Why the BBC makes us Bitter Blues

It beggers belief! I too picked up a lot of the points you made!

They suggest that players should move to a club for Champions League even when they may not play in it. Their views on what defines a big club vary as required to include Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City, without ever qualifying why. Is this based on history, fan base, silverware, spend or global popularity? You would never know.

They never equate what has been achieved with what has been spent. Look at West Brom and Stoke, the media side with Wenger every time they turn Arsenal over. It's always they played direct or were aggressive as if these were negative qualities. If Man City or the Reds win, it's like watching Brazil 1970!

We have to let it slide until this generation of sycophants move on. We love our club, we know what it is to be an Evertonian so bollocks to them. Our time will come.

I totally agree, haven't they and Sky heard of diversity? Nothing makes my blood boil more than two ex-RS pundits running the rule over an Everton live match. Jim White was great the other day when they were discussing Rom wanting to move to win trophies and play Champions League and he said it was like when Suarez left LFC. Love it.

Of course, the BBC will just make a small footnote to inform the British public, but then again, it is like this with all things with the Biased Broadcasting Corporation!!

I thought ToffeeWeb allowed disagreement?

Obviously not.

We don't need them, we have class, style and manner, we know our football and the thing is that they don't prepare and really don't know us.

I think one weekend, they had the usual double act of Hansen & Lawrensen, then the Sunday programme had Murphy & Fowler offering their boring opinions! Similarly, over on Sky and BT sport, you can be sure of at least 2 ex-reds offering their "insight" on all things Everton.

What is it about ex-Liverpool players wanting to be front and centre when their career is over? It's fucking bizarre!

Added in the "plucky little Everton, punching above our weight" bollocks peddled at every opportunity by Moyes & his pal, Bill, then we were always destined to be at the bottom of any billing.

It will take this new ground and plenty of silverware before we will be mentioned in the same breath as the usual suspects, but even then the media polluted by a full squad of redshites will do it's best to play down any success we might enjoy.

(I say "pretty sure" because I'm always reading the live forum during the game and maybe I'm confusing what was said there with what was on the box. I get so sucked into it I sometimes forget to watch the tele!)

I was tempted to stop after that opening but unfortunately I didn't.

My advice is find a media source that reinforces your opinions or turn the sound down but stop with the nonsense conspiracy theories.

The best I saw this Saturday was someone on the forum complaining the BBC had taken two hours to update the league tables to reflect Everton in 6th but not spotting that the Everton site he was on still hadn't either.

To be spoken of as a big club alongside the obvious ones we need to start acting and performing like one – simple. Everton need to start winning things again. Then we might get the respect we think we deserve.

And also remember, they sell MotD abroad. What sells? Best advice, turn off the volume.

The best thing they've got is MotD2 and the show that goes out on a Sunday lunchtime – which is a poor man's Sunday Supplement – TV made for radio but at least that utter shitehawk Green isn't anywhere near it.

What should really hurt them is that they are utterly irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. That Dan Walker is their front man, a man who lacks the personality of a bowl of tepid sago pudding with the opinions to match, sums them up.

If you were a kid growing up in New Zealand (or the majority of countries outside of the UK/Europe) I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that the English premier league had only six teams in it. Even when we finished 4th in 2004/05, I can't remember hearing much, or anything, about it in the local media.

Small wonder then, that you see kids growing up overseas wearing the obligatory Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool tops. It's not just the BBC, it's the greater media worldwide. And until we win the Premier League title a la Leicester, I doubt that will change.

I've been harping on about these buggers for years now. I've written to them, Ofcom and my MP (as I pay my license) all to no avail. The idea of a "fuck the BBC" might get them to at least ask the question.

For the love of God, it must be the international break.

No disrespect Paul. Don't take it the wrong way, mate, but what you're saying is the BBC have an agenda against Everton FC.

Why would they? What purpose would that serve? They've only got Match of the Day like! Why would they give a fuck?

Now, some may, rightly, claim that that was years ago but, funnily enough, Lineker, you know, the guy who presents MotD, has said himself that the hierarchy at MotD are all reds and he has to make a case for their games NOT to be on first every week. I read the actual quotation from Lineker myself some time ago,so tend to believe it.

And when you think that cuddly old "Lawro" has never tipped LFC to lose you might be forgiven for thinking that their IS a pro LFC, anti EFC agenda.

We never really get the credit we deserve, but 25 years of mediocrity has seen to that. Knife to a gunfight and glass ceiling comments didn't help either.

However, I refuse to fork out 㿅 to Sky and BT a month to watch the odd Everton game, and am rarely bothered to watch other teams play all Sunday afternoon so MotD is my only way to catch up.

That said, well played Gary Lineker last weekend who made a point about football starting before 1992! This whole bollocks about Lukaku being our top league scorer and all the other Premier League statistic shite really grates. When a player knocks 61 goals in a season, then they can shout. I don't care how many players have scored 60 goals before the age of 24 since Sky took over...

It really doesn't matter how the media handles Everton, because at the end of the day it's what we do on the pitch that matters. My red mates also think the media is nonsense, and did so well before The Sun's handling of Hillsborough.

Chill out, forget the media, it's a diversion from reality.

As far as local BBC is concerned, the Premier League only consists of Man Utd, Liverpool and Man City. I can more understand a certain bias towards the "bigger" clubs on national TV but not on local programmes.

If none of the big media companies want to show Everton games and discussion then maybe the club should try and buy the rights to all of our home games and put ToffeeTV on a higher plane than MUTV and the rest.

"Howard Webb, last season, referred to Goodison Park as the most intimidating ground to be a referee"

That's a good example actually. He did and someone immediately whacked a post on here taking umbrage to it. 'Insulting', 'Wouldn't get away with saying such a thing about some other club' etc.

Link

There may not be a pleothera of pundits out there rushing to praise Everton for every little achievement (because let's face it, there's been nothing major to big us up about for the majority of the last two decades), but nor is there a posse of media trained Pinkerton's being paid handsomely to take a public piss on any faint spark that could potentially burn bright blue.

Honestly, half of this 'anti-Everton agenda' is in your head and the other half can't help but leap out at you when you're listening intently for the merest hint of it, with your hand cupped round your ear, just waiting to cry 'BIASED BASTARD'. 

Who cares if a commentator said a goal came 'seconds' after Schneiderlin tugged a Hull players shirt but when counted out in saddo time it clocked in at 'more like half a bloody minute which I know is technically the same but, you have to admit, my phraseology is much less twattish to the Evertonian ear'?

What effect did those words have on anything (beyond triggering a transformation from Bruce Banner to 'The Incredulous Balk')? Did it alter the result? Take the shine off the scoreline? Make the goal less sweeter for blues or more insufferable for Tiger tossers?

What if he hadn't pointed out the 'pull', or said something like "Half a minute?? That's ages! My wife's already working the wet wipe between her legs by then"? I'm sure, somewhere in viewerville an unreasonably vexed Hull supporter would be getting very het up about how there's an irrefutable Beeb agenda to gloss over obvious injustices perpetrated against their club so as to keep them on their arse where they believe they belong:

Dear Mr Lineker,

I always used to like you when you were goal hanger for Leicester with your sensible haircut, tight shorts and glistening thighs.

However, having heard what one of your buddies said about it not mattering that Morgan Schneiderlein tore a human skin cheese string off a heroic Hull players chest, because it happened half a minute before Everton (your former club, coincidentally) finished the move off, I have to say... I now think you've become something of a Rantallion and big-time Bescumberist.

In more modern parlance, you Sir, are a strangely low scrote swinging shit spewer and the 'Hull City Supporters Club Cunt Silencers' herby give you and your MotD cohorts notice that we have you in our cross-hairs:

Link

Farewell most heartily,

Dorothy Tuttle.
Head Sicario
Hull City Supporters Club Cunt Silencers 

As for the Lukaku coverage from what I read and heard before Saturday's game all the media outlets were gearing up to report a hostile crowd reception for the player. Their sense of disappointment when that did not materialise was palpable.

Much national media coverage of football is superficial, lacking genuine insight as well as a tenuous grasp of the facts. The BBC is no worse than the others in that respect.

Our history doesn't sell, isn't a big draw, and means nothing to fans the world over who view the premier league as the birth of football.

There's no conspiracy, and as hard as it may be to accept we're just NOT big news. Fast forward five years when we've been playing for a season or two in the Royal Blue Mersey stadium and finished in the top four once or twice and things will be very different.

We'll be current news. You have to remember in this world of Facebook this and snapchat that and instant fucking everything. Sky are selling to people who want what's current and fresh. Selling to a world where history to most of them is the year 2000!

If we want to be talked about, be first on MotD and have pundits fawning over us we have to earn it in the present, not expect it for our past.

Hate to let the truth get in the way of a good story but there you go. I'll pick up with the Head of Football on some of the inaccuracies though!

It's almost like they are all run by middle-aged men yearning for the good old days of the 70s and 80s when the RedShite where always flavour of the month – Norwich even devised a fanzine at the time "Liverpool are on the telly again" such was the TV obsession with them.

The problem isn't always the BBC. It is the pundits, who I believe are like contractors (?) or jobbing actors.

Many of them are inaccurate and, quite frankly, stupid. They pull things out of the air which are wrong but because people don't know any better, it becomes "fact". Ian Wright recently claimed Everton under Moyes were up and down in terms of league finishes. He was tapping into his first 4 seasons but ignorant of the other 7 that followed where we were always in the top half.

Hartson just makes words up. Garth Crooks is so Spurs biased with his team of the week it's ridiculous. This isn't me moaning from Everton paranoia, this is me complaining because they are so poor or have an agenda.

That said, the likes of Mark Chapman, Steve Claridge and Danny Mills give you the impartial but well informed opinions and questions you want, despite you know they have allegiances.

Win stuff – get noticed.

They were nothing before Bill Nicholson and not much after. They get by with a few cup wins and 'The London Weighting Allowance'... which tbf, in this sky age worth quite a lot.

And when (except in there own minds) did Newcastle become a 'big' club... this is the Newcastle that have been twice relegated in 8(?)yrs, who last won the League the year Before Dixie scored his 60.

I remember a Bill Tidy cartoon around 1968, were a blue and a red were in the TV repair shop with a TV on the counter... 'Can you fix this mate, all I can get is United and Leeds on it.'

Things never change only the names of the guilty.

That applies to all the media, but the BBC is utterly dire in its own special way – it's football coverage for your non-scouse girlfriend's Dad who buys into all the RS and Busby Babes stuff and thinks 3-3's a good game.

Don't know if anyone has the stats but I think we are as often first two as last two.

Oh and Morgan had fouled the boy, it went for us but I have seen them highlight the same for other sides so didn't bother me, some commentators are better than others.

I do seem to remember that we definitely got a rough ride when weekly highlights were on ITV. And I definitely prefer Lineker to fecking Jim "Moshiri is my best pal and told me this" White.

Shearer et al have their opinions, and we all have ours – none of them are right or wrong, they're just opinions. It's what makes football the game it is.

I don't listen to them by the way – I always start watch MotD around 20 minutes after it starts so I can fast forward through them all blathering on about the games, and teaching me about formations, and who does what – I don't need to be taught about football, since I've watched it and formed my own opinions for almost 40 years already.

I can see the formation, I can see who's doing what on and off the ball, and I know you all can as well - none of us need an ex-pro to tell us what we can all already see. The only use I've ever got from it, was my America ex-girlfriend who enjoyed watching them draw pretty coloured lines on the screen so she could work out what the fuck was going on.

Assuming none of you are American women brought up watching baseball, then I assume you all understand what you've been watching as well as I do!

BBC Sport?

BOOOOOO!!!

Suggestion, let's give Ross a taste of his own medicine, move his post to last position on this thread and let TW pundits Richard Dodd, Damian Wilde and Fintan Spode give expert opinion on it.

Goose, gander etc.

Leon Osman has now joined the ranks on Football Focus, Who next Tony Hibbert.

Brian (#39) is right: last season you could not get a shirt in Thailand unless it was Leicester City's... now it has been moved to its normal spot, as a floorcloth. The Chelsea shirt has taken over for the time being. Before Christmas it was the Liverpool shirt which has now been relegated to floor duties. Man Utd & Man City coming up on the rails?

It's all part of a cycle and I image that the dominance of Man Utd in the 90's will soon have a shift away from the RS bias, as fans who were kids in the 90's will soon have influential roles in the media.

Another part of the problem is that we struggled to create a brand image for ourselves. Only recently since the new ownership have we really started to push our 'brand' commercially. Its been brought up numerous times over the years how short sighted the club have been in promoting themselves nationally and internationally.

One major one was completely missing the boat when Tim Howard was probably the most talked about person in the States after the World Cup. What did we do to capture this potential new market, whilst having the US's most famous player on our books? We took a trip to Thailand to play the team who are owned by Thai's, Leicester!

The six teams above us in the league built on the the 'brand' they have, which has projected them to a global audience. While they were doing that, you could only buy our kits from two stores within the city limits.

If you really must do something about it then email the BBC asking how many of their "pundits" have had any sort of football managerial position never mind a successful one.

Much ado....

And finally, some other team or other is building a small 50,000+ seater stadium in the north somewhere. But will they be able to find the half billion pound price tag? Man Utd could easily.
Farhad Moshiri was born in Iran.

(Disclaimer: all of the forgoing was intended as an ironic jest)

And come on, Paul, do you really think we'd beat Chelsea away 13-0? I mean I know we're banging a few in like but come on... Maybe 12-0 at home (ahem) .Anyway, I enjoyed that. And let's see what coverage they give us IF the ground move gets announced. Won't be much, believe me.

I remember in the 80s how my dad would get irate because in those days, the BBC news would show the goals from just one game of that day. Every week it would be the RS even though Everton were top of the league. It was bred in to me from then on to look for media bias.

Here's my prediction, we'll lose to the RS and Man United and we'll be first on MotD both times.

Happy to play the pantomime villain. Stick me at the end of the thread.

Maybe I'll then go and moan about it on an Internet forum. :)

Andrew @ 43 fair enough, everyone has pundits they prefer over others. I just wanted to dispel the inferred conspiracy theory about some sort of specific anti-EFC agenda.

Sure there seems to be a long-standing Liverpool / Man Utd love affair but that's not quite the same thing.

To change this we need to win things and drive revenue up so we can compete.

History is not really relevant to this discussion but I do wish the media would bring it up more as the ignorance of the past (particularly pre 1992) is shocking and annoying. I educate all those within ear range as much as possible – especially my son's buddies (13 years old) who all support big six clubs and know nothing about them at all.

Journalists need stories to sell, we haven't provided enough of them until now. Opening up the club has its downside but so has secrecy.

We have only just started to engage the media in ways they will respond to.

I don't think fanbase has anything to do with the media's perception of us. It's purely down to recent achievements and ambition. Until this season we've had none of either for decades. Now we are showing ambition and the media will, slowly and possibly begrudgingly, acknowledge it.

Tony Pullis said a few weeks ago that there was now a top 7 and that Everton were a part of it. We've closed the gap and need to show that we now belong in that top group. Just like with Spurs and Man City, the media will accept us as one of the big boys once we show that we're there to stay.

I may be in the minority but to think of someone sitting in front of the TV with a stopwatch working out how much coverage we have on MotD just sounds a bit petty. What's next – sending the Head of BBC Sport a spreadsheet showing the running order of previous programmes?

My personal choice is to do as others have suggested and watch MotD on the Sky box and fast-forward the pundits. But that's my choice. If we were in the top 4, I'd hope that we'd be 1st or 2nd up more frequently but Saturday's game wasn't a thriller and shouldn't have been scheduled any earlier. And I thought Steve Wilson did a good job of his commentary!

As it stands, we are the best of the rest and I think we get an appropriate amount of coverage. Don't forget the dark days of the 1980s when it seemed like every single winner of Goal of the Month was a Liverpool player.

So I don't think it's the media being anti-Everton but they are certainly not pro-Everton.

Also, being ex-reds, they always look for positives when talking about Liverpool despite them not winning the Premier League ever. Also Everton have never competed to win the Premier League, and we have never been able to splash the cash until recently. So that colours the views of these pundits, and most have never watched us live.

So their take is why would the league's top scorer not be playing for one of the so-called top clubs? Also, now Barkley has hit form again, they say the same thing about him. Most completely ignore the fact that we now have a billionaire owner and are preparing to move to a new ground.

The pundits still regard us as a club battling for 7th to 10th position and not one to trouble the so-called big boys. Now whether we like it or not the only thing that will change their opinion is if we start challenging for a top 4 spot on a regular basis.

Let's not forget until the last few years Spurs were viewed in the same way as we are now, could possibly win a cup if lucky but would never win the league. Spurs have now changed that perception with results and thats the only way we will change the mindset of these pundits and journalists.

No conspiracy, just shite, and dying a lingering death in the public gaze, awaiting the coup de grace.

Don't watch it and thus hasten its demise.

As far as pundits go, their there to pad the show out. In fact all TV shows now do it, like showing the presenter walking along to nowhere in particular, and then telling you again what they told you 5 bleeding minutes ago!

And agree with the few comments above, about Everton coverage by NBC here in the States. I can't complain. We're treated fairly.

Saturday morning THE story, well-covered, was Everton and Lukaku. Nice to see.

Regarding studio pundits, I usually just mute the TV and wait for the game to come on or come back on. Especially NFL games. Ugh.

Lately, though, I do leave it on during NBC soccer coverage because Shaka Hislop and Kyle Martino are pretty good.

Truth is we all know if we start winning things consistently, we will be given more air time. Whilst the article points out our proud history it isn't going to help sell the club, when it's last trophy was won in the last century.

Kristian (#53), well saiid, sir. Whilst the trip to Thailand had been arranged before the World Cup, very little appeared to be done to build on Tim Howard's raised profile.

I don't watch BBC coverage as they are all smug knobs.

He then excluded us from the next question but simply because we have not been a title winning and Champions League team so our fans will not be disappointed if we finish 5-7th because above that is a bonus for the next few years. But fans of the other 6 will have to get used to the fact that they will not win the title every year (and it has been ever in Premier League for the reds or 55 years for Spurs and we have won it 4 times since then) and 3 of the teams will not be in the Champions League. But a clear recognition from Chapman that we are joining the top 7.

Maybe we will have to wait a few years, but I think we will be the new Man City. The northern Reds bias over the Blues. And I think the anti-City is because of their vast wealth that they should win everything every year but mess it up. 2 Titles, 1 FA Cup and 2 League Cups is a poor return for 8 seasons of investment. It is just a worry that we too may take more than a couple of years to be consistently winning trophies with the greater competition now in the PL.

And James Marshall #80 - the clubs may play outside London but the majority of their supporters live there. And think about it 500k in Liverpool, even 49% Reds = 245000. 8M in London = 3% reds.

All I can say is that I visit forums of other clubs and everyone of them believes the media is against them.

I also believe football fans are ridiculously over-sensitive to what pundits say. This won't go down well with many, but I reckon ex-reds in the media have been generally fair to us over the years.

I'd have Hansen back on MOTD anyday of the week for starters.

If this club starts winning things again and playing regular CL football our profile will go up, until then we'll always be lagging behind other clubs.

James @ 82
That made me laugh - maybe so! I'll never know, hey.
I agree - success on the pitch will build profile and in turn greater exposure and focus on us, not just on the Beeb but across all broadcasters.

Eugene @ 68
I see where you're coming from. Plus you didn't boo me this time, which is a bonus!

When (not if) Everton regularly are in the top 4 we'll get plenty of attention. What is true is that the top 6 do completely dominate the media outlets. Other clubs (including Everton) deserve much better from the BBC as a national publicly funded organisation.

But I'm sure Ross is fighting our corner.

Overall recent decades at Goodison have been as eventful as washed out beige. We get the attention we deserve.

I was pointing out that only one of those clubs is in London.

Like I said, this is my perception and it's been going on for as long as I remember (even when united were in the old second division).

I still get the feeling that Chelsea, Man City and now Spurs are looked down upon by the hierarchy at BBC sports.

Am I missing the point here?

I think that many of those in the BBC sports hierarchy in the position to influence things like MOTD probably spent their formative years and early careers in the 70 s and 80s, and as such may be influenced by the perceived pre eminence of that club in those years.

An outlook as outdated as MOTD.

When it comes to football they have their favourites and that includes two teams from the NW.

"Man Utd" do not play in Manchester.

We do protest too much.

Couldn't care less about MOTD or what pundits say one way or the other.

Regarding pundits; a few years ago I counted 14 ex-Everton players managing in the four divisions. Many more were assistants/coaches. This contrasts with the reluctance of many of the RS former players to take that plunge, preferring to talk about the game rather than impact on it.

The idea that the BBC is riddled with reds (Liverpool supporters, I mean) who do Everton down is just fucking mad.

"To miss out just one team surely has to be deliberate", I said to my Dad. As used to it as he was, he was still incandescent with rage. As the newsreader, you don't go through the scores beforehand and accidentally miss out just one. It was if we hadn't played. If the North West doesn't recognise us....

What did it for me was when English clubs were allowed back into European competition in 1989 (?) the BBC signed up to covering all Liverpool's European games for the season, and advertised this 'coup' under the promotional banner 'Reds Back In Europe'! How tasteless was that given they were out of Europe in the first place because their supporters had killed 39 spectators.

Honestly, the things people moan about.

All of players throughout history have been undervalued. Our records put most clubs and players in the shade. They scored against the same teams as Best and Charlton yet you'd think they didn't count given the lack of recognition they receive. The BBC would rather show the shite scoring a penalty than a brilliant Everton goal, don't get a TV licence, let them wither and die.

Utterly sad and pathetic too.

Ste,

Some of our conspiracy theorists probably can't believe the poor bugger didn't hang on stubbornly for another 24 hours, purely and simply to divert some of the (potential) media spotlight away from a 'suspected' Everton stadium announcement.

Having now lost his fight, they're even more flabbergasted that the BBC didn't sit on the news until tomorrow, as some sort of back-up plan, just in case 'that bloody Anderson fella' hasn't gotten his arse mixed up with his gob again.

There are many, many fans who have watched, listened to and read media coverage of EFC with disbelief. It is not conspiracy theory, the evidence is there. Has been since Catterick's time.

For me, and for what it's worth, I think the following points hold some water.

1. The BBC (and for that matter Sky, BT and ITV) aren't so much 'biased against' Everton. I think it is certainly true that they are 'ambivalent toward' Everton. That's very different. This is largely down to our lack of success and box office for too many years, in particular the Premier League era. It is in our hands, possibly for the first time in 50 years, to do something about this at last.

2. The centres of economic power have polarised and concentrated in England around London and secondly Manchester. Birmingham has lost out, so has Liverpool.

Liverpool rarely features, as a small example, on the map when the weather bulletin comes on after BBC News, but Manchester ALWAYS does, sometimes on its own. It's the same in most newspapers. Liverpool is regarded as a third tier city. This affects the image of Everton I think.

3.The visual and printed media are largely based in London, or regionally in Manchester, so their correspondents live within the hinterlands of either city. They look at the world through London and Manchester prisms. This is especially noticeable to me since BBC Sport moved to Salford.

4. I think this has made the task of Manchester City, with their new money, much easier to gate crash the natural order of 'Big Clubs'. I believe it would have been much tougher for Everton, with the same resources, the same success on the pitch, to secure the same outcome. That said, how much tougher would it be for a Southampton, or a Sunderland? Leicester City won the Premier League last season. They just might win the Champions League this season. However,they'll never get regarded as one of the elite. On the flip side, if Leeds re-emerged as a football powerhouse, I think they would be welcomed into the 'elite' club, because Leeds is seen as a 'fashionable city'. Likewise is Bristol. It would be fascinating to see what would happen if either of their clubs ever got their act together.

5. Liverpool FC (but NOT the city) uniquely have membership of this elite club, no matter where they finish or how they are performing. Maybe they are seen as a 'national' club, a bit like Juventus in Italy. Their Norwegian fan base certainly give them that air. The same applies to Manchester United, who still filled all the press column inches, and still dominated the TV highlights programmes, even when they spent a season in Division 2! In all of this, Everton are just a local tribe ,and an impoverished one at that,from North Liverpool.

6. This sort of 'contrived reality', or 'natural order' as some in the media call it, comes through in subtle ways. If one of the TV companies runs a trailer for the weekend fixtures, you know who will feature in the footage. If any of these 'elite' clubs draws a match, they are always 'held'. It is never they who are doing the holding, no matter how the game went. This happened in our home draw with Man Utd this season. It was a very evenly balanced affair, but it was universally reported that Everton 'held' Manchester United.

In summary, it would be nice if Everton could gate crash entry to the elite media club, as that would be a clear sign we are doing it on the pitch, but I'm not really that bothered. However,as the 'second' club in a city largely ignored in media circles, that will be a tall order. All that matters to me is Everton being successful and being a great club to support.

There was a very positive piece on Victoria Derbyshire today about the work being done at the Everton Free School to educate excluded children. That's something that means more to me than being one of the media 'darling' clubs.

It does not surprise or upset me that Lawro never expects Liverpool to lose. He is a passionate RedShite and that I understand. I also understand the attention-seeking, headline-grasping media-chasing down stories about Man Utd and not Macclesfield Town. It is a commercial perspective, and whether noble or not, you have to earn(or buy) your way in.

However, what I don't get, is why the BBC who have a world-wide, almost priceless reputation for honest, accurate, UNBIASED journalism, bought and paid for if you will by surviving on TV licence money and avoiding the advertising revenues enjoyed by their competitors.

So isn't it strange that the double bias displayed over the Merseyside clubs does exist? Why does it? What's the rationale and the context?

Why have all the reports I have read recently about the 'wonderful game' between Man City and Liverpool, been projected from a Liverpool being the superior team by "failing to beat City"?

Why on a Saturday devoid of the Big 6, was Everton v West Brom, billed as the best of the rest, last on MotD?

Paul's article, and many of the responses for me are a real conundrum which makes no sense at all. Steve Carse's (#113) comments are for me a real eye-opener of just how ingrained the bias really is. Ste Traverse's (#90) comments show how blinkered people can be if something socially unsettling is under discussion which they don't agree with (that's OK), or can't see (that's sad).

Is it possible that the BBC power brokers do have an agenda? I can't imagine why they would, but as an example,why sponsor the embarrassingly biased Lawro, and potentially undermine the reputation of your venerable institution's reputation in the process? Could the answer lie in the approach of the Romans? To keep the unruly masses out of trouble, keep them entertained? Even that doesn't make sense to focus so adoringly on one select club, who aren't actually the leaders of the pack anyway.

All I know is it sucks and/or stinks and I can't work out which or why.

I have watched the reviews on the Monday evening local news and our game has been totally ignored sometimes. That's not paranoia – that's an inexcusable fact.

The consumer base associated with Man Utd, LFC etc is always going to give them priority. That's simple market forces – supply and demand. It would take a bit of a victim complex to mark that down as a hit on Everton;specifically it's a hit on any club that doesn't have a huge global following.

In that vein I don't see much national coverage of Spurs, as a similarly 'followed' club, outside of their manager being lured off to the continent or discussions of them being a 'selling' club on the strength, solely, of Bale's departure. Little different to us. I'm sure we were first or second on MotD when we took Man City down a few weeks back as well.

In the 1980s I was involved, in a very minor way, in a documentary about the service industry, the Gas Board, Manweb, Water Board and GPO (as was) Telephones and the service they provided. From my experience the " honest, accurate, UNBIASED journalism" that you mention is a myth.

The completed programme was a disgrace, with important interviews cut to suit the BBC's agenda or left out all together, the pertinent facts skewed and distorted to make sure that the BBC position was adhered to... in fact, the completed programme was a travesty of the truth and I have looked at the BBC with a jaundiced view from that day to this. Anyone who thinks that the BBC is above reproach and incapable of showing bias is living in a fool's paradise.

Don't blame the BBC, or the media. Blame those who've ran our club into mediocrity and irrelevance.

Let's face it, two of our major honors have been directly followed by a World War.... The next word war will turn us all to crisps.

Everton must be denied success. There is a secret paper on it.

I agree with you it is about the cash generators from all areas of culture who tend to get the attention from the beeb, whether that be music, fashion, film, sport etc. However, my beef is that the BBC is a publicly funded organisation so why do they feel the need to promote artists, stars, designers, clubs in the first place – what's in it for them?

Old School tie brigade is what the BBC has always been just like the FA and others.

To be honest, my guess is that these outlets are under pressure from Uefa, Fifa etc to promote their major brands worldwide and the day Rupert Murdoch got his grubby hands on football was a dark day indeed.

When we were winning things in the 80s, what would we have said if the clubs in upper mid-table were getting the same coverage of us?

Football fans are generally hypocrites and paranoid. Everyone of them dishes out stick to players, clubs, fans and pundits they dislike but get outraged when they are on the receiving end – plus most of them believes the media is anti their club.

I find it pathetic.

Ergo, Everton come on very late on unless they've had a game when one of the big six has beaten them comprehensively and we're watching Everton by chance and admiring the big six team. It's simple really.

Perhaps I am naive in looking for and expecting the neutrality that they use as a marketing ploy. But non the less it still pisses me off when the RedShites are literally adored to the point that is quite frankly embarrassing to witness.

I would love to know what the RedShites have done to get that support, but then again would I? It might be just as offensive if they were biased for Everton, balanced view and fair play all round etc.

The situation is not improving, I suspect, with Ross possibly wondering exactly what he is doing to his 'international career by staying at Everton, and would he be better off making a move? I really hope not... but, if he doesn't play against Lithuania, then it really does make you wonder exactly what he has to do to get recognition....?

From 1970 onwards, the image and profile of Everton has been on a continual downward slide (excepting 84-87). I think it started when Liverpool became media darlings with the whole Shankly, Keegan, Toshack, Kop, Dalglish bollocks.

We just began to disappear from the public consciousness and it's never been corrected. With the formation of the Premier League (led, ironically, by our former chairman) and the shocking decline in the quality of the football served up by Everton teams our image and reputation have completely nosedived.

History because unfortunately Liverpool dominated from 1975 to 1985, Man Utd from the nineties with Chelsea and Arsenal breaking through also. So unsurprisingly the majority of pundits are from those clubs.

That being said, it is true that there are a lot of ex-reds on TV, looking at today's reality through the lens of yesterday's memories. That is the only reason only Liverpool are talked about as a 'big club' is because of the past.

Lazy journalism because it is easier to talk about predictabilities rather than uncertainties. The Sky six will win the league, sign the best players etc etc. You could tell that, though Leicester's triumph last season was talked up, that it made the media and the pundit brigade uneasy.

The only way to break free from this is to win trophies!

Hartson - there is no malice, he's not that sort of player.

Headline - Coleman suffers apparent leg injury.

And my particular favourite, Coleman won't be available for Ireland for the foreseeable future.

Utterly shameful.

The BBC is a scam. We have to fund it no matter what propaganda they are spewing. Football propaganda, economic propaganda, political propaganda: Take your pick.

As for Rom being our 'Leading Goalscorer' in the Premier League with 63 now, well done lad, but a certain WR Dean scored 60 in one season with a proper casey! Now that's a proper centre-forward 'goalscoring machine' I have never heard Dixie's 60 in one season mentioned anywhere in the media recently.

You could see they were stumped as to Leicester's success last season, usually falling back on why the usual suspects were underperforming to let a side like Leicester in...

There are some who are quite articulate (to a certain extent). Pundits like Kevin Kilbane don't let their former loyalties or clubs cloud their judgement, whereas, ex-reds seem to glorify in boosting the darkside's (evil) profile and putting down their rivals.

Lawro (twat) and Thompson (twatter) are parodies now of just bad-mouthing EFC.

I'm a baseball fan here in the US, and I don't recall any recent pundit comments on Babe Ruth, but it doesn't mean he's been forgotten.

I always like the fact that Ferguson wouldn't talk to them – probably for the same reason.

A lot of other clubs could use this thread too with their own team name. It's not that we feel left out – it's blatant favouritism.

State our grievances to all & sundry why, if nowt changes... Do it again!

A Cup Final would be the best time, the world watches... and no Blues... We're Everton, this shit has to end & were the ONLY club who should lead again. If not, nothing will ever change.

Not a mention of the injury to Funes Mori.

Okay, Blues... let's rise above... onwards to Mordor!

What is worse is that you apologists clutching your cap to your chests, whilst keeping your eyes firmly focussed upon the toes of your boots and tugging your forelocks; you want True Blues to pipe down!

Here's a simple test of whether what someone is saying about Everton is helpful or harmful. If Billy Dean, Alan Ball and Kevin Ratcliffe were hearing or reading what you had to convey, would you get three nods?

If not, then spare everyone the convoluted crap. What you permit, you promote; what you defend, you own.

And you have made me think. Here's exactly what came to mind.

Link

There is a panel of 4, with a ratio of 3 : 1 in favour of... US!! Peter Reid, Tony Bellew, David Prentice and Mark Lawrenson.

Maybe the BBC aren't as biased as we think, or someone from there has been reading TW.

Rumours that Gabby Logan will be using a Ouija board to contact Clive Thomas during Football Focus are, as yet, unconfirmed.

Guess whose line-up they haven't given?

That's simply not how football works. You play to the final whistle. The result is determined then and only then. There is no parallel universe were another result is even possible.

You (and others) making this bizarre claim for leniency and understanding towards what were dreadful decisions by Koeman and a disgusting display by Lukaku which lost us the victory and two vital points because "we nearly won", is the kind of muddled thinking that continues to perpetuate the mediocrity of "plucky little Everton".

That's not to say that the thread isn't accurate. It is, of course.

That's it, I'm done with Match of the Day now.

Everton 0 Leicester 2 - Lawro

BBC today.

It's a constant drip, drip, drip about how we should conform to being plucky little Everton.

I hope they do pay the 㿼 million and end the saga, because he will still be moaning this time next season if he stays. The money could transform our chances of finishing in the top four.

If Chelsea are going to pay£80 million for him I'd give them a five percent discount and lock the door until Lukaku signs the contract.

As long as the money is going to be spent on new players.

ps: For the record, BBC NW on the morning of the game only talked of "a victory for Man Utd closing the gap on the top four" but made no reference whatsoever to what such a victory would do for us, ie, take us above our opponents. That, at the very least, is unbalanced coverage.

One can only assume that the scripts for these sort of items are written by Red loving junior scribes.

Not just the BBC who see us as "plucky little Everton"

For god's sake. Every team outside the recent winners and those fighting for relegation feel the same.

Wise up. They make a programme that they sell worldwide​ and pander to those who buy it.

It is a reflection of modern football and the PL. It is mirrored by how many on here get into debates about business and the Lukaku price.

If we play in a world of only-the-winners-matter, don't expect the losers to make headlines. Wonder if and when we do start winning we will moan that the mid table team who drew at our new palace did not get their proper air time.

This thread is like asking the banking industry to give refunds.

"Everton defended and broke superbly against Manchester United on Tuesday night but, though Ashley Williams's rash handball attracted most of the attention, the game ought to have been over by then."

The piece then goes on to write some interesting home truths about Lukaku.

Now it's all about Ross being, allegedly, punched in the gob by some yob. Nothing ever positive about us.

When I used to live in S. America I watched Premier League games on Fox Sports in Espanol and the commentators used to give certain players nicknames. Murphy was "el enano venenoso" – The Poisoned Dwarf! Says it all really.