[Archived] The "Impartial" Bbc

[mellison24]

A shake-up is needed, with younger presenters. Such as the lads who do the sports bit on Granada Reports. They have a little humour about them and are unbiased in their SPOKEN thoughts towards clubs and players. They also APPLAUD the efforts of the smaller clubs such as Us and Wigan just as much as they do with Liverpool and ManUre.

Goals on Sunday for me anyday.

[broadsword]

Just abolish the licence fee.

The BBC have it far too easy, they're a bloated and complacent organisation, out of touch with what viewers want.

The days of the licence fee are numbered anyway since you can now watch live TV through the internet.

[CrazyIvan]

Just abolish the licence fee.

The BBC have it far too easy, they're a bloated and complacent organisation, out of touch with what viewers want.

The days of the licence fee are numbered anyway since you can now watch live TV through the internet.

If you watch BBC through the internet you 'have' to pay the license fee. How they can actually check that I'm not entirely sure especially if you have a 3g card...

[Steve Moss]

Aren't there alternatives to BBC? If so, watch them. Plunging ratings might cause BBC to mend its manners.

[gumboots]

Aren't there alternatives to BBC? If so, watch them. Plunging ratings might cause BBC to mend its manners.

WE all do but where can you get all the goals from that day together in a short format programme? It's convenient, even though the coverage is poor. That's why, despite complaints many of us have a quick watch

[thenodrog]

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.

Maybe not having sky has something to do with it.

[gumboots]

Maybe not having sky has something to do with it.

I have Sky and still watch MOTD whilst sky plussing the 50 mins to watch at my leisure. Family are currently trying to persuade me that espn is a good idea too but I'm resisting so far

[Rover Down Under]

I haven't had the displeasure of watching MoTD for several years now but, correct me if I'm wrong, I always remember the 3 big matches to be shown were pre-arranged at least a week before, announced at the end of the programme and in the papers. There was always a fair spread of all teams being shown throughout the season, rather than just as the cannon fodder for the big teams, with fairly good analysis of both sides (this is a while back folks!) Has this policy been dropped? How often do the Big 4/6 get shown? Is it just Rovers or other teams that get belittled?

A joint complaint from the 'Little 16' to the Director General AND Ben Bradshaw (MP for Sport, Culture and Media) would go a lot further than individual complaints to MoTD and the Beeb which I'm sure they receive regularly.

[Tom]

Now all games are full commentary affairs and i presume a full crew is at each ground so if any game is an epic it will be shown as a main game usually.

Normally though expect to see United, liverpool or Chelsea up first followed by the spuds

[gumboots]

I haven't had the displeasure of watching MoTD for several years now but, correct me if I'm wrong, I always remember the 3 big matches to be shown were pre-arranged at least a week before, announced at the end of the programme and in the papers. There was always a fair spread of all teams being shown throughout the season, rather than just as the cannon fodder for the big teams, with fairly good analysis of both sides (this is a while back folks!) Has this policy been dropped? How often do the Big 4/6 get shown? Is it just Rovers or other teams that get belittled?

A joint complaint from the 'Little 16' to the Director General AND Ben Bradshaw (MP for Sport, Culture and Media) would go a lot further than individual complaints to MoTD and the Beeb which I'm sure they receive regularly.

I've explained the official policy a few times before on here. Basically it's what they think will be the big games first although they are not announced as they used to be in advance. (I remember when i was a kid doing extra jobs to be allowed to stay up late on Saturday night to watch MOTD on the rare occasions my team were on) If a game is particularly good and a real turn up, it can get moved up the running order. If your game has a good first half it is more likely to get moved up than if it has a slow start. If it has a particularly exciting finish then it might get moved up but this is supposed to be less likely than if the first half is good. Now how that works out in practice is that they show the big 4 first and all the rest in order of their love for the clubs so the only clubs more likely than us to be on last are Bolton and er... well that's about it really. It's not the bias of the producer, because the only guy I know of who produces is a Boro fan and they were rarely high up the order last season. It's just what they think the majority of fans want to see. Not necessarily true but then the BBC are isolated in London and their presenters are all middle aged men. And this fascination with the big 4 is not just BBC bias but Sky's too - in fact I'd go so far as to say that Keys and Gray on sky are even worse than Hansen, Lineker etc

[Rover Down Under]

Thanks Gumboots, I've perhaps missed the postings where you explained the new policy. I still think in fairness to all teams the old system should be reverted to. Even the most boring games will have shots on goal, moments of skill etc. If the policy of MoTD is to show the "best" and "most exciting" games every week then naturally the Big 4 are ALWAYS going to feature as they often put 3, 4 or 6 past lesser teams (the "Little 16") and will ALWAYS feature when they play each other - in other words the "big games" will ALWAYS feature the Big 4. This goes completely against the idea of being imparital and a fair treatment for all. As has been said a Rovers fan pays the same license fee as a Liverpool fan and thus has a financial and democratic right to see their license fee spent IMPARTIALLY and without bias on their team, the Beeb has the rights to the Premier League that has been bought WITH LICENCE PAYERS MONEY, thus the licence payers have the right to decide what, when, where and how much is shown. We should thus asert this right.

[LeChuck]

As has been said a Rovers fan pays the same license fee as a Liverpool fan and thus has a financial and democratic right to see their license fee spent IMPARTIALLY and without bias on their team, the Beeb has the rights to the Premier League that has been bought WITH LICENCE PAYERS MONEY, thus the licence payers have the right to decide what, when, where and how much is shown. We should thus asert this right.

Yeah...but you can't argue what you want to see on an individual basis, that just wouldn't work. Collectively, Liverpool fans pay a hell of a lot more license fees than we do.

If fans exerted their right about what they wanted to see the big four would come out on top, simply because there are more fans of those clubs.

In every single sport, the dominant forces get the vast majority of media coverage...why should football be any different? Just think Tiger Woods, Federer, Mayweather, O'Sullivan...I could go. That's really just the way it is, and whether we like it or not, if clubs outside the top four were regularly shown as the main MOTD game, ratings would probably go down.

[Ozz]

I think the coverage Rovers get on the Telly is pretty comprehensive, I can watch virtually any game we play on TV somewhere eventually. As for the Pundits being biased, who cares? Doesn't get us any more points or cash really.

[Rover Down Under]

If fans exerted their right about what they wanted to see the big four would come out on top, simply because there are more fans of those clubs.

Chicken or egg came first?

[gumboots]

Thanks Gumboots, I've perhaps missed the postings where you explained the new policy. I still think in fairness to all teams the old system should be reverted to. Even the most boring games will have shots on goal, moments of skill etc. If the policy of MoTD is to show the "best" and "most exciting" games every week then naturally the Big 4 are ALWAYS going to feature as they often put 3, 4 or 6 past lesser teams (the "Little 16") and will ALWAYS feature when they play each other - in other words the "big games" will ALWAYS feature the Big 4. This goes completely against the idea of being imparital and a fair treatment for all. As has been said a Rovers fan pays the same license fee as a Liverpool fan and thus has a financial and democratic right to see their license fee spent IMPARTIALLY and without bias on their team, the Beeb has the rights to the Premier League that has been bought WITH LICENCE PAYERS MONEY, thus the licence payers have the right to decide what, when, where and how much is shown. We should thus asert this right.

Wasn't telling you off for asking by the way. Just tend to go into teacher mode at times. I only know what's supposed to happen because several years ago my daughter did work experience at BBC sport and sat in on the planning and through the matches on live feed.

[Tris]

I look forward to MOTD, I don't really let anything they say / don't say - or show / don't show about us worry me. It's the best round up of the football action - I find that Goals on Sunday is (1) too early and (2) involves Chris Kamara.

Hansen never had a bad word to say about BRFC when his mate Kenny was on board. What goes around comes around. We also got loads of praise and coverage when we finished 6th under Souness. Any team making headlines for the right reasons deserves some air time.

Hence Burnley. It's falling apart now (thank goodness) but their 2 week spell in the summer sunshine and the victory against MU was always going to get some attention, and rightly so.

[Amo]

*yaaaawn* MOTD again highlighting the ineffectiveness of Man Utd's performance against Sunderland rather than Sunderland's actual strengths in almost winning 3pts at Old Trafford. It's a bloody joke.

[JAL]

*yaaaawn* MOTD again highlighting the ineffectiveness of Man Utd's performance against Sunderland rather than Sunderland's actual strengths in almost winning 3pts at Old Trafford. It's a bloody joke.

Yes, disgraceful from the BBC. I'm sure there will be more than a few upset Sunderland fans after listening to that shyte.

[Tom]

I'd more than happily take being upset when MOTD don't give us praise for a point at the Emirates tomorrow

[joey_big_nose]

If fans exerted their right about what they wanted to see the big four would come out on top, simply because there are more fans of those clubs.

In every single sport, the dominant forces get the vast majority of media coverage...why should football be any different? Just think Tiger Woods, Federer, Mayweather, O'Sullivan...I could go. That's really just the way it is, and whether we like it or not, if clubs outside the top four were regularly shown as the main MOTD game, ratings would probably go down.

True. It's pretty sad but the top four plus Spurs and Villa probably have five times as many "fans" (as in people who want to watch them on the telly) as the other 14 clubs do put together. Maybe even more than five times.

It's a self reinforcing issue that has happened ever since Football was televised. People support teams they watch, the teams with the biggest support are shown the most often, so more people see them, so more people support them. Ad infinitum.

Rovers have benfitted from this (loads of "tv fans" jumped aboard over the last fifteen years) but the factor of increase for teams in the CL - where kids will see full games every bloody week - is incredible. Man Utd could probably have 150000 seater stadium and they would fill it - something that would have sounded ludicrous even a decade ago

Chelsea's fan base must have tripled in the last five years. Arsenal used to be comparable to Spurs in support fiteen years ago. Now the gunners absolutely dwarf them probably to the tune of two or three times the support. Part of it is people like to support successful teams, but most of it is the incredible level of exposure the CL provides.

It's getting daft.

[gumboots]

True. It's pretty sad but the top four plus Spurs and Villa probably have five times as many "fans" (as in people who want to watch them on the telly) as the other 14 clubs do put together. Maybe even more than five times.

It's a self reinforcing issue that has happened ever since Football was televised. People support teams they watch, the teams with the biggest support are shown the most often, so more people see them, so more people support them. Ad infinitum.

Rovers have benfitted from this (loads of "tv fans" jumped aboard over the last fifteen years) but the factor of increase for teams in the CL - where kids will see full games every bloody week - is incredible. Man Utd could probably have 150000 seater stadium and they would fill it - something that would have sounded ludicrous even a decade ago

Chelsea's fan base must have tripled in the last five years. Arsenal used to be comparable to Spurs in support fiteen years ago. Now the gunners absolutely dwarf them probably to the tune of two or three times the support. Part of it is people like to support successful teams, but most of it is the incredible level of exposure the CL provides.

It's getting daft.

I don't think it's so much the lack of exposure for the other teams that is the issue here but the patronising way in which all other clubs are dismissed. If there was a relative fairness in the way games not including the big 4 were shown ie not always the same couple of teams last, one of the midtable teams high up the running order every week regardless and most importantly decent analysis of the performance of teams outside the top 4 or so guaranteed then fans would like the programme a lot more. The BBC seem to be running scared of upsetting the big clubs to the extent that what they present is bland and uninteresting to any other fans. When Utd play rubbish as they have done several times this season why are the players and the representatives of the club not asked why are you playing so badly? When defenders fail to turn up I and most other fans wnat to hear their excuses. But instead we get the same bland questions that allow managers and players to say what they want to say not what their fans want to hear. Compare that with political questioners who always ask the questions politicians do not want to answer. Not suggesting that it gets really agressive but that they stop using ex players to conduct the interviews and take the cosy all lads in the dressing room together element out of it. Let the questions be a bit more edgy and do some real analysis in the studio. Get a non football person on the couch with Hansen and ask him Why wasn't that a penalty in your eyes alan when to most fans, even Villa fans, it was and so on. The thing is lineker Hansen and Lawrenson are isolated in the MOTD studio watching the matches. They don't come in having been to a live match that afternoon and never hear what the ordinary fans are saying outside. It's not only Rovers fans who are disatisfied with MOTD - it's fans all over the country who are increasingly unhappy with the unholy trinity and the way the BBC generally feels it cannot risk upsetting anyone for fear they won't talk to them any more.

[RovertheHill]

If there's no bias then how is Jermain Defoe's overhead kick against Man Utd (albeit a great goal and featured in MOTD's goal of the month) not "dangerous play" in the same way Franco's overhead that led to the penalty against Villa apparently was according to Messrs Hansen and Lineker?

[Amo]

I love how the commentator failed to commit on the blatant penalty against Dunn. "I bet your bottom dollar Sam Allardyce thought it was a pen."

[Hughesy]

MOTD2 - "Stone wall penalty" OMG!!!

[DE.]

There was really no way of arguing it wasn't. You won't see a more blatant penalty anywhere. Not even the beeb can dismiss that one.