I couldn't believe my eyes the other night. Whilst the players from both sides were warming up, there was a scrum of photographers scrambling to train their lenses on Man Utd players. Van Persie in the main I presume.
They had no interest whatsoever in the home side similarly going through their warm up. They then, en masse, trudged up behind the goal that Everton were defending (surprise surprise), to set up their remote cameras for the forthcoming stroll in the Park for their darling Red Devils.
Even at half time, when their favourites were well behind on points, off the went and set up at the Park End. If you look at all of the photos that are in today's press of Fellaini's goal, they are all taken with long lenses from the Park End! Twats!
No wonder Moyes had a dig a media disrespect of Everton in his post match interview. I thought the media were supposed to report games from an unbiased perspective,not act as an extension of the Man Utd propaganda machine!
Peter Morris, Posted 21/08/2012 at 12:57:17
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
320 Posted 22/08/2012 at 16:49:21
But on the general subject of media coverage, what did amaze (and annoy) me was all the pre-season predictions for Top 6 (and I read as many of them as I could find both sides of the Pond) where Everton was ignored. Spurs and Newcastle proposed as givens. Even the Shite mentioned. But not us. THAT was strange.
326 Posted 22/08/2012 at 16:56:51
Look at what spurs did last season - all the media were interested in were the big 4.
If you want to get better media coverage, then you need to be top 4 material for a number of years. One swallow does not a summer make. We should just do it on the pitch and not worry about it.
333 Posted 22/08/2012 at 17:15:37
I listen to TalkSport a lot in my work van and we were the name on everybody's lips to do a 'Newcastle' – even though they only did an 'Everton'!
A top 4 finish will see our coverage increase dramatically, it's up to the lads on the pitch though.
347 Posted 22/08/2012 at 17:41:10
Just as James F says, Man U are the biggest club in the world and they have just signed one of the biggest names in world football.
When we are a better proposition we will get better coverage. After we finished 4th Cahill et al were on the Sky adverts and our profile grew but to expect any special treatment from the written press because we are the home team or to call this Man U propaganda is just paranoia.
357 Posted 22/08/2012 at 18:11:54
It wasn't that long ago that Man City were luckily getting out of the 3rd tier after a last-gasp comeback in a play-off final against the mighty Gillingham. A while ago I heard from a senior commercial exec at Man City that the Chairman loves the media hype that the club gets, as it's good for Abu Dhabi exposure (Etihad are one of 8 Abu Dhabi sponsors they have). They got over 3,000 global mentions daily (and this was before they won the league), and they lapped it up - even the negative stories about player / CEO behaviour!
Lots of companies use this, and TV exposure on the overseas TV deal, as a means for calculating their pay-back on sponsorship investment. The clubs at the top really push this with their numerous commercial partners.
New players can easily get on the bandwagon (Man City, and before them Chelsea). Traditional big names like Liverpool, Tottenham, can stick up and around there as long as they generate enough exposure. Liverpool could probably stay out of the Champs League for the next 10 years, and their global stock would remain high (CL games are middle of the night for large parts of Asia). Tottenham in their recent dalliance in the CL were able to get a separate shirt sponsor for that competition.
So with all of this at the top level of the game, it will of course permeate down to the coverage at national, regional and local level. We'd have no doubt got good coverage in the northern editions of the tabloids, but I can imagine the southern editions were all about Man U/RVP. T'was ever thus, even before the Sky TV "revolution", even when we were top of the pile!
369 Posted 22/08/2012 at 18:33:17
The Southern editions of Tuesday's papers (that I read) were positive about our performance, although obviously Man Utd's defeat is a bigger story than Everton's win. Why? Because they are currently a more successful club and have many fans down south. Stands to reason.
I think people go overboard on this media conspiracy business. Some of it is just paranoia. Take Lawrenson: he is actually a very fair commentator on EFC, but some people despise him because he played for the other lot. Peter Reid is a rubbish pundit even though he shone for us. Great player, lousy media man.
372 Posted 22/08/2012 at 18:27:23
I was too young to see much of the careers of the likes of Law, Charlton and Best but I was very much aware of them because they were still mentioned regularly. If Man Ure got to the FA Cup final you would hardly hear anything about who they were playing against, it seemed.
As Matt says "T'was ever thus, even before the Sky TV "revolution", even when we were top of the pile!". Sunday mornings spent searching for Everton's (far and away the best team in the country in the mid-eighties) match report whilst a team we beat regularly and handsomely had their latest duel with another also-ran splashed across the back page and more. This is why I don't like the club, though I suppose media obsession is not necessarily their fault.
374 Posted 22/08/2012 at 18:38:49
"I thought the media were supposed to report games from an unbiased perspective".
Whoever told you that? Have you ever read a 'newspaper', or heard of Fox News or the Sky4? These are for-profit businesses. They have no interest in 'truth', or justice or fairness. If the boss says support the Tories, that's what they do and if they want a report about ManUre, that's what they'll get.
Photographers are freelance. They only get paid for the pics that are published. They will always follow the 'bookies favourites'. That's what's called a free society. Freedom for the sharks, death for the minnows.
Anyway, sod 'em. Who won, and very well too!
378 Posted 22/08/2012 at 18:58:36
380 Posted 22/08/2012 at 18:52:45
The entertainment model is basically Utd vs...
It's unbalanced coverage which by definition is bias. Sky, like all rag media just play the numbers. Utd have the biggest following so Sky know that keeping Utd fans happy is the main priority. Utd are presented as the good guys and everyone else is presented as the villains trying to stop Utd from claiming their glorious prize that is rightfully theirs. Too right it's propaganda and for you Drew #347 to accuse someone of paranoia for picking up on this is wrong.
381 Posted 22/08/2012 at 19:11:21
383 Posted 22/08/2012 at 19:12:08
If you compared then a tabloid to a broadsheet, tabloids were picture-heavy, word-light, and therefore wouldn't "develop an argument". The introduction of online media has meant many journalists are more visible - you are not restricted to the rag you buy. Even the sites with pay walls often put up articles for an hour or so as freeview, journo tweets about it, other journos re-tweet it, etc.
Therefore if you read across a large section of them, you'll find some are better than others. Ex-players who are good writers are as rare as hens teeth. The pundits the Beeb use are by and large a joke, and even with the pay cuts they've had to take, they are still over-paid. "Lawro" is probably the best of a bad bunch.
As you know commentary is different from radio to TV. Most TV commentators drive me crackers - I often will have the radio commentary over a TV feed. The only problem then is you can have a lag between them (but that can be useful if you are only half-watching!)
I'd say Mottie is one of the best commentators out there. Probably as comfortable on radio as TV, and there aren't many of those around. There are still some that wind me up, the "expert summarisers". David Pleat in particular with his deliberate mis-pronunciation of certain players names. I was once sat behind the radio commentators at Goodison (only seat available when I was working there on a matchday) and I berated him about it. This was 20 years ago and he hasn't changed.
403 Posted 22/08/2012 at 19:46:58
Constantly have to (mentally) correct them anyway, as despite it being their job to watch the game and notice things their first observations often seem to be wrong.
Newspapers have always had some sterling reporters but if they aren't covering your team then the next level of reporting seems a much poorer second.
I honestly think that the media kept the Man U profile high during their mediocre periods and so have helped them maximise their profits and minimise their losses.
404 Posted 22/08/2012 at 19:55:34
408 Posted 22/08/2012 at 20:20:09
409 Posted 22/08/2012 at 20:25:08
416 Posted 22/08/2012 at 20:45:20
475 Posted 23/08/2012 at 01:00:45
The best combo was always Tyler and Gray, the well spoken English gentleman and the growling Glaswegian.
That muppet Sam Matterface and annoying Brummie pleb Stan Collymore try replicating Andy Gray on TalkSport but sound like right twats. I quite like Clive Tyldesely off ITV, seems quite impartial and very knowledgeable, and Andy Townsend is ok as his Tonto.
476 Posted 23/08/2012 at 01:26:36
thank you for supporting my view of things with a bit of hard evidence. In the media (as in all life perhaps) there is no such thing as 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
482 Posted 23/08/2012 at 02:01:39
494 Posted 23/08/2012 at 04:07:42
539 Posted 23/08/2012 at 10:10:34
Whenever I hear his voice I switch channels.
604 Posted 23/08/2012 at 15:56:54
With regards to the OP, I wouldn't have it any other way. The joy of being Everton is that you're not the media darlings with all the hangers on and nonsense that comes with it. We're the second most famous team in a city who's best days were in the 19th century, yet we're the greatest club in the world.
I like that only we realise that.
606 Posted 23/08/2012 at 16:02:16
607 Posted 23/08/2012 at 16:10:30
As for those two on Talk Sport now its ust a continuation of this Old Boys and their cronies network.
612 Posted 23/08/2012 at 16:24:46
Obviously, the Manchester version was the one we got and they had a chief football journo called Frank McGhee (now long dead) As far as Frank was concerned there was only club worth talking and writing about and that was Manchester United. I remember him reporting on an Everton league game shortly before the 1966 semi-final at Burnden Park against Man Utd. The report of our game was mainly about what United would have to do when playing us the following week if they expected to beat us (in fact they were the favourites) It read like a report from someone sent by ManU to provide a rundown on Everton.
McGhee was the worst offender but they also had another footy journo whose name I can't remember now but it was part of his job to manage a footy letters page once a week and he 'encouraged' me to write the one and only letter I have ever written to a newspaper about a sporting issue. This was after he stated in his column that Alan Ball had made a mistake in signing for Everton as he would never achieve his full potential with us! According to him he should have signed for Leeds or you know who.
My letter was very angry but, albeit much edited, he did print it with the comment....'such vitriol from an Evertonian' and left it at that!
It's always been the same. And that's how I like it these days!
615 Posted 23/08/2012 at 17:06:01
Till we start challenging and winning stuff that's the name of the game, and rightly so.
624 Posted 23/08/2012 at 17:21:43
629 Posted 23/08/2012 at 17:47:43
On my first away trip to London in `66, I remember the older heads laughing when I couldn't understand why the back pages were not full of Everton but Spurs, Arsenal etc
And I remember the story of the London dailys' headlines "Spurs Sign Scott From Rangers" - only they hadn't and didn't, thanks to Harry "hush-hush" Catterick
639 Posted 23/08/2012 at 17:02:54
“The Telegraph” is for those that think football is only the Sky 4
“The Guardian” is for those Lahndahn clubs who SHOULD be champions
“The Mirror” is for those Manchester clubs who SHOULD be champions
“The Sun” don’t care who is in the League, as long as they have big tits!
647 Posted 23/08/2012 at 18:53:05
Talk about opinion masquerading as fact - always attempting to belittle us, as any RS fan with his intelligence deficit would. Colin Murray, for example, is a Red, but good enough to handle that and be objective too. Green denies any affiliation but bias pours out of every pore.
Has he been on the radio this season? Might be ill. Nothing minor perhaps?
659 Posted 23/08/2012 at 19:34:00
I didn't see the word "Debt" included in comment 320.
660 Posted 23/08/2012 at 19:36:55
664 Posted 23/08/2012 at 19:58:06
London is fashionable. Any clubs from there will always attract good investment and high-profile owners. I think many people also fail to understand that "the south" (which is all within supporting range of london clubs) has a bigger populus than the rest of england. So there is a logical, and geographical, reason why london clubs end up in the media so much.
665 Posted 23/08/2012 at 19:59:32
As for McGhee, he was one of battalion of pissed-up hacks who could drink Greaves, Moore et al under the table. There's a fantastic pic in a Foul annual of a hacks XI literally holding up McGhee above the caption
'Who did they play? What was the score? How many has Frank McGhee had?'
To be honest, it was more fun in those days, too.
670 Posted 23/08/2012 at 19:36:55
672 Posted 23/08/2012 at 19:56:26
Lawrenson is rubbish, too much opinion presented as fact, no justification for his arguments. And smart arsed comments when summarising rather than any insight.
Gary Neville is superb. Insightful, detailed challenging and nearly always right.
Motson is a caricature of his style 10 years ago. Misses important details, fills in with shite stats, ,covers up his errors with od verbal tics - that dumb@ "ha!!"
Pleat gives excellent tactical analysis and is probably my favorite summariser.
I'm always amazed why BBC TV do not use the resources of BBC 5 Live for MOTD, football focus and live commentary. Expertise such as Pat Murphy, Jimmy Arnfield and some of the randomness of Stuart Hall.
I would like to see more of Stan Collymore and James Richardson.
673 Posted 23/08/2012 at 20:15:11
I thought the Herald morphed into the Sun a bit later than that....but I stand corrected. Anyway, it wasn't the Sun we know and despise today was it!
679 Posted 23/08/2012 at 20:13:22
London is fashionable.
Is that fashionable as in David Hemmings. The film "Blow out"
London is only fash, because the media tell us that London is fash. Funny enough the London Media have never convinced me that London clubs are better than any North west football clubs. Havin said that, everyone who here's the radio this season GET the false sensationalise shite that the media are going to give you. It's that voice thats breaking down. Got much more to say but I cant be arsed. Clue,
It's how much you hear the word "absoloutley" It goes on and on and...........
683 Posted 23/08/2012 at 20:34:47
London is fashionable because it is the capital of this country and is one of the worlds top cities.
If it wasn't, it wouldn't attract millions of foreign tourists, as it does each year. Nor would it be one of the top 4 largest financial centres in the world. There is no conspiracy. To think that it isn't, or that the north-west competes on an equal footing, is a bit, well, sad really.
798 Posted 24/08/2012 at 12:25:55
How that twat still gets paid for spouting biased drivel is beyond me.
806 Posted 24/08/2012 at 13:07:53
816 Posted 24/08/2012 at 13:49:44
When Murdoch took over the Sun, it was around 1969 I think, the reports on midweek games ended at half-time because it was only printed in London.
I have heard the comments about US sports coverage before and seen some in the States. It is easy to be seduced into thinking that it is more technically informed but baseball is far more limited in variety and skills than cricket, pitching not-withstanding, and in tactics.
US football is much more static than ours and less technical than rugby union at its best I’d argue. And as for basketball, it is a massively skilful game but I have yet to see/hear any serious attempt to explain how particular tactical approaches to defence work and how offensive tactics can counter. They do produce loads of statistics though but as we saw on Monday they don’t tell the whole story.
When the idea of the Premier League was first mooted five clubs were first sounded out. Everton was one. Worth looking at the Telegraph article on this, yesterday I think, related to BT’s plan to link up with ITV for live games next season.
In the Sunday Telegraph, immediately after the Cup Final victory over MUFC, Henry Winter, still a “respected” writer on football matters, wrote that five clubs would now be so far ahead of everyone else that they would dominate English football in a way that the Glasgow Two did in Scotland. The five were EFC, LFC, MUFC, THFC and NUFC. That was the summer that Wenger was appointed. It was about the time when the TV money was escalating. It was before the time that the European Cup became the cash-rich Champions League.
Things change and money is a massive factor but managers make a difference. What will happen when Wenger goes? What will happen when Ferguson chucks it? How long will the Bedouins put up with Mancini and will the next guy guarantee success? Does anyone really think that AVB has got a hope in hell of turning round THFC after Harry saw the writing on the wall and bailed. How long will it take Rodgers and will the fans/yanks be prepared to be patient?
822 Posted 24/08/2012 at 14:18:14
But if you want the template for awful, watch the big fights on HBO. Jim Lampley is head and shoulders above any commentator in any sport for ruining the experience. He NEVER shuts up. Never. On boxing, the easiest sport for viewers to watch on TV. On top of that, he has 2 guys commentating with him. So, yes, there are more commentators than individuals participating in the sporting event.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.