this forum as well. Admittedly a post on the Liverpool superthread this morning did get me thinking about the issue, but that is entirely coincidental.

"Good article" = anything positive about a person's club/manager/players/fans
"Journo scum" = anything negative about the above

Sound familiar?

What I find funny is that despite the poor quality of a good deal of the media coverage of football these days, people still read through the content to arrive at one or other conclusion, regardless of the article itself. The writer could post widely inaccurate lies, but as long as they paint the posters own club in a good light, with the converse applying.

Is it that hard for football fans to read criticism of their club and accept it for what it is: an honest assessment of what the club is, or where they are?

Likewise, is it really that rare that your club gets positive press that you'll accept any old sh1te as long as it's painted in club colours?

Thoughts anybody?

Couldn't agree more, but I don't think this trend is specific to football. The same argument could be said about politics for example. Anything, basically, where people feel as if they are part of a tribe, they will appraise something positively if it supports/praises the tribe, truculently if it derides the tribe.

therecklessone wrote: »

Certainly in terms of visual media, but there are plenty of good journalists in written meida, and plenty of opportunities for them to flourish.

Perhaps the problem is that people want to be entertained rather than informed, or better still that is what sells advertising, so that is what broadcasters give us?

You are probably on a loser mixing high brow journalism with Sunday afternoon pints and a big screen in fairness.

I'd chalk that down to differing objectives really. How often do you hear Jamie or Andy slam a match as boring or poor in quality? That's because Sky would never dare beem anything to its market that lowers the cachet of a product its trying to sell. 5-Live slam matches all the time as "abysmal" or "boring beyond belief" - makes no odds to them!

Similarly, tabloids simply pander to their market - I don't think it's elitist to suggest that people of lower intelligence read tabloids on average, and they are simply more likely to be drawn to an emotive sensationalist piece, than a critical piece, grounded in reason and eloquence.

Tusky wrote: »

Absolutely agree. I'm studying consumer behavior at the moment and theres a section in the textbook on football fans, and it goes into detail about why they exhibit such extreme bias. Its only natural I suppose. I always try to be as neutral as I can. In regards to Liverpool, The truth can usually be found somewhere inbetween MrAlan Boggles for example

I wouldn't mind reading that actually, would you mind telling me the name of the book?

LuckyLloyd

therecklessone wrote: »

And some people instinctively dismiss what they read in the tabloids because, well, it's the tabloids...

Oliver Holt is a decent writer in my opinion, is his work devalued because he writes for the Mirror?

The problem is that the vast majority of content produced by tabloid outlets is unfounded speculation passed off as something more substantial; or agenda pushing / narrative creation passed off as objective opinion. And when such drivel is regularly put forward to "back up" an attack on another club's set of fans, what reasonable reaction can one have? By disregarding EVERYTHING produced by tabloid outlets (and a fair chunk of football pundits / journalists in general) there is no doubt that I'm missing out on some good stuff out of the gate. But I'm confident that my time and sanity is better served by such an approach than trying to approach such content objectively when so much of it will prove useless.

As for TV media, this post sums up my feelings on that end:

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This actually reminds me of something.

Irrespective of how complex or well executed Inter's tactics are, the commentators and pundits commenting on the game will boil them down to trite generalities like:

- Inter have really closed Barca down well and denied them space;
- Player X who has been around Messi for much of the game had him in his pocket, great decision to man mark by Mourinho;

I'd expect Mourinho to have his players set up to shift in and out of man and zonal assignments, and to rotate in and out of certain defensive alignments when the ball is in different areas of the pitch. Probably other stuff like alternating the frequency with which the attacking three full press Barca outside their own half, etc.

But there is no punditry team that is clued in and / or articulate enough to catch those things and explain them to the audience at home.

To get a grasp on what Mourinho actually does tonight, you'd need to get a recording of the game and watch it over a couple of times with the pause button at hand. I like to think I know a bit about football, but I have to hold my hands up and accept that a lot of what goes on at this level from the likes of Mourinho and Benitez is far too detailed and nuanced for me to get to grips with on a regular TV viewing.

And I would agree with the poster above when he notes that often the TV station concerned will be unwilling to be entirely honest if reality conflicts with the image / branding of the product on offer (i.e. the league or cup the game concerned is from).

The USA does this stuff better.

Spiritoftheseventies

Boggles wrote: »

I gave up on all printed media years ago.

2 Reasons

1. Blatant lies and misinformation
2. At the end of the day it's just some lads opinion, hardly worth getting excited about just because it appears in a paper.

The only medium I trust anyway now, is from the horses mouth. And even that these days has to be taken with a large dollop of salt.

Hmmm:rolleyes:

Boggles

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Hmmm:rolleyes:

Problem?

Spiritoftheseventies

Boggles wrote: »

Problem?

Torres and the whole starfishing allegations. When we know that Torres doesnt do starfishing. Not his style really;)

Boggles

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Torres and the whole starfishing allegations. When we know that Torres doesnt do starfishing. Not his style really;)

No Torres dived in the match and went over far too easily. See thats a fact.

A Blatant lie is.

Saying you'll stay away from the forum for 2 days but are back posting within the hour.

See the difference?

Spiritoftheseventies

Boggles wrote: »

No Torres dived in the match and went over far too easily. See thats a fact.

A Blatant lie is.

Saying you'll stay away from the forum for 2 days but are back posting within the hour.

See the difference?

You saying you are avoiding all printed media and then use the phrase blatant lies. Make a case here boggles.

Boggles

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

You saying you are avoiding all printed media and then use the phrase blatant lies. Make a case here boggles.

I swear to God, talking to you is like trying to eat soup with a fork!! Futile!!

flahavaj

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Torres and the whole starfishing allegations. When we know that Torres doesnt do starfishing. Not his style really;)

Stop derailing what has been one of the more enlightened discussions we get around here with your schoolyard level nonsense FFS.

---

What I crave more than most is consistency amongst journalists. I get very annoyed when journalists bang a particular drum for weeks on end, only to do a complete u-turn in respone to one result or incident. I expect that to happen with footballs fans or people on here. But I expect a supposedly non-biased journalist to rise above that kind of reactonary silliness.

A good example would be this very weekend in the Sunday Tribune. We've had Miguel Delaney (who I normally enjoy reading) quite rightly blowing Barca's trumpet for weeks and talkin them up. Then yesterday he leads with "Have Barca been found out?" or something equally ridiculous. A bit OTT and tabloid-sih for my liking.

Spiritoftheseventies

flahavaj wrote: »

Stop derailing what has been one of the more enlightened discussions we get around here with your schoolyard level nonsense FFS.

---

What I crave more than most is consistency amongst journalists. I get very annoyed when journalists bang a particular drum for weeks on end, only to do a complete u-turn in respone to one result or incident. I expect that to happen with footballs fans or people on here. But I expect a supposedly non-biased journalist to rise above that kind of reactonary silliness.

A good example would be this very weekend in the Sunday Tribune. We've had Miguel Delaney (who I normally enjoy reading) quite rightly blowing Barca's trumpet for weeks and talkin them up. Then yesterday he leads with "Have Barca been found out?" or something equally ridiculous. A bit OTT and tabloid-sih for my liking.

When someone uses words blatant lies misinformation and "all printed media" in the same sentence I dont call that enlightened.:(

Zebra3

A lot of underlying racism would within Andy Gray would put me off watching the English Premiership.

If a British player commits a bad foul, he gets excused. If a British player dives, he gets excused.

If a foreigner does either, it gets called for what it was.

Boggles

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

When someone uses words blatant lies misinformation and "all printed media" in the same sentence I dont call that enlightened.:(

It's not in the same sentance now is it?

I know you don't know what a question mark is, but do you know what a full stop is?

flahavaj

Zebra3 wrote: »

A lot of underlying racism would within Andy Gray would put me off watching the English Premiership.

If a British player commits a bad foul, he gets excused. If a British player dives, he gets excused.

If a foreigner does either, it gets called for what it was.

Thats not racism tbh.

Thread was doing so well till the rubber heads crawled out of bed.:(

Pighead

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

When someone uses words blatant lies misinformation and "all printed media" in the same sentence I dont call that enlightened.:(

Every time I see your username the letters dance around into a new formation and I'm left with "repetitivenessofshit".

Spiritoftheseventies

Boggles wrote: »

I gave up on all printed media years ago.

2 Reasons

1. Blatant lies and misinformation
2. At the end of the day it's just some lads opinion, hardly worth getting excited about just because it appears in a paper.

The only medium I trust anyway now, is from the horses mouth. And even that these days has to be taken with a large dollop of salt.

Seriously Boggles. Maybe you are good at worming your way out of situations with punctuation and stuff but you have clearly linked all printed media to the first reason.
Again produce some links here or edit the post.

Boggles

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Seriously Boggles. Maybe you are good at worming your way out of situations with punctuation and stuff but you have clearly linked all printed media to the first reason.
Again produce some links here or edit the post.

Spiritoftheseventies

Boggles wrote: »

meaning you cant. case closed:(

Xavi6

Give it a rest ffs.

Take your little love in to PM and stop derailing the thread.

Handsome Bob

I have my opinions on what is fair criticism. It's not a simplistic case of dismissing anything negative about the team I support. For instance, I refuse to look at spending as a simple case of what you've spent. I also take into account money recouped. So when I see the likes of Dunphy, Cascarino and Whelan ****e on about Rafa Benitez spending over €200m I will show the contempt that such claims deserve.

Now, if a journalist was talking about the rigidness and stubborness of Benitez in regards to tactics not working, I'd have no problem with that crticism as it is a fair one.

If a journalist criticised the wisdom of replacing an important player with someone who started the first 5 months of his Liverpool career injured, I'd have no problem because the criticism would be fair.

I just hate lazy journalism where "journalists" take the most simplistic and idiotic routes in forming their opinions.

flahavaj

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I have my opinions on what is fair criticism. It's not a simplistic case of dismissing anything negative about the team I support. For instance, I refuse to look at spending as a simple case of what you've spent. I also take into account money recouped. So when I see the likes of Dunphy, Cascarino and Whelan ****e on about Rafa Benitez spending over €200m I will show the contempt that such claims deserve.

Now, if a journalist was talking about the rigidness and stubborness of Benitez in regards to tactics not working, I'd have no problem with that crticism as it is a fair one.

If a journalist criticised the wisdom of replacing an important player with someone who started the first 5 months of his Liverpool career injured, I'd have no problem because the criticism would be fair.

I just hate lazy journalism where "journalists" take the most simplistic and idiotic routes in forming their opinions.

This actually. I have no problem whatsoever with a well thought out argument, based on research and facts, even if I am diametrically opposed to that argument. But basing an arguments on half truths, simplistic mistruths and por rsearch is bad enough on internet forums, not to mind when publishing it in a national newspaper and getting paid for it.

Ush1

+1 to Side Lowe.

Very insightful and articulate. Also level headed and long sighted, unlike most other football journos.

Graham Hunter is decent aswell.

Spiritoftheseventies

Tend to read feature pieces if i can. Not much for opinion pieces. Again as a rule I just tend to read DF. He had a big feature on Martin O Neill yesterday. Was quite a good read. Anyone see it?

mike65

I read the Grauniad religiously and its the best but certainly not perfect, most journos come with thier own team bias intact and it usually clear enough who supports who once you spend a bit of time on the site. Some of the blog articles are built on woeful presumptions as well. One suspects they are published to generate hits rather than enlightenment.