Sky Sports

[honourablegeorge]

From this morning:

 

"CHELSEA CAN CLOSE THE GAP ON LEADERS MANCHESTER UNITED TO FOUR POINTS WITH A WIN TONIGHT"

 

followed by

 

"LIVERPOOL ARE SEVEN POINTS BEHIND UNITED HAVING PLAYED A GAME MORE"

 

And people say there's no bias.

[Ostrich Man]

dont those headlines reflect the momentum of both though...you were top a while back and looking good...now in third....Chelsea didnt look as if they were gonna put up a real challenge and now they do.

 

 

The real one to keep your eye on is where Match of The Day put the liverpool match in the running order.

[Swipe]

dont those headlines reflect the momentum of both though...you were top a while back and looking good...now in third....Chelsea didnt look as if they were gonna put up a real challenge and now they do.

The real one to keep your eye on is where Match of The Day put the liverpool match in the running order.

 

i'd agree with that in theory.

 

The reality is, Sky are constantly snide towards us.

 

f*** knows why, but they are.

[Chili Palmer]

dont those headlines reflect the momentum of both though...you were top a while back and looking good...now in third....Chelsea didnt look as if they were gonna put up a real challenge and now they do.

 

 

The real one to keep your eye on is where Match of The Day put the liverpool match in the running order.

 

 

they and you are overplaying Chelseas return to form, even their own manager said they have been pants since he took over.

[DaveLFC]

They announced that our title challenge was over on Saturday while announcing Chelsea's title challenge was kept alive by their win.

 

You couldn't make it up.

[CaptainXabi]

i'd agree with that in theory.

 

The reality is, Sky are constantly snide towards us.

 

f*** knows why, but they are.

And so what?

[Raj]

they and you are overplaying Chelseas return to form, even their own manager said they have been pants since he took over.

 

Chelsea were f***ing muck on Saturday. I watched the game and they were lucky to get that win.

[Swipe]

And so what?

 

What?

[CaptainXabi]

What?

Sorry, that wasn't aimed directly at you, more of a general comment. I'm just saying that so what if Sky don't like us? Why should we care? We should worry about beating Middlesborough before complaining about coverage.

[Swipe]

Sorry, that wasn't aimed directly at you, more of a general comment. I'm just saying that so what if Sky don't like us? Why should we care? We should worry about beating Middlesborough before complaining about coverage.

 

Of course that's true when you gain perspective and look at things in a wider context.

 

But Sky's coverage of us is what this thread is about!

 

I know it shouldn't bother me, but it really really grates.

 

Used to be a rule of thumb never to watch Sky's build up coverage if we'd been on a bad run, but now they rip us to shreds or move the goal posts even after a great result (Real this season, Inter last).

 

As someone has said in another thread, Sky's coverage is the TV equivalent of a red top rag.

[Zoob]

Sorry, that wasn't aimed directly at you, more of a general comment. I'm just saying that so what if Sky don't like us? Why should we care? We should worry about beating Middlesborough before complaining about coverage.

 

True to an extent, but it's still absolutely infuriating, and also dis-respectful. Ofcourse, there's no rules that say Sky have to be respectful, nor do people have to watch it (thankfully I no longer do). But I still find it pretty disgusting that the Sky panel w*****s (Phil Thompson aside obviously) actually laughed out loud when Riise scored his OG vs Chelsea last year, and all the panel cheered loudly when Barnesley scored their winner against us in the FA cup. That kind of s*** would never happen if it had been Utd.

[Pam]

Sorry, that wasn't aimed directly at you, more of a general comment. I'm just saying that so what if Sky don't like us? Why should we care? We should worry about beating Middlesborough before complaining about coverage.

 

 

It is infuriating because the rubbish that they peddle as part of their so-called analysis quickly becomes fact in the minds of so many football fans

 

I wouldn't claim we are playing particularly well but the bias is amazing. If we win it is despite of Rafa or he has got lucky, if we lose it is his fault. In the world according to Sky Fergie has never made a mistake in the transfer market or managed a team which has failed to win a game. While Rafa is cracking up, has never bought a decent player despite having spent more money than anyone else in the history of world football and shold be sacked immediately and replaced with someone who maybe knows a fraction of the combined football genius of Andy Gray & Jamie Redknapp.

 

I don't expect them to favour us but a bit of balance shouldn't be too much to ask.

[5InIstanbul]

True to an extent, but it's still absolutely infuriating, and also dis-respectful. Ofcourse, there's no rules that say Sky have to be respectful, nor do people have to watch it (thankfully I no longer do). But I still find it pretty disgusting that the Sky panel w*****s (Phil Thompson aside obviously) actually laughed out loud when Riise scored his OG vs Chelsea last year, and all the panel cheered loudly when Barnesley scored their winner against us in the FA cup. That kind of s*** would never happen if it had been Utd.

 

That's because football didn't exist before 1992.

[Eskimo]

It is infuriating because the rubbish that they peddle as part of their so-called analysis quickly becomes fact in the minds of so many football fans

 

You only have to look on here to find its working

 

Also their "dog with a bone" approach to reporting has probably played a part in a fair few managers getting the elbow down the years.

[surf]

Rupert Murdoch is a ManU fan.

[The Hitman]

Who cares what Sky Sports say?

We're not going to win the league,what else matters?

[D.Boon]

I dont know why Sky bother advertising, the amount of topics we have on here abut them

[Duncan Disorderly]

Rupert Murdoch is a ManU brand fan.

[Archangel]

Courtesy of Mr John Nicholson from the famous/infamous Football365 website

 

 

This Week`s Nonsense Notion: Bias

Posted 03/03/09 12:32EmailPrintSave

 

 

 

Last week I was talking about one of football's most common mythical notions: luck. This week's metaphysical concept is almost as omnipresent as luck - most think they can spot it, most think it exists and that their club is the victim of it at some point or other: Bias.

 

Is there a media bias pro or anti some clubs?

 

While the broad London media is a self-obsessed and self-sustaining bunch of narrow, preening narcissists who are over-focused on what happens in the south-east of England, the football media has always had a strong regional representation going back to the days of regional ITV programmes that focused on local teams. And there's always the local press, which in certain areas are virtually in-house rags for the clubs to purvey their spin to the fans.

 

While sadly ITV has never been more homogenised as it is now, Sky, Setanta and even Five can't be accused of not covering teams from the remote or unfashionable towns of the country. Indeed, they're obliged as part of their deals to show a pre-defined amount of games of all clubs. The big and successful clubs get more coverage but is showing more Liverpool games than Bolton games a bias against Bolton or just a reflection of the popularity, status and importance of each club? Should all clubs get equal exposure?

 

Bias seems to be one of the first accusations fans reach for when they feel hard done by.

 

You're certain to hear bias' outrider, the cliche 'we're not getting enough credit' on every phone-in - often this is uttered by fans whose clubs get nothing but positive coverage. I even heard an Everton fan say it about Moyes when all you ever hear is what a good job he's done at Everton. Indeed the pro-Moyes voices are so loud, you'd think he was flawless and had never signed Handy Shandy Andy van der Maybe.

 

Oddly, you don't hear Bolton fans say there's a media bias against poor Gary Megson, who to my mind genuinely doesn't attract any praise from anyone including his own supporters, whose ire he attracts even when being four positions higher than a Spurs side managed by media darling Harry Redknapp.

 

Indeed, in Redknapp we see someone who benefits from a positive press almost regardless of the quality of his work. It does stick in the craw and seems unfair when better people get less acknowledgement.

 

But rather than being pure unreasonable bias I suspect the pro-'Arry press is merely born out of expediency. You keep sweet those who make your life easier, I see no mainstream journalists step out of line in a major way on Redknapp because to do so would remove you from an influential loop in modern football media that also includes son Jamie, cousin Frank, Frank's mate John, all his mates and God knows how many others. It's worth bearing that in mind when you read another gushing piece about how 'Arry is right about, well, almost everything.

 

Equally you might want to remember that expressing a negative opinion about some people in football is consciously avoided or constrained for fear of legal prosecution by an especially-litigiously inclined individual.

 

Some fans see bias against their club everywhere, as regular readers of the F365 mailbox and blogs will be only too familiar with. Make any criticism and there are many ready to pull their skirt up over their heads and roar about the injustice of it all and how we've got it in for xyz player or club.

 

This is almost never actually true.

 

There is a confusion of definition at the core of this. Having an opinion isn't the same as being biased.

 

In a simple twist of fate, it is more often those who most loudly cry bias who are the most biased themselves, seeing their preferences, loyalties and allegiances through rose-tinted beer goggles, being over-sensitive, blind or deaf to alternative viewpoints they emit an idiot wind of protest against an injustice which doesn't really exist.

 

This can get taken to an almost comical degree of scrutiny. A friend who worked on the Daily Record in Glasgow tells stories of being rung up by irate Celtic and Rangers fans who had counted the amount of words committed to reporting each side that day, found them unequal and asserting strongly that this was proof of bias against their club and by the way pal, I know where you live.

 

I often wonder why anyone in football really cares anyway. Football writers have no power in the world, Most of us can't find our a*** with both hands, so if you think we've given a bad rap to someone, y'know, just let it ride. Why be bothered?

 

I've never understood this defensive paranoia about football clubs. People can have a pop at the Boro all they like, I couldn't care less. I don't even know you.

 

I can't imagine counting the words written about Middlesbrough in the Evening Chronicle and comparing it to the amount written about Hartlepool or Darlington to try to uncover some hidden bias. This may be because I am simply not that committed to the cause or maybe I have just got a lot of more important things in life to do such as listening to Todd Rundgren albums and making soup, but I suspect I am not alone in distaste for the panty-wetting bias-mongers.

 

Remember, there is no obligation for any writer or broadcaster to be objective and even-handed when talking about football. If it's a news report then fair enough, but the rest of it is just opinion, take it or leave it.

 

Bias - despite the amount of emotion its perceived existence generates amongst football fans - is really an oddly impotent thing. There is little obvious consequence to all concerned if it really exists and it leaves me wondering why anyone has ever committed any degree of emotion or time to hunting it out and decrying it.

 

On the other hand, there is bias by officials. This, if true, is where the knife hits the bone. Are some referees and officials biased against a team or player? Someone once produced stats which 'proved' there were more penalties given for the 'top four' than for any other sides. This might be proof of bias but equally, it may just be proof that those sides where better and thus were hacked down in the box more.

 

More seriously is the fact that, at least according to Graham Poll, referees are 'warned' ahead of major tournaments about specific players regarding diving etc. This does sound more like being biased against certain players, but in a game with some many indistinct variables happening at speed, having some kind of mental criteria in place to help you go one way or another is almost inevitable.

 

A seriously-biased referee would be quickly exposed by a voracious media. Poor refs are common, genuinely biased ones are less easy to find.

 

So does bias exist?

 

Yes, of course.

 

99% of bias is fan-on-fan bias, the illogical, emotional dislike of teams, players and even football writers; all those who accuse everyone else of bias are the true carriers of the flame of unreasonable prejudice and precisely because of that, they see it everywhere else, judging everyone by their own standards.

 

Mind you, don't rely on me for the truth, I'm biased.

 

 

 

Like him, hate him, he does write some good stuff does our john

[Eskimo]

Also their "dog with a bone" approach to reporting has probably played a part in a fair few managers getting the elbow down the years.

 

Tonight was a prime example, every 5 mins during the build up all I could hear was "ever since the Rafa rant Liverpool's form has dipped" blah blah blah...

 

Oh and who was that fecking woman they interviewed in the pub

[growler]

delighted with it. write us off, leave us alone, and let us pick up in peace and quiet. we have been in the news way too much.

[JRC]

TalkSport had a typical 5 minutes tonight. When Danny Kelly cautiously suggested he was scratching his head that non-scoring Arsenal had 'rested' top scorer RvP, Ray Houghton kindly came on to clarify and explain, very reasonably, Wenger's decision process. It was actually quite fair but noticeably distinct from the way he would have reacted if it had been Rafa (imo). Then they went to a pre-match report from Graham Beecroft - now an outsider/occasional freelance at the station - who kicked off a staggeringly bilious invective about our woes under Benitez's leadership - lack of quality (N'Gog being named as a failure), going even further backwards, worse than under Houllier - which was bizarre for a supposed scene setting (and team news) update prior to a game.

[cymrococh]

I used to like James Richardson, but it is blatantly obvious from his show on Setanta and The Guardian's podcast that he has got a real problem with us/Rafa.

 

The rest of the Guardian's journos are just as bad, apart from the little German fella who may just be standing up for his namesake.

 

Barry Glendenning needs drowning.

[Kahnee]

I have less of a problem with bias, and more of a problem with basic ignorance. Redknapp last night, for example, banging on about the unbalanced squad. Based his entire argument on the fact we had two left-backs on the bench (overlooking the fact one of them can play wide left and in central midfield) and no right-backs apart from Arbeloa having "let Finnan go". Has he followed Finnan's career since he went to Spain? Or wondered why no other PL club signed him? And what about the two other RBs we have, injuries not ithstanding?

Then we have Andy G extolling the virtues of Babel, failing to mention the fact that the run and shot he was so in love with has been a rare thing this season.

Even Martin Tyler joined in, laughing that Insua didn't say what he wanted to the ref "because he probably hasn't got the vocabulary". He's been here for how long now? He's not a new f***in' signing. He seems to communicate quite well with his English-speaking team mates. Maybe, you senile xenophobic old loon, he's just watched Masch a few times and learnt the value of keeping his moth shut?

 

Feel better after that

[gkmacca]

As Kahnee says, it's the casual ignorance that is most maddening - it's just bad broadcasting, regardless of whom you happen to support as a viewer. Torres being out last season through injury playing for Spain? Sky perpetuated the myth Rafa simply decided to 'rest' him while we slipped behind the leaders. That's not bias, it's just wrong. Redknapp now seems to know Rafa's thoughts - he never just criticises his judgements in the league, he always insists we don't do well because 'Rafa loves the Champions League' - I mean, again, that's just stupid, lazy 'analysis'. Does he explain his dear old dad's record by saying that, apart from one season when he suddenly got horny for the FA Cup, he doesn't love any competition enough to do that well in it? He really has got worse and worse as a pundit sitting next to that hairy-handed son of the soiled, Richard Simian Keys.