The Terrible Journalism & Tom English Thread

[7-2]

5 hours ago, JTS98 said:

It's something I've actually thought about quite a lot in the last year or two in relation to football journalism in general...

That sounds as if there's something for everyone, which is how it should be. 

[Guest JTS98]

2 hours ago, Darren said:

This could apply to a lot of jobs in journalism, it certainly isn't limited to football coverage.

I'm not sure about that.

Political writers may have biases and prejudices, but they also tend to be well informed about the issues they are commenting on and aware of the historical context within which they are working. Similarly, if I go to the entertainment section of a newspaper or a magazine or if I listen to BBC movie reviews, I typically encounter someone with a deep technical and historical understanding of cinema or literature. Even if I disagree with that person's opinions, I will usually find they are based in some kind of expertise.

Economic correspondents tend to have a background in their topic and often in business itself. I could go on.

Football journalism is full of your average guy in the pub. I really can't think of another subject like it. The popularity of football is obviously part of the problem. I find the standard of (British) journalist covering cricket, for example, to be generally higher. There's a huge market for football journalism though and this leads to an industry full of empty jerseys.

One of the main problems with this, for me, is that the public narrative around football is formed by these diddies. Every time one of the Sportsound or Super Scoreboard muppets makes a nonsensical point, that reaches a lot of people. It keeps the discussion of football stupid and simplistic.

[Mr Heliums]

6 hours ago, JTS98 said:

Anyway. I'm sitting in my flat waiting for the rain to go off and ended up typing out this rambling shite. Main point, most football journalists are charlatans who got their job despite very limited subject knowledge or intelligence. But there's some great stuff out there.

Don't think I can fully agree. Even Chick Young, awful as he appears, could at least write, at one time. (I only know this because I've kept a match report of his from Scotland on Sunday from the first game at McDiarmid.) He's just not suited for TV or radio where he doesn't have enough time to organise thoughts sensibly, so sounds like he's at the pantomime. Spiers is another who is miles better on paper than on TV.

But sports journalism can be brilliant, so when you're slagging off the old school guys, don't forget the examples of the late Ian Archer of the Glasgow Herald (would anyone now have the guts to call Rangers,  'a permanent embarrassment, an occasional disgrace' in a national paper? That column is still spot-on 40-odd years later) Hugh McIllvanney of the Observer was fantastic too. Bob Crampsey was another writer who did manager to transfer superbly to radio. But the vaccuum left when a voice like Crampsey goes is too often filled by ex-players. Is anyone suggesting that's better?

Perhaps the quality of journalism isn't so high now – and the routes into media quicker and less demanding – but I wouldn't dismiss journalists entirely. Get rid of them and, who knows, you might end up with Packy Bonner.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Mr Heliums said:

Don't think I can fully agree. Even Chick Young, awful as he appears, could at least write, at one time. (I only know this because I've kept a match report of his from Scotland on Sunday from the first game at McDiarmid.) He's just not suited for TV or radio where he doesn't have enough time to organise thoughts sensibly, so sounds like he's at the pantomime. Spiers is another who is miles better on paper than on TV.

But sports journalism can be brilliant, so when you're slagging off the old school guys, don't forget the examples of the late Ian Archer of the Glasgow Herald (would anyone now have the guts to call Rangers,  'a permanent embarrassment, an occasional disgrace' in a national paper? That column is still spot-on 40-odd years later) Hugh McIllvanney of the Observer was fantastic too. Bob Crampsey was another writer who did manager to transfer superbly to radio. But the vaccuum left when a voice like Crampsey goes is too often filled by ex-players. Is anyone suggesting that's better?

Perhaps the quality of journalism isn't so high now – and the routes into media quicker and less demanding – but I wouldn't dismiss journalists entirely. Get rid of them and, who knows, you might end up with Packy Bonner.

Totally agree. In my original post I listed some very good ones operating at the moment. Obviously agree on McIlvanney and I remember Crampsey as a rare voice of reason and wisdom on Sportsound.

My point is not that there are no good football journalists. There clearly are. My point is that this thread is so long because the swimming pool of talent is full of pish.

[Mr Heliums]

19 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

One of the main problems with this, for me, is that the public narrative around football is formed by these diddies. Every time one of the Sportsound or Super Scoreboard muppets makes a nonsensical point, that reaches a lot of people. It keeps the discussion of football stupid and simplistic.

The problem is also that 'clickbait' is affecting radio as much as it has the internet. As long as you're attention-grabbing and opinionated you'll get an audience.  Nuance, insight and thoughtfulness are unfashionable.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Mr Heliums said:

The problem is also that 'clickbait' is affecting radio as much as it has the internet. As long as you're attention-grabbing and opinionated you'll get an audience.  Nuance, insight and thoughtfulness are unfashionable.

The shouty nature of midweek Sportsound these days has been discussed on other threads plenty. It's horrific how lowest-common-denominator it has gone.

[Tulloch Gorum]

31 minutes ago, Mr Heliums said:

Don't think I can fully agree. Even Chick Young, awful as he appears, could at least write, at one time. (I only know this because I've kept a match report of his from Scotland on Sunday from the first game at McDiarmid.) He's just not suited for TV or radio where he doesn't have enough time to organise thoughts sensibly, so sounds like he's at the pantomime. Spiers is another who is miles better on paper than on TV.

 

Conversely you get Tom English, who I think is much better on radio when he's in conversation with someone than he is when he writes.  Much of his writing is just made of short sentences mostly consisting of cliches, but I think as a radio pundit he's one of the best in the country.

[Darren]

52 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I'm not sure about that.

Political writers may have biases and prejudices, but they also tend to be well informed about the issues they are commenting on and aware of the historical context within which they are working. Similarly, if I go to the entertainment section of a newspaper or a magazine or if I listen to BBC movie reviews, I typically encounter someone with a deep technical and historical understanding of cinema or literature. Even if I disagree with that person's opinions, I will usually find they are based in some kind of expertise.

Economic correspondents tend to have a background in their topic and often in business itself. I could go on.

Football journalism is full of your average guy in the pub. I really can't think of another subject like it. The popularity of football is obviously part of the problem. I find the standard of (British) journalist covering cricket, for example, to be generally higher. There's a huge market for football journalism though and this leads to an industry full of empty jerseys.

One of the main problems with this, for me, is that the public narrative around football is formed by these diddies. Every time one of the Sportsound or Super Scoreboard muppets makes a nonsensical point, that reaches a lot of people. It keeps the discussion of football stupid and simplistic.

The standard in football journalism is worse, granted, but there are plenty of political and economic correspondents who don't know enough about their subject matter.

Added to that you have a large number of reporters and editors who do not have a specialism and are therefore covering a lot of areas they cannot be expected to be experts in.

[accies1874]

I'm not sure about that.
Political writers may have biases and prejudices, but they also tend to be well informed about the issues they are commenting on and aware of the historical context within which they are working. Similarly, if I go to the entertainment section of a newspaper or a magazine or if I listen to BBC movie reviews, I typically encounter someone with a deep technical and historical understanding of cinema or literature. Even if I disagree with that person's opinions, I will usually find they are based in some kind of expertise.
Economic correspondents tend to have a background in their topic and often in business itself. I could go on.
Football journalism is full of your average guy in the pub. I really can't think of another subject like it. The popularity of football is obviously part of the problem. I find the standard of (British) journalist covering cricket, for example, to be generally higher. There's a huge market for football journalism though and this leads to an industry full of empty jerseys.
One of the main problems with this, for me, is that the public narrative around football is formed by these diddies. Every time one of the Sportsound or Super Scoreboard muppets makes a nonsensical point, that reaches a lot of people. It keeps the discussion of football stupid and simplistic.

Couldn't agree more with your final paragraph.
Maybe I've just noticed it more, but this season has seen the discourse surrounding officiating and fan behaviour take precedent over even basic analytical discussions. They're such boring topics but are the easiest for them to discuss.

[Savage Henry]

The standard in football journalism is worse, granted, but there are plenty of political and economic correspondents who don't know enough about their subject matter.
Added to that you have a large number of reporters and editors who do not have a specialism and are therefore covering a lot of areas they cannot be expected to be experts in.

Football finance being a case in point. I’m not sure what we expect, really. Sports journalism is not a noble career, and it’s not really unexpected that it’s full of people who can’t really write. It doesn’t take a genius to write about football. Some sports attract better writers - boxing being an obvious example.

There are plenty of posters on here who could, with a little training, write far better than most red top journalists.

In a broader sense, journalism has taken a hit in areas such as foreign affairs, largely because of access to expertise. Academics and experts who are remotely eloquent provide much better analysis than journalists do, and I’m not sure why journalists are regarded as experts in anything other than condensing what they are told into readable paragraphs.

There are notable exceptions, such as Rukmini Callimachi, who genuinely are great journalists and experts in their field, but generally I think the expectation of journalists to be experts is misplaced.

[Darren]

30 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

There are plenty of posters on here who could, with a little training, write far better than most red top journalists.

 

I very much doubt it. This statement applies to a lot of the new breed of football journalists being maligned on this thread - minimal training and away they go.

[G-MAN]

Conversely you get Tom English, who I think is much better on radio when he's in conversation with someone than he is when he writes.  Much of his writing is just made of short sentences mostly consisting of cliches, but I think as a radio pundit he's one of the best in the country.

Tom English was excellent when he started to regularly appear. Challenging the “Establishment” mantra when Rangers (IL) had Whyte and Green.

Someone has got to him and he has now reverted to the same as every single one of them. Hard to believe it’s the same person.

Embarrassing.

[A96]

13 hours ago, JTS98 said:

Totally agree. In my original post I listed some very good ones operating at the moment. Obviously agree on McIlvanney and I remember Crampsey as a rare voice of reason and wisdom on Sportsound.

Crampsey featured on Sportsound long before it involved several pundits discussing a few issues .  My recollection of Sportsound in the 80’s and early 90’s is that apart from the commentary game there wasn’t really much discussion about anything other than team selections and the brief reports from the other games. Crampsey was one of the regular guest pundits at that time and there’s no doubt that he could express his views very eloquently. But he was usually just an earlier ,more articulate version of many of today’s pundits in that he continually harked back to bygone days as being better.

And there’s one ,single comment he made in the mid-80’s that has always stuck in my mind , and made me think he was just another central belt mouthpiece.  In the course of a pre-match discussion about the expected attendance before a Scotland game at Hampden, Crampsey  , and trying to make a point about the distance some fans would have to travel , mentioned some imaginary fan who had travelled “all the way from Cumbernauld”. 

Still makes me seethe over 30 years later.

[RedEd]

In today's Record Gary Ralston compares Rose Reilly to Emily Pankhurst. That would be Emmeline, Gary.

[Savage Henry]

In today's Record Gary Ralston compares Rose Reilly to Emily Pankhurst. That would be Emmeline, Gary.

Terrible sub editing thread for this pish. Gary Ralston is absolutely inept, and doubtless thick as pig shit, but a subeditor should have caught that.

[The Master]

Even by DC Thomson standards this is particularly bad. 

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/dundee-united-earn-almost-double-amount-of-city-rivals-from-spfl-payout/

[RandomGuy.]

Youd have no idea the play off final kicked off in an hour.

[Mr Heliums]

Congratulations to Dany Mitzman, a journalist who's managed to get money out of the BBC for writing the sort of hackneyed I'm-a-woman-and-I-don't-like-football article that was popular 25 years ago. But it's set in Italy, so it's different.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Mr Heliums

[djchapsticks]

The below absolute piece of nonsense. 

Mateo Muzek is a fullback/centre half not a striker. 

The photo is a photo of Mihai Popescu. 

Mihai Popescu is also a centre half. Not a striker. He is also not Croatian (but is talented). 

The worst part though? This is the Paisley Express, our local paper. All they fucking have to do with local senior football is report on St. Mirren. How can they get it so spectacularly wrong? Especially since only 4 weeks ago they had the audacity to claim that St.Mirren were the 5th hardest side to police in Scotland (based on a meeting between fans group and board with SLO and this was absoultely not communicated in said meeting) and the journalist who reported it, had a very public spat with fans on twitter when asked to provide the source of this and when he said 'the meeting', was comprehensively told this was not said and he was reminded actually wasn't in the meeting to gain this info. 

He then went about defending his and the PDE's journalistic practices and accuracy.

[cmontheloknow]

i went for a day long interview at a red top years ago and I recall the assembled interviewees being told 'we don't want good writers, we want good journalists' - they wanted people up to sniffing out stories, being prepared to hound the recently bereaved for pictures of lost loved ones etc... it takes a certain type and the ability to write was not a necessity.