The Terrible Journalism & Tom English Thread

[gannonball]

14 minutes ago, Raidernation said:

Another threat becomes a bigot fest!

Just. f**k. Off.

ETA you c***s have your own sub-forum, just f**k off over there please

Sorry but absolutely f**k all of this debate has anything to do with bigotry. Some Pedantic posts perhaps but no different to the usual posts on this thread.

[Jacksgranda]

 

15 hours ago, craigkillie said:

What a bizarre little post. The European Cup in that era was dominated by sides from Spain, Italy and Portugal - indeed no club from any other nation had ever won it prior to Celtic, and only three clubs had even made the final (Reims x2, Eintracht Frankfurt and Partizan Belgrade). Celtic didn't have to face sides from any of those sides in their run to the final, which was the primary basis of my argument, as described in one of my later posts. Amazingly enough, I wasn't making my judgement based on how good the current Vojvodina Novi Sad and Dukla Prague sides were.

Doing a school project 55 years ago doesn't make another poster an expert on a bunch of teams he almost certainly never actually saw play - there's even an inaccuracy in the post which I ignored in my reply because it wasn't relevant to the actual discussion (Zurich had reached the European Cup semi-final three years previously, not two). The analogy I made remains valid - if my argument was that the standard of teams in the European Cup wasn't reflective of all the actual best teams in Europe, then trying to counter that to say that a team got to the semi-finals of the European Cup previously, or scored lots of goals in the European Cup, doesn't actually prove any sort of point. The swashbuckling Nantes team described in that post didn't even win the French league in 1966/67, and only won 17 of their 38 league matches in that campaign.

You have correctly pointed to the massively increased financial disparity in football in the intervening period, there are four leagues which now totally outstrip the rest financially, and the clubs from those nations are now able to hoard talent in a way that simply wasn't possible in the 1950s and 1960s. In the era being discussed, clubs predominantly picked players from their own nation, with the slight exception of the aforementioned Spanish, Italian and Portuguese sides who featured a number of foreign players (or players from overseas colonies in Benfica's case) in their trophy winning sides.

The four teams Celtic played on their way to the final barely featured any foreign players - the main exceptions were a 39 year-old Laszlo Kubala for Zurich and Yugoslav striker Vladimir Kovacevic for Nantes - and were therefore basically were limited to some of, but in most cases not even all of, the best players from a given country. That increased level of equality across the domestic leagues and the continent led to more balanced competition, but as Scottish Championship fans will very happily testify, competition and quality are two different things. It is very difficult to argue that the top teams in the big countries now are far better than the top teams in those countries 50 years ago.

The argument being made wasn't "these teams were all shite", but simply that Rangers' opponents this year might be better. Given that these included two of the four best teams from one of the elite leagues in Europe, featuring some of the best players from across the world, I don't think that's exactly an outlandish thing to say. The financial imbalance in football makes it harder for a Scottish club to reach a European final nowadays (even in the secondary competition), in the same way that it's harder for clubs outside of Glasgow to win our league now.

Even if you still disagree with all of that or my previous posts, it's still not actually that well suited to a "Terrible Journalism" thread given that I'm not a journalist. On the whole then, a 2/10 contribution on your part.

You didn't say might, you said "probably".

Edited June 11, 2022 by Jacksgranda

[Loominous]

On 08/06/2022 at 16:31, DA Baracus said:

It's his job to give his opinion though.

His insights into sports journalism are fine, even interesting. His expertise doesn't lie in football tactics or football finance or matters like that. So rather than butting in and hogging the conversation I wish he would just leave it to the football experts - at least with his print opinion pieces there isn't that issue.

[tamthebam]

On 08/06/2022 at 15:49, johnnydun said:

Welcome Gary who?

 

 

I'm just surprised they didn't say it's Frank from Bob Servant.

[Dundee Hibernian]

2 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

I'm just surprised they didn't say it's Frank from Bob Servant.

Forgive the Daily Record, it's nearly the marching season. More important things on their mind than football

[Dundee Hibernian]

12 hours ago, craigkillie said:

To be very clear, I was only mentioning your post again because the other poster brought it up. We had a civil discussion and I didn't think any less of you for disagreeing with me.

It's the internet, it doesn't really matter what we think of each other. 

[kennie makevin]

On 11/06/2022 at 11:04, Loominous said:

His insights into sports journalism are fine, even interesting. His expertise doesn't lie in football tactics or football finance or matters like that. So rather than butting in and hogging the conversation I wish he would just leave it to the football experts - at least with his print opinion pieces there isn't that issue.

'Football experts'  ? You are talking Sportsound etc here, aren't you ? Who, pray tell are these 'football experts' you speak of ? Bonnar ? Biscuits Preston ? Willie Miller ? Roughie ? Big DJ ? Alex Rae ? Kenny Miller ? ........Give me Tom English over any of these people, at least he has a working command of the English language. 

 

[Loominous]

9 hours ago, kennie makevin said:

'Football experts'  ? You are talking Sportsound etc here, aren't you ? Who, pray tell are these 'football experts' you speak of ? Bonnar ? Biscuits Preston ? Willie Miller ? Roughie ? Big DJ ? Alex Rae ? Kenny Miller ? ........Give me Tom English over any of these people, at least he has a working command of the English language. 

 

That's fine, I'm not looking for an argument - just to express my frustration.

[Acon]

[deej]

18 hours ago, Acon said:

 

 

[Swami]

Other than the raving simpletons in the Old Firm support, does anyone ever actually fall for the stories linking both of them to the same player? It’s such obvious bullshit to generate clicks (or sales of papers in the old days). 
 

Might have answered my own question here. 

[SlipperyP]

13 hours ago, Swami said:

Other than the raving simpletons in the Old Firm support, does anyone ever actually fall for the stories linking both of them to the same player? It’s such obvious bullshit to generate clicks (or sales of papers in the old days). 
 

Sure it happens in other markets too.  I think it may be the agent selling stories to get the best price for their player.

Celtic & Rangers

Hearts & Aberdeen

and so on

[Mark Connolly]

20 hours ago, Swami said:

Other than the raving simpletons in the Old Firm support, does anyone ever actually fall for the stories linking both of them to the same player? It’s such obvious bullshit to generate clicks (or sales of papers in the old days). 
 

Might have answered my own question here. 

Ourselves and Dundee in for the same manager?

[Coventry Saint]

 

[Jacksgranda]

20 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

 

You would hardly know that the article should have been about Hibs and St Mirren.

[kingjoey]

28 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

You would hardly know that the article should have been about Hibs and St Mirren.

The article is about how Celtic and Rangers should have been in the top ten instead of these two diddy clubs.

[Jacky1990]

31 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

The article is about how Celtic and Rangers should have been in the top ten instead of these two diddy clubs.

Its not even though. It is literally just drivel and a breakdown of the list and the barely hidden "f**k, tie everything we can to the Old Firm". Surprised there isnt a line along the "Brondby, which starts with a B like the Bhoys, topped the list much like Celtic topped the Scottish Premiership table ahead of Rangers".

There is no discussion whatsoever about why Hibs and/or St Mirren were included so highly. What makes them so well run compared to others? 

It isnt journalism. It is just content designed purely to get people to click, skim read the short article and go click on some other Old Firm centric pish.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Jacky1990

[Dons_1988]

4 minutes ago, Jacky1990 said:

 

It isnt journalism. It is just content designed purely to get people to click, skim read the short article and go click on some other Old Firm centric pish.

Or tweet out/post the link on a forum.

[Coventry Saint]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

Or tweet out/post the link on a forum.

Yeah, very aware of the threshold at which I became part of the problem there.

[CoF]

A good example how broken that model of reporting is. I've got a wee bit of sympathy for the folk that have to write these things - I doubt it's the heights of writing any reporter or journalist aspires to, but they'll find themselves with a framework of how to structure these things to bump it up in the search engine, generate traffic and subsequently ad clicks. It's the only revenue stream and I read mentioning rangers or Celtic generates 10x the traffic (or something-canny mind), so I get why they need to do it. Doesn't mean it's not absolutely shite reporting mind. The record knows they could never get away with a subscription model. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by CoF