Featured: "Nothing is real" by Jeff Goulding

[tlw content]

All of us think we've cornered the market on reality. Our viewpoint is true, we know what we saw, we are certain about what we heard. Seems logical, right? If you can see it, touch it, hear it, it's real, except, it's not really that simple. Anyone, who has gone to the pub after a game, will know that it is perfectly possible for two people to watch the same player in action, but have two different versions of 'reality'. In one he was a world-beater, in the other abysmal.

 

It's a problem that has troubled history's scientists, philosophers and artists. Einstein said that reality was merely a persistent illusion. Neitzsche doubted the existence of facts, stating there are only interpretations. Psychologists have demonstrated, time and again, that people tend to see what they expect to be there, not necessarily what is actually there. Lennon was a bit more emphatic and came up with the title to this article.

 

Interestingly, the same issue has been troubling Merseyside's football journalists. Recently, a fight, or spirited debate, depending on your version of reality, broke out on twitter, over the relative merits of print versus broadcast media. According to LFCTV's Peter Mcdowall, when it comes to revealing the inner workings of a player’s mind, you cannot beat television interviews.

 

He was referring to the channels decision to air a programme, which gives Michael Owen the chance, in a one hour long show, to share his version of history, as it relates to his association with our club. Given the lack of esteem the former number ten is held in, it is an interesting programming choice.

 

In response to a barrage of tweets concerning the show, McDowall chose to get behind the idea with a somewhat provocative tweet. “Loads of tweets re Michael Owen, it's where newspapers can never compare to TV, looking into someone's eyes beats print any day of the week”, he said.

 

The tweet was immediately, and predictably, jumped on by the regions print journalists. Fortunately, peace, or an uneasy truce is now in place. But who is right? James Pearce waded in accusing his colleague of sweeping generalisations, and strange statements, while Dominic King talked of painting pictures with words.

 

Tony Barrett, who had already taken a swipe at the idea with an earlier tweet: “Liverpool doing a Michael Owen documentary. They should've filmed him in a half & half scarf so MUTV could buy the show”, re-entered the fray by pointing out that McDowall had made his career in radio, and was now trumpeting the value of pictures.

 

It's easy to have sympathy with McDowall's argument. After all, if you read an interview in a newspaper, you do so through the writer's own lens. Regardless of their integrity, every writer (in fact you could say every human being) has biases. They may not even be aware of them. Equally, they may perceive emotions or intentions that simply aren't there. The very questions they ask may be loaded with their own prejudices, and all of this is before the editor gets their hands on the piece and spins the headline their own way. The reader can't look into the players’ eyes and tell which bits are true, and which are fabrications.

 

Surely with television it's totally different. Or is it? It might be if the interview is live, but even then the interviewee may have been given a heads up regarding the questions. They have time to construct their answers, showing themselves in the best light. Who wouldn't? The questions themselves set the agenda. They are decided by the producer, director or interviewer, not always by the viewer. Assuming they are all human, they will also have their own biases.

 

A Nixon tapes-style interview, complete with awkward pauses and stammers would possibly get us closer to the truth. It doesn't necessarily make the best television though. If the interview is recorded, it will undoubtedly be edited before it is broadcast. So, we now find ourselves in the same awkward territory as the print trade.

 

If television does get us closer to objective reality, it's not by much in my opinion. Both have value. Both can inform and entertain. I agree with Tony Barrett in this respect.

 

I haven't got round to it yet, but I will try to watch the interview with an open mind, but it is inevitable that my own bias' will get in the way. After all, Michael Owen was always more concerned with, well, Michael Owen than with anything else, wasn't he? This interview is nothing more than a cynical charm offensive.

 

He let Rafa down twice. First, he left for Madrid, leaving the club with a pittance. He did it again by snubbing us for Newcastle. Then, he betrayed us all by choosing to join the enemy, instead of joining Stoke City, like a good boy. Sadly, he probably doesn't stand a chance of changing my view of him.

 

That's my reality. What's yours?

 

Jeff Goulding

 

Click here to view the article

[stringvest]

My reality is that it's only football for fuck's sake.

[xerxes]

An interesting OP.

 

Broadcast interviews which are live, tend to have an immediacy which often lack depth, published interviews in print can be more complete, but considered, lacking emotion and immediacy. Most magazine style broadcast interviews are carefully prepared with the questions, and sometimes responses, carefully rehearsed, blurring the distinction anyway.

 

For me the most revealing television and radio is when footballers are talking about the game, and their experiences, live and unrehearsed. That is when I see a glimpse of their personalities.

 

As for Michael Owen the mere fact that it is him, with the controversy that surrounds him, will ensure high ratings for an LFC documentary, and that is the programme makers’ objective.

 

I have always found the hate for Owen a bit hysterical. He gave us more goals, more games and more trophies than Suarez, and managed to avoid a ban a season, but his move to a Spanish giant is ridiculed whilst Suarez’ move is accepted. I don’t think that he has been any more self- centred than any number of other stars who have moved on in recent years. Reina’s” I am back to stay” one week, then “I am off” to Bayern two weeks later simply being the latest example. I expect nothing less, they are professional sportsmen earning a living. Stevie G is my all- time greatest Red, but even he would have been off if “other circumstances” had not prevented him leaving. I get the tribal hate for Owen for his subsequent moves, but footballers are not part of the tribe. They don’t care.

 

Perversely, Owen may give a pretty dispassionate view of things which is preferable to the ex-player love-ins which tend to distort most documentaries. Insider accounts at football clubs are all too rare. I would love to see a KK interview on Rafa’s regime, a Carra interview on Roy’s time here, and an interview with Stevie G on Rodger’s first two seasons.

[Tom R]

Here are the facts: Whatever the medium, be it print, radio, online, television or carved on to the side of the Liver Buildings, Michael Owen will always be a bellend. 

 

HOWEVER, unlike many Reds I don't begrudge him for leaving for Real Madrid when he did. I didn't at the time and I don't with hindsight today. If anything it's he who may have the regret - seeing us lift Big Ears less than 9 months later must have wounded him deeply regardless of what he says publicly

When Real came knocking Owen was looking at yet another "rebuilding" process and was coming in to his alleged prime as a player. He didn't set the fee we accepted for him and regardless of where his loyalties really lay, you could never question his contribution and his performances for Liverpool. There aren't many players who have a Cup Final actually names after them, after all!

 

No, my disdain for him stems from when he joined Manchester United. 

Not even the fact that he joined them - again, that's undersandable from a simple footballing perspective - but the way in which he spoke about us (or didn't) shortly after joining with his quotes about how he'd always "dreamed Man U would come calling for him one day" etc and didn't even give us a mention. That's what hurt and that's why I hate him today. 

 

Anyway, In summary i think it's important to remember how very special Michael Owen is. He really is a genuine phenomenon. Completely unique. The very epitome of "one of a kind". 

Not because of how good he was, but because he's the only player to have had a highly distinguished career with clubs of the stature of Liverpool, Real Madrid and Manchester United and yet not one set of the respective fans of any of those great clubs gives a flying rat's shit about him. 

 

SPECIAL

[AL66GOLF]

"....but because he's the only player to have had a highly distinguished career with clubs of the stature of Liverpool, Real Madrid and Manchester United and yet not one set of the respective fans of any of those great clubs gives a flying rat's shit about him. 

 

Sums him up nicely - Well put TomR 

[Paul]

Here are the facts: Whatever the medium, be it print, radio, online, television or carved on to the side of the Liver Buildings, Michael Owen will always be a bellend.

 

HOWEVER, unlike many Reds I don't begrudge him for leaving for Real Madrid when he did. I didn't at the time and I don't with hindsight today. If anything it's he who may have the regret - seeing us lift Big Ears less than 9 months later must have wounded him deeply regardless of what he says publicly

When Real came knocking Owen was looking at yet another "rebuilding" process and was coming in to his alleged prime as a player. He didn't set the fee we accepted for him and regardless of where his loyalties really lay, you could never question his contribution and his performances for Liverpool. There aren't many players who have a Cup Final actually names after them, after all!

 

No, my disdain for him stems from when he joined Manchester United.

Not even the fact that he joined them - again, that's undersandable from a simple footballing perspective - but the way in which he spoke about us (or didn't) shortly after joining with his quotes about how he'd always "dreamed Man U would come calling for him one day" etc and didn't even give us a mention. That's what hurt and that's why I hate him today.

 

Anyway, In summary i think it's important to remember how very special Michael Owen is. He really is a genuine phenomenon. Completely unique. The very epitome of "one of a kind".

Not because of how good he was, but because he's the only player to have had a highly distinguished career with clubs of the stature of Liverpool, Real Madrid and Manchester United and yet not one set of the respective fans of any of those great clubs gives a flying rat's shit about him.

 

SPECIAL

Almost word for word my own view.

[TheRedMachine]

What he acheived for us in a liverpool shirt will always be a massive part of my life. He took a chance in his caraeer and it didn't work out. Sadly to the detriment of our coffers and then his legacy. Shame.

[Section_31]

I've always thought Owen's comments were designed deliberately to wind us up because of the 'Where were you in Istanbul' chants. We've all seen the Neville Southall vid. Owen strikes me as someone who can be quite spiteful when he thinks he's been unjustly treated or affronted.

 

Don't really have a problem with him as such myself, but he'd figure nowhere on my most loved reds list. Interestingly, I think a lot of people felt like that even before he went to Madrid.

 

He always used the word 'career' a bit too much for a teenager for my liking.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Owen 1997 - 2004 was fine.  Just like Torres 2007-2009.  As for the pale shadows who skulk under those names today...

 

"Do you know 90% of household dust is made of dead human skin? That's what you are to me."

[Trumo]

[Pureblood]

Nothing is Real.  

[Reckoner]

Real is nothing, if we're talking trophies he won there.

[mgw100]

I see almost everyone has ignored the main thrust of the piece, i.e. which is better, a TV or written interview. Quite right too because it's a pretty pointless question. Like asking whether music is better than painting.

[Pureblood]

Music is better than painting.

[Scottish Steve]

My memory of Owen's last season is him repeatedly assuaging fears he wasn't going to do a 'McMananaman' and him saying his agent was on holiday but not to worry as everything would be sorted. I personally thought he shafted us. Unlike Suarez who signed a new deal with us fully aware he was probably away. Always felt that was far worse than his mealy mouthed attempts to ingratiate himself with the mancs

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Music is better than painting.

I'm not convinced.  I spent most of the afternoon singing at the bathroom door and it's still the same shitty colour it was before.

[Rotpeter]

The swill both of them serve up and they have the cheek to argue about "better".