[Archived] TotW: Too Much Media Not Enough News ?

[S15]

I agree with many of your sentiments Jim, but I must say I take a lot of the football stories in the papers with a pinch of salt, and often require the internet and to a lesser degree rolling news channels to verify/deny anything I read. I do like a newspaper to accompany me on any journey. However, SSN and the like are brilliant, and though I don't get to see it much, it is great to stick on for twenty minutes or so at the top of an hour. I think it's great that the internet/SSN/newspapers exist hand in hand, and it's everyones individual choice how they use them. Too much? Only if you watch/read/use them too much.

[yeti-dog]

Sky Sports news is information for the Asbo generation..constant news tickers with no more substance than a McDonald's Happy Meal.The Murdoch equivalent of Groundhog Day which treats us all like we're both suffering from ADHD and in need of spurious gossip like addicts needing their next fix. .

Unfortunately,we feed the frenzy in our need for instant gratification and the'need to know'.

Look at all the Formica nonsense engendered on the back of some twattering,sorry twittering,when we would all have been better served sitting back,taking a breath and letting it play out.

[Beta Ray Bill]

One of the best cases of this was The Mirror caught by a little wikipedia vandalism

http://www.b3ta.com/links/Lazy_Journalist (The main story is safe for work, but even though I've not checked, I'd imagine as it's on b3ta, some of the comments will have naughty words in them).

Sorry, pulling this thread off topic twice in one day, but it does raise an interesting point, has our demand for more news more quickly, forced the media to put less effort into generating it, in the name of speed ?

Try popping along to a Doctor Who forum for similar laughs - someone makes up a 'rumour' about something that happens in a forthcoming story (which is blatantly a lie), the Sun or the Star then picks it up as 'fact' from 'a show insider' a couple of days later. Then it's back to the forum with half the members now thinking the original ###### is true, whilst the other half know exactly where the story originated ie on page 1 of the same thread!

Anyhow, that was slightly off topic, but not far off as will be seen...

One of the problems I have with the media vs news, is that there is not even the slightest chance it could all be true. This has probably always been the case to an extent but the lack of immediacy to 'news' in pre internet days meant that you could generally expect something in print to have some grounding in reality as it couldn't change so rapidly.

For example, if Spurs over the last few years had signed every player they were closely linked with in 73 newspapers and 1,276 websites, White Hart Lane wouldn't need fans, they could fill the place with squad members each season. Every journo claims his story has 'insider knowledge' which tries to fool people into parting with a few pence at Waterloo station, or hitting a site so the advertising revenue might get a boost. Most intelligent people must know that it is all bobbins, and can safely shut it out, but they get dragged into the mire when a particular story stirs some sort of interest in their deepest darkest subconscious.

So why does such nonsense get published without the slightest hint of sanity? Because the attention span credited to humans in rolling news is less than 1 hour and it is either recycled or rewritten to keep it fresh and 'exciting'. This diet of drivel and regurgitated drivel quickly becomes the norm, and if there isn't another dollop served up, then the audience thinks it is going to die from starvation, so more drivel is delivered. "Supply finds it's own demand" is the expression, I think.

The other problem is that the more overload of non-news there is, the less real news is spotted. When it's reported it is either swamped by the guff around it, or is dismissed as being wrong, based on the guff around it. Serious news reporting chokes and dies because no one spots or it or no one cares about it.

But is the media overload done deliberately, and is it purposefully made up? Possibly not, but sometimes I wonder. Hmmm. Maybe that as Matt Smith is a Rovers fan, I could start a rumour that a new episode is to be filmed at Ewood - could get two internet communities into a frenzy, and both the sport and tv sections reporting the story. I think I'll call my story "The Claretnblue Terror"....

[jim mk2]

I agree with many of your sentiments Jim, but I must say I take a lot of the football stories in the papers with a pinch of salt, and often require the internet and to a lesser degree rolling news channels to verify/deny anything I read.

Wrong way round I would say. The sports rolling news channels have very little credibility whatsoever with a constant barrage of speculative stories very few of which have a grain of truth. The broadsheets are best if you want to read non-speculative sports stories.

[S15]

The broadsheets are best if you want to read non-speculative sports stories.

The writing is too little.

[Glenn]

Wrong way round I would say. The sports rolling news channels have very little credibility whatsoever with a constant barrage of speculative stories very few of which have a grain of truth. The broadsheets are best if you want to read non-speculative sports stories.

The trouble with broadsheets (well, print media as a whole) for 'news' is the lack of immediacy. As I do have access to multiple streams of information of varying quality and accuracy, it means by the time it's printed, I already know the story. Occasionally there is a little more depth, which is why I'll often go an read the full stories of things I know of from this site on the LET or the Mirror websites, but it's a long time since I remember buy a paper for sport content (I did used to buy a paper to help pass train journeys, before trains had wifi).

The exception to this is the Guardian, which I buy sporadically (mainly due to not passing a newsagents that often) and it's iPhone app and website (both which I use frequently) but oddly, not for the news, but for it editorials and columns instead.

[Valois]

I certainly remember the days before the internet became widely available. The first thing I would do when I got in from school would be to check Teletex/Ceefax for football news, cricket scores etc. Then the first thing I would do when my dad got home from work, would be to grab the newspaper off him, and go straight to the back. I think at a younger age we are lot more nieve, and believe what we read, as we got older we become a lot me sceptical.

I also have BBCand SSN websites open whilst I work, and check them every so often, as well as looking on here. I also still read a newspaper most days, and transfer gossip is taken with a large pinch of salt, but gossip is gossip, we know what were reading doesn'talways have much substance, other than what someone close to a source has apparently said. I also work from home some days, and will flick on SSN every now and then.

It has to be said however the content of news on these 24 hour news channels can be poor to say least at times. David Beckham training with Spurs was a perfect example of this, with sections of the media camped outside the training ground, hourly udates on Beckam, Beckham has left the training ground, I cam home to the main news one evening "Beckham training ground injury scare turns out to be a blister".

I think certain sections of the public lap up this sort of news, and the media are just meeting their demand to be constantly bombarded with news.

In the end we all have a choice what we watch, read or listen to.

[jim mk2]

The trouble with broadsheets (well, print media as a whole) for 'news' is the lack of immediacy. As I do have access to multiple streams of information of varying quality and accuracy, it means by the time it's printed, I already know the story. Occasionally there is a little more depth, which is why I'll often go an read the full stories of things I know of from this site on the LET or the Mirror websites, but it's a long time since I remember buy a paper for sport content (I did used to buy a paper to help pass train journeys, before trains had wifi).

The exception to this is the Guardian, which I buy sporadically (mainly due to not passing a newsagents that often) and it's iPhone app and website (both which I use frequently) but oddly, not for the news, but for it editorials and columns instead.

I'm not that bothered if I don't have the news "as it happens". I'm quite happy to pick up the morning paper and read the transfer stories that have actually taken place written with quotes from the various parties and sometimes with comment from the writer. If it's a big news story there is often an in-depth feature with the news story which provides further background reading, all usually set out in an attractive manner with photographs and graphics. The Times, Daily Telegrpah, Daily Mail (yes, really) and Sunday Times in particular are excellent in this respect. I find this far more enjoyable, informative and educational way than anything that can be provided on a screen.

[trueblue]

I love the Daily Telegraph... their crosswords are superb

[Jim Royle]

Its the track record of the publisher that counts - and I think here "BRFCS News" has lost some creditability lately.

And Nicko, what exactly happened to that Samba swap ?

You see Nicko deals in stories that might not come to fruitition i.e. the stories have not been drawn to a conclusion, he has information and to some extent speculates, so you have to take his reports in that sense. Some body of personnel going by title of "BRFCS News" need to do that i.e. deal in news and not speculation. Now I read you're trying to devalue the plethora of media outlets, pot an't kettle

[cn174]

It's not that there is too much "news" at all, it's that there isn't enough.

I don't know if there 'isn't enough' just sometimes there is nothing happening!!

So Sky normally end up creating some 'news'. For example say Rio Ferdinand gets sent off by a controversial last man decision, that is the actual news. However the day after Sky will ask every manager, player, fan, ex-players what they think of the decision and then suddenly the news becomes "Mark Hughes wants a change to last man rules". For something like that - they do it all the time.

I think people have been programmed into thinking they need information (or data) about everything all the time. You can tell on here, people get so edgy when something hasn't happened for a day, and start reading into everything. When probably, just nothing is happening!

As an experiment today, I turned off SSN and twitter and listened to a podcast whilst I worked and I'm already getting withdrawal symptoms. What if we're linked with some Argentinian wonder kid and I'm the last to know? I think in many ways, we're at fault for demanding the information overload in the first place.

How's that going Glenn?!

I find that I click on the mb, sky sports etc more out of habit than anything else. When I'm at my work I can check on the messageboard whenever I want. But if I go to another office and it isn't so easy to get on the internet, it really doesn't bother me at all. Same as when I go abroad. I'm too tight to pay for data whilst abroad, so I'm blissfully unaware of what is happening and I don't suffer any ill effects!

[Glenn]

Its the track record of the publisher that counts - and I think here "BRFCS News" has lost some creditability lately.

And Nicko, what exactly happened to that Samba swap ?

You see Nicko deals in stories that might not come to fruitition i.e. the stories have not been drawn to a conclusion, he has information and to some extent speculates, so you have to take his reports in that sense. Some body of personnel going by title of "BRFCS News" need to do that i.e. deal in news and not speculation. Now I read you're trying to devalue the plethora of media outlets, pot an't kettle

Somebody help me out here? I ignored the earlier comment as I didn't understand it, but I think this is the second time we've been accused of something I don't understand.

If you mean the Riquelme story, I didn't realise there wasn't a by line on it, but because of their involvement with organisations outside BRFCS, not all our contributors want to be named. I assume one of the sources on that story (as with the LET article which covered it in more depth) was the player's agent. Even having just re-read it, I still see nothing inaccurate in it.

Co-incidentally, as myself and our unnamed News Editor are experimenting supplementing the journalistic reports with shorts snippets of news, we have started prefixing the subject with things like "Speculation" and "Comment", but even so, I'd still class the Riquelme story as news.

.

As for "Now I read you're trying to devalue the plethora of media outlets", I'd love to know where? Me joining in a discussion I didn't start about the changing availability and quality of sport media over the years doesn't constitute _me_ trying to devalue the plethora of media outlets (i.e. even admit to having SSN or BBC News on most days as I work and to reading the Guardian), much less BRFCS doing it.

.. or maybe I'm wide of the mark and you're talking about something altogether different. I am a little confused.

[Mercer]

Still remember that... picking up the LET and the 144pt front page banner headlines saying Fred had signed for Everton. The shock ! The horror ! People do not understand that there was no internet and no local radio in those days so we relied on the LET and the Blackburn Times for all Rovers news and comment. Anyone remember the Saturday sport Pink 'UN with the latest goals and goalscorers in the Stop Press column ?I still find it hard to believe that people do not buy a newspaper if only for some of the superb comment and top-class writing. It's so enjoyable to sit down and read the paper (and take it with you) without having to stare at a computer screen or mobile phone. People who do not buy a newspaper are missing so much information and entertainment for a very small price.

I also take issue with those people who turn their noses up at the red-top tabloids. Tabloid journalism is an art in itself that requires economy of words without losing the essence and flow of a story. Many broadsheet journalists have been unable to adapt to the demands (and sometimes higher) standards of tabloid newspapers. It takes skill to write in 150 words a story that would take up 500 words in a broadsheet.

As for 24-hour "rolling" news - no thank you. The equivalent of fast food versus a proper cooked meal.

Give me a good newspaper anyday which I can read and digest at my leisure.

Was fantastic - used to buy one at the local newsagent after getting back from Ewood just 45 minutes or so after the match. Paper had a decent first half report, bit on the second half and the rest in the Stop Press. Alf Thornton, an absolute legend - made Rovers sound like Real Madrid even on a bad day!!!

Jim - what newspaper did you write for ?

[Glenn]

Nobody but Jim answer that question.

[jim mk2]

Was fantastic - used to buy one at the local newsagent after getting back from Ewoood just 45 minutes or so after the match. Paper had a decent first half report, bit on the second half and the rest in the Stop Press. Alf Thornton, an absolute legend - made Rovers sound like Real Madrid even on a bad day!!!

Jim - what newspaper did you write for ?

William Westall in the Blackburn Times was good too.

Freelance most of my working life - pay was better ! Retired long ago.

[Baz]

From my perspective, the quality of journalism in general is bad. Its all about sensationalism and less about content, more about "breaking" the news and less about getting it right. I suppose in the age of cut & paste, journalism is much easier for those not in the know. When I was growing up the LET had Peter White there, and he knew and wrote proper articles about Rovers and was definately fed news from the club which he was trusted to use wisely. Now we live in the world of rumour and fact being merged together. Nicko, who obviously has contacts in the game is almost obliged to feed people on this messageboard a daily story, yet gets criticised when these dont work out.

In response to Sky, I always though Keys was much better than that. Gray doesnt suprise me, he's been pretty poor for a number of years in my opinion and getting worse and more big-club biased. His "we dont want to see people booked for tackles like that" type comment when Gerrard or Terry has just kicked someone up in the air, whilst having heard "he left the referee no choice" comments just minutes earlier about players from lesser teams are commonplace. Sky has an acreage of TV time and ploughs a lot of money into the Premier League yet seems to think the only people who know anything about football are former players. Whilst I understand that not everyone wants to debate the intricances of formations, tactics etc at present there is simply none unless you support a big 4 club. Its not restricted to Sky though, Shearers "We dont know anything about him" comment about Ben Arfa, and the Fabregas / Hoilett comparison from last night are frankly laughable. (Nothing against Hoilett, but he's nothing like Fabregas at all).

[Mercer]

William Westall in the Blackburn Times was good too.

Freelance most of my working life - pay was better ! Retired long ago.

Jim, I think you are still a good, insightful and reasoned read! Much better than some of today's garbage. Keep up the input to this MB.

Might be wrong but didn't the late Peter White learn his trade under WW ?

[BuckyRover]

The other day van der Vaart booted the ball down the pitch after having a foul given against Spurs. The ref correctly booked him. But Andy Gray was saying the ref was wrong because players like van der Vaart shouldn't be booked for petulance because they are so good that they should be given a break.

Sack them both!

Jim, I think you are still a good insightful and reasoned read! Much better than some of today's garbage. Keep up the input to this MB.

The New Statesman lost it's edge when jim retired

[allanncd]

The quality of soccer-reporting is pants. Take 2 examples from Rovers v WBA. The MotD commentary (that I believe is dubbed and not even live)continued numerous identification errors. Either the commentator (John Murray who is usually on radio) and not exposed) either needs specs or sacking. Today's Guardian gives marks out of 10. The lowest WBA score is 7 (several players over 9!) whereas Rovers highest score with 6(!) is Hoilett (and the report gave him man of match). Most Rovers players scored less than 5. Are they having a laugh or what??

[only2garners]

The quality of soccer-reporting is pants. Take 2 examples from Rovers v WBA. The MotD commentary (that I believe is dubbed and not even live)continued numerous identification errors. Either the commentator (John Murray who is usually on radio) and not exposed) either needs specs or sacking. Today's Guardian gives marks out of 10. The lowest WBA score is 7 (several players over 9!) whereas Rovers highest score with 6(!) is Hoilett (and the report gave him man of match). Most Rovers players scored less than 5. Are they having a laugh or what??

If you're looking at player ratings online on the Guardian website they are put there by fans, or in fact anyone who wants to rate them. There seems to be nothing stopping a Burnley fan putting 0 against every Rovers player for example, so they are not really worth the paper they are not written on. The match report clearly recognises Rovers as the best team. It's another example of what looks like a democratic process providing more information for fans actually producing something of no value whatsoever.

I'm with Jim. If you must have every bit of gossip the minute someone utters it keep checking online and SSN - I will stick with reading The Independent every morning and getting some informed analysis of what has actually happened. As evidence I'll quote any wild rumour on SSN against the Steve Kean interview in Saturday's Independent,

[92er]

William Westall in the Blackburn Times was good too.

He was the best.

He had time to reflect and the Blackburn Times was a must try and read as much as I could before setting off for school.

Might be wrong but didn't the late Peter White learn his trade under WW ?

I think you're right.

[Paul]

<br />Its the track record of the publisher that counts - and I think here "BRFCS News" has lost some creditability lately.

.......

Now I read you're trying to devalue the plethora of media outlets, pot an't kettle

While I was underwhelmed by the Riquelme story, "put him on the pitch and I'll believe it" is usually my view, I feel you're being harsh on Glenn or whoever wrote the piece. In the years I've known Glenn this is the only time I can recall him putting out a storyline of this sort. I felt at the time it was a brave move and therefore Glenn must have been extraordinarily sure of his source(s). We should not shoot the messenger, if we did 99% of the media would be dismissed.

This thread, along with Summertime Blues, was created by me in response to the dearth of decent discussion which I perceive exists here today. I was surprised Glenn changed it to TOTW, but quietly pleased. There was no collusion to try and cover over a story which hadn't worked for BRFCS.

Jim I'm interested in the "tabloid skill" you refer to. I appreciate the view and see the difficulty journalists in the tabloid media face. The problem I have with this is on several levels:

The language used makes me question the message "Blackpool skipper goes to war" is just daft for me

The brevity of the items leaves one with the feeling there is an emphasis on cramming as much as possible into a limited space - quantity over quality

Thirdly I, and my children, covering nearly 50 years, were encouraged to read the paper to learn the English language, in its broadest sense. The writing style in some tabloids is such one would worry about the influence this has on language use? For example I gained my love of crosswords and word games at my mother's knee. I'm pleased to see the kids when they travel home by train are usually armed with a quality broadsheet, so it works. I'm not sure if we had The Sun delivered every day the result would have been the same.

[trueblue]

There was nothing said in the Riquelme piece put out by BRFCS News that wasn't verified.. In fact, if you read the piece it states that Riquelme has 'been 'offered' to Rovers and no mention of us actually signing him.

What is printed in the press of course is their spin on things and if they want to print unverified speculation as fact - then thats up to them and their editor

[Blue n White Rover]

Do many of you not think that some of the garbage written in newspaper is down to the managers or people close to the club? All it takes is one person to tell a journalist that we are after Player X, then all of sudden it will hit the back pages the next morning.

The perfect example of that being King Kenny yesterday. He told the media outlets that Ryan Babel will not be leaving the club. That was breaking news when I had woke up. However, when I returned home, the SSN ticker stated he's agreed a move elsewhere.

So if King Kenny can do it so easily, I am pretty sure many people close to the club can do it too. Can you stop that? I don't think so.

[Glenn]

There was nothing said in the Riquelme piece put out by BRFCS News that wasn't verified.. In fact, if you read the piece it states that Riquelme has 'been 'offered' to Rovers and no mention of us actually signing him.

I'm told Steve Kean mentioned Riqielme was being considered during the Friday Press conference, I'll take that as confirmation the info was good.

For the record I didn't write that story (I tend to do the one liners that don't need the eye of an editor), though I did tease it (as we had an 11pm embargo on it and I was emailed the details mid afternoon) but I respect the right to privacy the actual author has.

Anyway, to drag this back on topic. My experiment to wean me off a constant stream of news continues, instead of SSN today, I've been listening to TalkSport, something I've not done for many many years.

Now when I used to listen to TalkSport I found Parry and Brazil both entertaining and well informed, however after a few hours of porky Parry this morning I've realised a. he doesn't realy know his subject matter to any depth and b. he is the radio equivalent of an internet troll. Now, I'm sure he's not get less informed over the years, so I can only assume I've got more informed (possibly due to the constant stream of news I'm following?) and his trolling is shameless, you can even tell when he's winding up to an outrageous statement and he often follows it with the "how to contact us" ident. Very poor.