Decent Journalism

[bri]

Was the topic last night in ours regarding Football on the box and also in the papers. It was agreed that the standard is now dropping somewhat. I'm talking across the board here not just us.

After a week of reading / hearing the same old drivel about squad rotation & Gerrard on the right it seems only a few are coming up with decent repsonses.

Alan Pardew on Goals on Sunday got it right about Gerrard. He basically said it's a major problem for other managers as alonso and momo can do the CM job no problem. Then they have to consider where Gerrard is playing as they know he can tear teams apart with his passing and forward runs.

What Richard Williams was writing the other day in the guardian (which that lad broke to pieces in his blog) was almost journalism written whilst on the bog.

The drivel and nonsensical rubbish Andy Gray was spurting on that Youtube clip was just emabarrasing.

So where does decent journalism sit these days. Obviously there are good writers out there but it seems the rumour / jingo mill has taken over good decent articles.

I'm sure fans from other clubs must be like "They don't know what their talking about here" when they hear / read commentry of their games, I don't think it's generic to us. More like a quick hours revision on what's the latest news on a club before said journalist / pundit goes to watch them.

[Barry Wom]

good post joey.

i think we have several problems with journo's

1. The newspaper variety rarely watch the game, so their opions are not formed from what they see, but formed from what they want to see. Many of them write their articles before a game etc, then use the facts they want to make the articles work. if there are no facts to make their articles work, they make it up - with a why let facts get in the way of a good story menality.

2. outlets like SSN, need to provide none stop news. this coupled with the general increase in coverage (pundits at live games, you're on sky sports etc), means the quality journo's and co-commentators are getting spread thin. they'll role any idiot out as long as he can spout some shit and has a recognisable face.

3. tabloid papers and stations (such as talk sport and sky), like to appeal to the lowest common denomenator and like to generate talking points, to increase readers/listeners/viewers. So talking absolute arse is a pre-requisite of their job and they have no real interest or benefit in being objective.

4. Despite all that, I've no idea what Andy Gray's excuses are. He's sky's number one man, watches all the games and yet still seems to have pre-determined views before a game kicks off. I think he's just shite, while sky think the viewers like him, so they stick with him.

[Dbnred]

It is very easy to have a pre-concieved notion on a player or team or even a tactic. What is clear is that these so called journo's allow their preconception to cloud their objectivity. As fans we watch matches from a different perspective. A player who was crap in the previous game is not "prejudiced" in our assessment of him for the current match. How often do you hear fans, whilst watching a match, critisize player x who happens to be having a "bad game". Very rarely will you get the same comment being made game in and game out. (except in the case of Salif - he he). However with a journo he set his sail in a particular direction and almost trys to "shift reality" to suite his opinion on a player, tactic, manager etc.. shame..

[TK421]

It's like anything, if you want quality sports journalism it'll be out there somewhere if you're prepared to wade through the shit to find it.

I actually find Andy Gray's views insightful sometimes and believe that he's quite knowledgeable about the game, particularly tactical aspects of it. I accept that he's got an agenda against us though and he does wind me up when he's commentating on our match. He really shouldn't be allowed to commentate on Liverpool games because he can't hide his bias but that's Sky Sports' fault not his.

Similarly, Tyldesley shouldn't be allowed to commentate on the Mancs because it's sickening. The way his voice stards warbling as the Mancs threaten to score is one of the most irritating things in football.

[bri]

the same could be said for alan green on radio 5 a staunch liverpool fan but on the whole he tells it like it is.

As for Gray yeah he does know the game but that was just absolute bollocks. As a sports journalist though I'd of thought that whoever I was commentating on whilst I wouldnt be an expert I think I'd be a little bit more knowledgeable, rather than just stating the obvious.

[rome 84]

Gray's just a shit stirring banshee. Always has been, always will be.
There are quite a few people in the media who have an agenda and all their judegements are therefore skewed and biased.
Gray is one. Alan Smith is another.
I just wouldn't give them any more attention than they deserve.

[rebel23]

I think what most journalists dont understand is that Rafael Benitez likes to 'mix it up'.

we're in a different age nowadays, opposition managers have sent scouts to our games weeks in advance before meeting us and have drawn up reports and watched DVDs of our previous games and devised a strategy to win or get a point by pinpointing certain things. Pardew mentioned he was keen to get Gerrard marked out of the game but mentioned that it's very difficult to do and we still lose him etc. Benitez also likes to switch the wingers around for intervals during the game and will try different tactical approach's to keep the opposition on their toes

If we were so predictable the opposition would soon sus us out, this is what does Andy Gray's head in as well as there seems no coherence. Gerrard can be in the centre, on the right, on the left and up front at all different stages of the game, it blows his simplistic explanations of positions out of the water. Rafa likes to be a bit more flexible and it works.

[Paul]

I think Andy Gray's insight and reading of the actual action in a match is the best I've seen on telly. His opinions and agenda, however, fucking stink.

I've said it before, but we need a TV cross between Michael Robinson's Spanish show and the Irish thing with Brady, Dunphy and Giles that's full of original and opinionated people who love the game but couldn't give a fuck who they upset. James Lawton and Stuart Hall should be the main men on it.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Originally Posted by TK421

Similarly, Tyldesley shouldn't be allowed to commentate on the Mancs because it's sickening. The way his voice stards warbling as the Mancs threaten to score is one of the most irritating things in football.

I have two cassette tyapes with him commentating on Radio City for our Double Season and the 87-88 championship season. It's keep me sane at times, but then I hear him on ITV and I just think what a CUNT

[molbyscorchio]

Originally Posted by Paul

I think Andy Gray's insight and reading of the actual action in a match is the best I've seen on telly. His opinions and agenda, however, fucking stink.

I've said it before, but we need a TV cross between Michael Robinson's Spanish show and the Irish thing with Brady, Dunphy and Giles that's full of original and opinionated people who love the game but couldn't give a fuck who they upset. James Lawton and Stuart Hall should be the main men on it.

Stuart Hall, now you're talking. The man loves his football, and actually knows a bit about the game as well. I admire Lawton as a journo, and I believe he is fairly even-handed too.

[MLB]

I've even taken to skipping over a lot of what Bascombe writes recently. I haven't seen much worth reading in a newspaper in ages.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by MLB

I've even taken to skipping over a lot of what Bascombe writes recently. I haven't seen much worth reading in a newspaper in ages.

register at unison.ie and get some of the Irish Independant writers .A few of them tend to stay off the whole bandwagon and do still right decent pieces

[Hermes]

A "good journalist" is one that agrees with your opinion, if he doesn't he is "talking shite". The fact that your opinion is shite and he agrees with it is not taken into consideration. Until that is, facts and circumstances prove that your opinion is shite.

Is that clear?

[molbyscorchio]

Originally Posted by Hermes

A "good journalist" is one that agrees with your opinion, if he doesn't he is "talking shite". The fact that your opinion is shite and he agrees with it is not taken into consideration. Until that is, facts and circumstances prove that your opinion is shite.

Is that clear?

you're on form tonight. Have you looked down the back of the sofa for those antidepressants? They must be around somewhere

[Maldini]

They're suppositories, that's him in your avatar.

[RoboRiise]

Originally Posted by rebel23

...we're in a different age nowadays...

That's the crux of the problem with a lot of pundits perhaps more than journo's for me - by definition they tend to be former players and the game changes with each new "generation", for want of a better term.

For example, when Gray was playing, the whole culture of the top division was pretty far removed from the Premiership these days, be it for better or worse. That's not to say the game of football was hugely different, but the current level of squad rotation and so on weren't as much of a factor in his day - clubs were much more inclined to pick their perceived best fit 11 week in week out.

Doesn't make him any less of a clown though, just explains some of the reason for it.

[RedKnight]

I've said it once and I'll say it again; just because you've played the game, doesn't mean you know the game.

[bri]

Originally Posted by RedKnight

I've said it once and I'll say it again; just because you've played the game, doesn't mean you know the game.

give or take one or two that is generally the case. I guess you could say that what with so much coverage these days there is only so much you can say about a game.

On the whole radio is pretty on the ball. They'll at least say it's like watching paint dry when it's crap. The TV lot on contract are to worried about upsetting the staus quo.

It seems the broadsheets have become more tabloid, reporting any old bollocks to fill the back pages.

Did anything happen to that sports paper that was meant to be released