Csaba's Broon Shoes Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 What does your average run of the mill sports journalist really know about football ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 What does your average run of the mill sports journalist really know about football ? For the vast majority of them not a single thing more than the members on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csaba's Broon Shoes Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 For the vast majority of them not a single thing more than the members on here. Exactly just a fans opinion . The thing is the west coast media support either of the old firm clubs and cannot be seen to be aggressive in their reporting for fear of retribution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 What does your average run of the mill sports journalist really know about football ? Probably more than Romanov which I suppose isn't hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Probably more than Romanov which I suppose isn't hard. That's questionable. The press in Scotland (even some of the ex-player pundits know little or nothing) know absolutely nothing about the game. You only have to listen to them talk about it when they're on Traynor's show on Monday nights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 What does your average run of the mill sports journalist really know about football ? In the vast majority of cases, the answer would be identical to the famous chapter in Len Shackleton's autobiography. Entitled "what the average Director knows about football", he left the page blank. There are occasional exceptions, of course: Hugh McIlvanney, Brian Glanville, David Lacey, Henry Winter, Gabriele Marcotti, Martin Samuel or Graham Spiers spring to mind. But then, they're anything but run of the mill sports journalists, of course. Tell you one thing almost all journalists know, though: the art of writing line to line, and not inexplicably double spacing all the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Exactly just a fans opinion . The thing is the west coast media support either of the old firm clubs and cannot be seen to be aggressive in their reporting for fear of retribution If you are talking about tabloid journalists then probably not very much however their job isn't to analyse the game it is to get the scoop or latest story at a club or find a new angle to a story hence the tabloids also have ex-players or managers as pundits who also do guest columns etc. Proper football journalists in days of yore were men like Bob Crampsie, Alex Cameron and although it pains me to say it also Stewart (Green) Brown of the Evening Hobo - men who were engrained in football, had longstanding contacts and relationships with the people who mattered in the clubs they reported on and had a good knowledge of the world of football as it was then - whilst you maybe didn't always agree with what they wrote you never had cause to doubt it's accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Their knowledge seems to be restricted to the names of the OF squads, management and back room staff, that vlad is mad and that complaints from the diddy teams are paranoia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 What does your average run of the mill sports journalist really know about football ? Only my opinion, but journalists are just like fans, they watch a football match, and express an opinion, and that is all it is, an opinion. Their opinion is not based on them having a better knowledge of football than your average fan. But what they do have, that your ordinary football fan does not have, is the abilty to put their opinion into newspaper print, and call it fact. The only fact that applies to any journalist is they have to print it in a manner which will appeal to the vast majority of the readership they are looking to please, and in Scotland that means the OF and their fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walton1983 Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 What does your average run of the mill sports journalist really know about football ? Varies. Some of them have good knowledge and others don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csaba's Broon Shoes Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 Only my opinion, but journalists are just like fans, they watch a football match, and express an opinion, and that is all it is, an opinion. Their opinion is not based on them having a better knowledge of football than your average fan. But what they do have, that your ordinary football fan does not have, is the abilty to put their opinion into newspaper print, and call it fact. The only fact that applies to any journalist is they have to print it in a manner which will appeal to the vast majority of the readership they are looking to please, and in Scotland that means the OF and their fans. Agree 100% in a nut-shell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Only my opinion, but journalists are just like fans, they watch a football match, and express an opinion, and that is all it is, an opinion. Their opinion is not based on them having a better knowledge of football than your average fan. But what they do have, that your ordinary football fan does not have, is the abilty to put their opinion into newspaper print, and call it fact. The only fact that applies to any journalist is they have to print it in a manner which will appeal to the vast majority of the readership they are looking to please, and in Scotland that means the OF and their fans. There is also the anti-hero journalist like McNee who's job is not to pander to the preferences of the mass readership but instead to antagonise them and generate controversy & debate - the intended result of this 'debate' is additional sales as people buy the paper to see what that '*****' wrote this week...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorgie rd eh11 Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Unfortunately with Hearts they're not interested in writing about football, they're just trying to gain revenge for, rightfully, being called old firm monkeys. In future Csaba should do what gordon strachan or walter smith would do, and tell them he is there to answer questions about the up and coming game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csaba's Broon Shoes Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 Unfortunately with Hearts they're not interested in writing about football, they're just trying to gain revenge for, rightfully, being called old firm monkeys. In future Csaba should do what gordon strachan or walter smith would do, and tell them he is there to answer questions about the up and coming game. Exactly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvYjiKZhIu4&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 There is also the anti-hero journalist like McNee who's job is not to pander to the preferences of the mass readership but instead to antagonise them and generate controversy & debate - the intended result of this 'debate' is additional sales as people buy the paper to see what that '*****' wrote this week...... I think what we really lack within our football journalism in Scotland is people who are willing to go into a subject in depth NMH, produce investigative journalism, i.e. football journalists who are willing to rock the boat, if you want print the truth, because they know if they printed the truth it would hurt those people they are trying to please. Understandable in a way I suppose, because if they don't write what the masses want to hear their employers will dispense with their services, therefore they take the easy option and print things that will not hurt the masses in the West. Although in saying something is understandable that does not, by association, make it acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 There are occasional exceptions, of course: Hugh McIlvanney, Brian Glanville, David Lacey, Henry Winter, Gabriele Marcotti, Martin Samuel or Graham Spiers spring to mind. But then, they're anything but run of the mill sports journalists, of course. Tell you one thing almost all journalists know, though: the art of writing line to line, and not inexplicably double spacing all the time! They two I find highly debatable. Marcotti writes some utter s**** nowadays and has turned into to much of sycophantic feck to actually be regarded as a good journo. Samuel always puzzles me regardless of the number of awards he has won. I regularly watch the Sunday Supplement on SKY and he talks utter pesh IMO. He believes his own press (no pun) and is very much "I know everything and your a ****. Look at all my awards". If I were adding to the above list I would put in Patrick Barclay and Ollie Holt. Both are fine writers (even with latter being totally wasted at a redtop) and they dont pander to the usual suspects either. I always find it great when they are on the TV telling other journos (including the likes of Samuel), that the English team are pish and simply not very good. I fully agree on Spiers who was the only journo up here I liked to listen. Its slightly unfortunate that to many, he seems like if he was chocolate he would eat himself. As for journalism on the whole in this country, it is truly terrible. Most dont have a clue about the sport they write about. Footbal journos in particular, are terrible for this. Too often, ive read a report about a game I was at, asking if they were at the game. They pander too often and are afraid to tell the truth in case their meal ticket at Old Firm Towers is removed. It is truly embarassing and the standard nowadays is truly shocking. PS K**** J****** of the Daily Ranger is the worst. He simply a jakey with a pen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 LOL@ Walter Smith and Chicky Boo. Never tire of watching them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 When they worked at the Scotsman both Graham Spiers and Neil Drysdale used to frequent the pub where one of my pals worked and often used to chat with them at the bar or wind up Spiersy about his attire including a chocolate brown corduroy suit with leather elbow patches (trust me words can't do that one justice)........ Anyway after one contentious affair I got talking to the pair of them about how they failed to grasp the power of their position and they could be a focal point against the worst apsects of Old Firm dominance and abuse of power / influence in Scottish football and how they could champion positive change in our game ...... Whilst they agreed with what I was saying they admitted they sometimes dare not write what they really think as the editors would probably not print it and secondly they said clubs could be unbelievably petty and restrict access to a whole paper or newspaper family even if they disliked or disagreed with what one particular journalist had written about them and said both managers & chairmen could be the instigators of this....... They also both said they were Rangers supporters / Rangers minded and although they acknowledged the clubs failings and worse aspects they also thought these were exaggerated in the minds of others teams supporters..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 They two I find highly debatable. Marcotti writes some utter s**** nowadays and has turned into to much of sycophantic feck to actually be regarded as a good journo. Samuel always puzzles me regardless of the number of awards he has won. I regularly watch the Sunday Supplement on SKY and he talks utter pesh IMO. He believes his own press (no pun) and is very much "I know everything and your a ****. Look at all my awards". If I were adding to the above list I would put in Patrick Barclay and Ollie Holt. Both are fine writers (even with latter being totally wasted at a redtop) and they dont pander to the usual suspects either. I always find it great when they are on the TV telling other journos (including the likes of Samuel), that the English team are pish and simply not very good. I fully agree on Spiers who was the only journo up here I liked to listen. Its slightly unfortunate that to many, he seems like if he was chocolate he would eat himself. As for journalism on the whole in this country, it is truly terrible. Most dont have a clue about the sport they write about. Footbal journos in particular, are terrible for this. Too often, ive read a report about a game I was at, asking if they were at the game. They pander too often and are afraid to tell the truth in case their meal ticket at Old Firm Towers is removed. It is truly embarassing and the standard nowadays is truly shocking. PS K**** J****** of the Daily Ranger is the worst. He simply a jakey with a pen. Given I'll never give in to Uncle Rupert's protection racket, I don't get SKY, so haven't seen Samuel on there. His articles are brilliant though: completely outside the box, hugely intelligent, and often, only he seems to have the bottle to say what other writers wouldn't. That surprises me about Marcotti, as I think he's superb on the radio - I agree on Barclay and Holt, though. Holt was at the Times when they went all populist and basically became the Sun in drag: at the time, I found many of his pieces hysterical and poisonous. But oddly, since his move to the Mirror, I think he's calmed down and writes an awful lot better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Given I'll never give in to Uncle Rupert's protection racket, I don't get SKY, so haven't seen Samuel on there. His articles are brilliant though: completely outside the box, hugely intelligent, and often, only he seems to have the bottle to say what other writers wouldn't. That surprises me about Marcotti, as I think he's superb on the radio - I agree on Barclay and Holt, though. Holt was at the Times when they went all populist and basically became the Sun in drag: at the time, I found many of his pieces hysterical and poisonous. But oddly, since his move to the Mirror, I think he's calmed down and writes an awful lot better now. Quite interesting you wont get SKY yet read The Times? Marcotti really is awful. His articles in the Sunday Herald are woeful and ive seen some of his other articles in various publications and his standards are seriously slipping. Its embarassing. Ive read Samuel and I do think he loves himself. I can see why folk like him, but he isnt for me. I just think he kind of speaks down to people and believes his own hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Quite interesting you wont get SKY yet read The Times? Marcotti really is awful. His articles in the Sunday Herald are woeful and ive seen some of his other articles in various publications and his standards are seriously slipping. Its embarassing. Ive read Samuel and I do think he loves himself. I can see why folk like him, but he isnt for me. I just think he kind of speaks down to people and believes his own hype. I'll never buy a copy of the Times - but do use their website sometimes, and will read it if someone's left it on the train! Of the four 'broadsheets' (if you can even call the Times that now), I have to say I think its footie coverage is by far the best; but I'll always be a Guardian man myself. Especially their website, which is superb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Hugh McIllvaney Ian Archer (RIP) Bob Crampsey (RIP) Mike Aitken John ... whatshisnameagain ... Scotsman ... died a long time ago now Better than "average" journos when it came/comes to football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Really like Marcotti. Like how he does not always focus on the big clubs in Europe but given you stories of the good and bad from smaller clubs around the world. If you had been reading his articles for a while, you would have a better idea of the quality of his output, but for someone who stooped reading tabloids over a year ago - find them a breath of fresh air. Agree with you Shaun, the football section in The Times on a Monday is superb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Hugh McIllvaney Ian Archer (RIP) Bob Crampsey (RIP) Mike Aitken John ... whatshisnameagain ... Scotsman ... died a long time ago now Better than "average" journos when it came/comes to football You could add John Fairgrieve (RIP) to that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 A few types of journalist. Those who report what they see Those who report what they know Those who report what they're told to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 A few types of journalist. Those who report what they see Those who report what they know Those who report what they're told to Those who stretch the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 You could add John Fairgrieve (RIP) to that list. Yeah - is that who I was thinking of ? (hard question for you to answer ...) I think that's him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven98 Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 There's a bit from Jimmy Armfield in 442 when a narky Ron Atkinson asked the journos at a Man U press conference "What do you lot know about the game? What have you ever done?" Armfield replied "between us, 43 caps, 600 England appearances and two World Cups." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.