As the AFL starts to negotiate media rights coverage and as they continue to try to convert those without traditional Aussie Rules backgrounds, one thing they may need to look at is the persistent bias shown in the media. If you follow an 'interstate' (i.e. non-Vic) team you are constantly marginalised. You are not made to feel like you are a part of something national. You are made to feel like your team is playing in an expanded VFL - it is Victorian based and biased. (And I will not start here on whether Aussie Rules areas like NT and Tas should have sides.)
Given 8/18 sides are not Vic-based then it would be reasonable to expect that coverage in the national media is proportional. (I understand local papers or shows will be parochial.) Trying to encourage a person from Qld or NSW to follow Aussie Rules is made more difficult when the commentators call the game from the Victorian sides perspective - you are made to feel like an outsider. So if Haw beat WCE it is about how Haw won. If WCE beat Haw then it is about how Haw lost. This might be okay in the Melbourne media (or the reverse in the WA media) but it is not okay in a national broadcast. Not if you wish to have an inclusive national comp.
And what is even worse than this bias is the incompetence - or maybe laziness - of the commentators. This shown by their relative lack of knowledge of the 'interstate' team.
In last nights match Brian Taylor noted at the start of the match that the Eagles were 'in red hot form'. And apparently Hutchings (a fringe player dropped for poor form) had been in 'good form'. Similarly, while there was discussion on the effects of Haw having no Brian Lake there was NO MENTION AT ALL about the Eagles having lost both ruckmen. There was no discussion about WCE coming into the match with only one ruckman and how that might affect things. Given the coverage is 3+ hours, and given they find time to prattle on about all manner of crap this may be a significant point worthy of quite some discussion. In fact it did get a mention - by Alistair Clarkson in his press conference - but even then this was not picked up on by the commentators. Maybe it would have been reasonable to discuss why Yeo was in the ruck and what effect having the (20 gamer) CHB McGovern in the ruck might have had on the backline etc etc.
Similarly in the two weekday free-to-air shows (Talking Footy and Footy Classified) I sometimes feel like I need to find out where the 'interstate' version is shown as I seem to be a watching the Vic version. We know that each week there must be focus on the large or popular Vic clubs regardless of whether there is anything of note to report. And often any commentary on the 'interstate' clubs is in passing or is superficial.
So if say Haw had been second and had been beaten by second last Ess then it would have been a big deal - with much discussion about the ramifications for Haw and discussion about had Ess improved. Similarly, if Bris win one after losing five who cares, but if it is Coll?
Etc etc etc
Given 8/18 sides are not Vic-based then it would be reasonable to expect that coverage in the national media is proportional. (I understand local papers or shows will be parochial.) Trying to encourage a person from Qld or NSW to follow Aussie Rules is made more difficult when the commentators call the game from the Victorian sides perspective - you are made to feel like an outsider. So if Haw beat WCE it is about how Haw won. If WCE beat Haw then it is about how Haw lost. This might be okay in the Melbourne media (or the reverse in the WA media) but it is not okay in a national broadcast. Not if you wish to have an inclusive national comp.
And what is even worse than this bias is the incompetence - or maybe laziness - of the commentators. This shown by their relative lack of knowledge of the 'interstate' team.
In last nights match Brian Taylor noted at the start of the match that the Eagles were 'in red hot form'. And apparently Hutchings (a fringe player dropped for poor form) had been in 'good form'. Similarly, while there was discussion on the effects of Haw having no Brian Lake there was NO MENTION AT ALL about the Eagles having lost both ruckmen. There was no discussion about WCE coming into the match with only one ruckman and how that might affect things. Given the coverage is 3+ hours, and given they find time to prattle on about all manner of crap this may be a significant point worthy of quite some discussion. In fact it did get a mention - by Alistair Clarkson in his press conference - but even then this was not picked up on by the commentators. Maybe it would have been reasonable to discuss why Yeo was in the ruck and what effect having the (20 gamer) CHB McGovern in the ruck might have had on the backline etc etc.
Similarly in the two weekday free-to-air shows (Talking Footy and Footy Classified) I sometimes feel like I need to find out where the 'interstate' version is shown as I seem to be a watching the Vic version. We know that each week there must be focus on the large or popular Vic clubs regardless of whether there is anything of note to report. And often any commentary on the 'interstate' clubs is in passing or is superficial.
So if say Haw had been second and had been beaten by second last Ess then it would have been a big deal - with much discussion about the ramifications for Haw and discussion about had Ess improved. Similarly, if Bris win one after losing five who cares, but if it is Coll?
Etc etc etc
