[Archived] The "Impartial" Bbc

[thenodrog]

Wigan v Chelsea summed up the attitudes to the big boys. The 3 of em banged on and on about what went wrong with Chelsea and why they lost and then just as they were moving on and as an afterthought Lawrenson said 'but lets not take anything away from Wigan's performance'. The plonkers had spent 5 whole minutes doing just that!

[Tom]

Playing Devils Advocate for a minute, is there a chance it could be right that the big 4 get more attention, after all if more fans support them then more liscence payers money goes towards funding the programme.

Nah, thought not.

[gumboots]

Playing Devils Advocate for a minute, is there a chance it could be right that the big 4 get more attention, after all if more fans support them then more liscence payers money goes towards funding the programme.

Nah, thought not.

I wouldn't have a problem with that if it was done sensibly. Yes, therer are mor Utd fans etc around and yes, they probably do deserve a bit more coverage than the other teams. it's not that that irritates though is it? It's that when we do deserve a bit of credit and perhaps more than a cursory showing, we don't ever seem to get it.

[Grabbi Graeme]

Sky can be as bad aswell, The Last Word that's on after their Sunday game might aswell be called "What the top 4 did this weekend", the Sunday match gets a mention and rest of the time is Andy Gray playing with his telly toy and banging on about the top 4 clubs.

[Tom]

I wouldn't have a problem with that if it was done sensibly. Yes, therer are mor Utd fans etc around and yes, they probably do deserve a bit more coverage than the other teams. it's not that that irritates though is it? It's that when we do deserve a bit of credit and perhaps more than a cursory showing, we don't ever seem to get it.

oh I fully agree I was just trying to look at it from another angle

[DE.]

I can remember sending a complaint to the BBC a couple of years ago in regards to Lawro, at the time he was a total pr!ck about us, week in, week out. I got an apologetic reply and was told my letter had been forwarded to him i'm sure it made loads of difference though i have to say, since then he hasn't been half as bad

[Amo]

Yeah, I don't get the criticism of Lawrenson. I've never heard him disparage our club; on the contrary he's actually said how well run we are. But he does appear to be a bit of spare-part on the show at the moment.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Watching MOTD2, I din't know who the articulate young fellow was offering up some lucid, sensible comments on the games.

Well the "intelligent articulate" man is a player who has previously disgraced himself by going Awol on the eve of a game. He has also previously admitted that he had been playing football at nowhere near 100% - thereby cheating the supporters of his former club Queens Park Rangers, who had been paying his substantial wages.

"I wasn't actually that bothered," said Clarke Carlisle. Well I'm sure that the supporters of QPR were bothered. The money they spent on match tickets was partly funding the wages of a individual who openly admitted that he wasn't playing at 100% and wasn't bothered - unacceptable for a so-called professional footballer.

Mr Carlisle initially spent much of his time at QPR spending his wages on booze and developing a serious alcohol problem. Fortunately he eventually undertook therapy for his booze problems, but I still think it was unacceptable for him to go Awol on the eve of a game, to not be giving 100% for QPR in matches and to not be bothered, to use his own words.

Link below:

Carlisle admits he wasn't bothered

Regarding the BBC, I feel they (and other media organisations) do have a bias in favour of the 'Big Four' teams. Indeed the BBC (and other media outlets) seem to stretch that now to a 'Big Five' and include Man City, with the media in general loving the big name players on show at Eastlands now that the wealthy torturing Abu Dhabi family have taken over the club.

Clearly smaller clubs receive less coverage and less media attention. It's the same in politics. The main 3 political parties in Britain will receive massively more media coverage than the smaller parties like UKIP and the BNP. Until the smaller parties become bigger parties, they won't receive the same level of media coverage. Similarly for as long as the smaller football clubs remain smaller so to speak than the bigger clubs then they won't receive the same level of attention. It's a vicious cycle.

Despite the tendency of the BBC to favour the bigger clubs, I don't feel however that the BBC have a specific bias solely against Blackburn Rovers.

The job that Mark Hughes did at Rovers was often praised by Messrs Lineker, Hansen and Lawrenson. (In Lineker's case it's perhaps not surprising as he's a friend and former Barcelona team-mate of Hughes.)

[Tom]

Give Carlisle his due, he had his demons and appears to have beat them. Seriously is nobody ever allowed to step a foot wrong in your world AESF?

Oh and the less we see of the BNP on the TV the happier I am.

[gumboots]

Fortunately he eventually undertook therapy for his booze problems,

And appears to have emerged a more likable person from them. Agree with TCO If he had done nothing to change then fair enough but he works very hard for Burnley and would appear to have simply gone off the rails like many young men in his situation, but unlike some seems to have sorted himself out.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Seriously is nobody ever allowed to step a foot wrong in your world AESF?

I'm just suggesting that from the point of view of Queens Park Rangers supporters (obviously I'm not a QPR fan myself) that when they digested the comments from a player who had gone Awol on the eve of a game and admitted that he was "never more than 75% for matches" throughout a whole season and not bothered, then frankly they would have the right to be irritated by his conduct.

To Carlisle's credit he did (eventually) seek treatment for his boozing. It would have been nice if he had recognised his alcohol problems earlier before deciding to go Awol. But better late than never I suppose.

I'm sure however that if Keith Andrews started going on a bout of heavy drinking, went Awol on the eve of a Rovers match and later said that he was "Never more than 75% for a whole season. Drinking had been affecting my performances for a long time," then he would (rightly) be heavily criticised by Rovers fans on this website. So from my point of view QPR fans had the right to be unhappy with Mr Carlisle's conduct.

I'm sorry if criticising a Burnley player has upset you.

[Tom]

Nothing to do with him being a Burnley player, I just think anyone who can overcome personal demons like that deserves some recognition and credit.

There have been times where I must admit I have not put 100% into my job as well I must add.

[TimmyJimmy]

Bias is easy to cope with, contempt is something different though.

Lot's of ex players, pundits, journo's will never forgive us for the Jack Walker years, even those players involved with it seem to feel dirty somehow. When was the last time a Sherwood or a Shearer ever really spoke up for Rovers. Don't find a ton of ex players banging the drum for us on commentary. Maybe their lives and paychecks after football depend on pleasing new masters.

No not really of course, only kidding come on, they only came to us for cash in the first place which kind of defines them as human beings, so why should we be surprised when they behave true to form for a different paymaster.

Even when the media have to give us some sort of praise it is never directed at the club but to the flavour of the moment player or start turn manager. Remember the "Shearer saves Rovers" line or "Not even Shearer could save Rovers". The media don't refer to us as a club but as 'them', praise goes to Sam right now when things go well. Sam of course knows which side his bread is buttered on also by using the same phraseology "It's inexplicable, I spoke to them about this on the training ground". It's an old trick, separate out the popular bit from the unpopular bit and direct praise at one and scorn at the other.

The Wimbledons and Millwalls of this world had it about right - nobody likes us and we don't care. Stuff the media, 'they' will never change Now if I was in branding and marketing that might be a good image

[beerwins]

It really infuriates me watching MOTD, i dont expect any good comments about rovers but when we play well and beat a (so called better team) they usually give us a bit of credit but saturdays episode took the biscuit. Rovers were simply the better team and the match was edited to show how lucky we were and didnt really deserve the points and the comments on the penaly were a joke tbh.

All in all it doesnt really surprise me that all the comments were negative, after all messers lawro and asshat probably only watched the biased edited highlights, the day that the prem league isnt paraded around like its the savour of football is probably for the best, watching a spuds team rip open a bumley team and seeing the scousers trounce hull in my eyes only shows what money can do (although it was good veiwing) it just shows the huge imbalance.

I feel its a shame that some clubs should be so heavily favoured compared to others BUT there is nothing anyone can do, the pundits try to keep there fans happy as there usually are more of them watching, its just a sad fact.

[gumboots]

It really infuriates me watching MOTD, i dont expect any good comments about rovers but when we play well and beat a (so called better team) they usually give us a bit of credit but saturdays episode took the biscuit. Rovers were simply the better team and the match was edited to show how lucky we were and didnt really deserve the points and the comments on the penaly were a joke tbh.

All in all it doesnt really surprise me that all the comments were negative, after all messers lawro and asshat probably only watched the biased edited highlights, the day that the prem league isnt paraded around like its the savour of football is probably for the best, watching a spuds team rip open a bumley team and seeing the scousers trounce hull in my eyes only shows what money can do (although it was good veiwing) it just shows the huge imbalance.

I feel its a shame that some clubs should be so heavily favoured compared to others BUT there is nothing anyone can do, the pundits try to keep there fans happy as there usually are more of them watching, its just a sad fact.

However, if you took a poll of fans I think most would be dissatisfied with MOTD and the cosy old boys club it has become. There is never a different voice advocating a different point of view. The players are all of a certain age and that reflects those who run BBC sport. They are trying to make changes and there could well be a big shake up when sport moves to Manchester simply because many who would have to move to Manchester won't go and will prefer to find another job. Whether they have the courage to shake up MOTD is another matter. There are far too many middle-aged men dominating local and national sport on the BBC. The current policy is to look at changing this but it is hard work.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Stopped watching MOTD a long time ago, fed up of being last on with 30 seconds of highlights and no analysis (where there is some analysis its usually really poor). Also finding it amazing that the greatest player to ever put on the blue and white shows no real passion or even a slight bias towards Rovers, when you consider what he achieved here you would think there would be some good feelings towards the club.

Sticking to Football First and Goals on Sunday on Sky.

[Montfort]

After last night's coverage, I complained to the BBC online about their bias and lack of care for Rovers. Look forward to their response

Excellent. The problem now goes beyond a bit of bias and is more a relection on the standard of reporting. The BBC should have higher aspirations and should be ashamed of themselves

[only2garners]

Whilst I'm upset if BBC presenters don't agree with my view of the game I do recognise that I'm obviously biased and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. What particularly upset me about Hansen's comments on Saturday though was that he said (and I can't remember the exact words now) that most people agreed with him that it wasn't a penalty. Clearly this must have been made up as the evidence looking at match reports is to the contrary - the Football First Sky coverage also emphatically concluded it was a penalty.

Mind you the rest of the Sky commentary and editing left something to be desired. In particular there was a slow motion replay of a "foul" Diouf committed, which the ref spoke to him about but didn't book him. Looking at the replay it seemed pretty much that both players had raised boots going for the ball and that Diouf got there first and won the ball and caught the Villa player in his follow through. Clearly that incident was shown (and plenty of other worse tackles in the game not shown) because it was Diouf - a shameless attempt to stoke feelings against him when he's in the news. The foul on Dunn in the centre circle (was it Young?) wasn't shown at all.

[den]

Whilst I'm upset if BBC presenters don't agree with my view of the game I do recognise that I'm obviously biased and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. What particularly upset me about Hansen's comments on Saturday though was that he said (and I can't remember the exact words now) that most people agreed with him that it wasn't a penalty.

Yes he did say that O2G's. The ascertation was that it was beyond debate. It really was Hansen and the BBC at their height of arrogance.

[gumboots]

Mind you the rest of the Sky commentary and editing left something to be desired. In particular there was a slow motion replay of a "foul" Diouf committed, which the ref spoke to him about but didn't book him. Looking at the replay it seemed pretty much that both players had raised boots going for the ball and that Diouf got there first and won the ball and caught the Villa player in his follow through. Clearly that incident was shown (and plenty of other worse tackles in the game not shown) because it was Diouf - a shameless attempt to stoke feelings against him when he's in the news. The foul on Dunn in the centre circle (was it Young?) wasn't shown at all.

I thought that one was not a foul by diouf when i watched the 50 mins yesterday.

[philipl]

What is sad is that some metta crawler will have alerted someone in the vast BBC market research machine that the BBC is being discussed here.

They will have read and noted the gist of the comments and reported that MoTD is successfully reaching its target audience.

Which of course is not Rovers fans as we are too few to matter when it comes to arguments about licence fees etc etc.

[Stuart]

The only reason to watch MOTD is for a quick re-run of the goals and major incidents. I tend to fast forward through the chit-chat for all the reasons mentioned on this thread.

Get yourself a video recorder - it's the future!

[Al]

The only reason to watch MOTD is for a quick re-run of the goals and major incidents. I tend to fast forward through the chit-chat for all the reasons mentioned on this thread.

Get yourself a video recorder - it's the future!

Or Sky+. Sky is the only place to watch football replays. At least they make some attempt to be unbiased and give you 45 mins of a match of your choice every Saturday. MOTD is the pits for Rovers supporters. I have no idea why any of you watch it.

[gumboots]

Or Sky+. Sky is the only place to watch football replays. At least they make some attempt to be unbiased and give you 45 mins of a match of your choice every Saturday. MOTD is the pits for Rovers supporters. I have no idea why any of you watch it.

for a quick zoom through all the goals in the prem that day before going to bed. Not for Rovers coverage - watch the 50 mins for that

[TimmyJimmy]

What is sad is that some metta crawler will have alerted someone in the vast BBC market research machine that the BBC is being discussed here.

They will have read and noted the gist of the comments and reported that MoTD is successfully reaching its target audience.

Which of course is not Rovers fans as we are too few to matter when it comes to arguments about licence fees etc etc.

Agreed. However the BBC should add up the number of fans watching the 'big 4' or 'big 6' then add up the fans watching the remaining 16 clubs - guess what makes the biggest number. The Beeb is cheesing off a lot of fans and license payers. I'd also question whether such bias is in keeping with the Beebs charter, surely it says something about representing all views equally, fair, honest, balanced or similar words. MOTD has to failing on at least one of these values.