FFE - Media Watch

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

You're suggesting that by reading a journalist's article, you know everything about what their job entails.

That's wide of the mark, my friend.

We can see the end product. If an architect builds something that falls down the next day, we don't need to understand architecture to know that he did a crap job. It doesn't matter what you did behind the scenes. If the article produced gives no accurate information then the journalist has failed to do his job. This happens on a regular basis in the football media.

Real journalists have skills, you know? They don't just sit down and write a little essay about what they think this week.

There are news-gathering skills and skills related to producing that copy. You reckon Joe Bloggs could stroll into a newsroom and do that job no worries. Sorry, but you're wrong, and I think that this claim suggests you perhaps don't know as much about what journos do as you think.

If the article produced contains inaccurate information or no real information at all then the journalist's news-gathering skills are obviously not up to par. I'm not saying you could just pick a random person off the street who would do better, but I think if the cream of BF posts were put together and released as a daily AFL paper, it would be miles ahead of what the Herald-Sun and other mainstream publications are putting out. Especially if you gave those posters the access that these hacks have and paid them a healthy wage to do it full-time.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

We can see the end product. If an architect builds something that falls down the next day, we don't need to understand architecture to know that he did a crap job.

Sure, but to continue that analogy, you don't know everything about the architect's job merely by looking at a house he built.

You are suggesting that you know everything about a journo's job, just because you see the end product. Wide of the mark.

It doesn't matter what you did behind the scenes.

Actually, it does.

Because this is the part of the job that non-journalists aren't exposed to and hence don't understand or appreciate.

If the article produced gives no accurate information then the journalist has failed to do his job.

Sure - then it's a bad article.

My point is that you don't know everything about a journo's job just by reading their articles. I think it's fatuous to suggest otherwise.

If the article produced contains inaccurate information or no real information at all then the journalist's news-gathering skills are obviously not up to par.

Well, it depends on the story.

But broadly, what you're saying is true.

I'm not saying you could just pick a random person off the street who would do better, but I think if the cream of BF posts were put together and released as a daily AFL paper, it would be miles ahead of what the Herald-Sun and other mainstream publications are putting out.

Sorry - but that's bullshit.

It's a conceit found too often on these forums.

There are plenty of posters here who know plenty about football. But that, on its own, does not qualify them to be football journalists.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

It's sloppy - no doubt.

And it looks amateurish. I can understand why readers look at it and get irritated that these details are botched.

But I maintain that we're still talking about a data entry error. I don't accept that there's any deliberate fabrication, or fibbing, going on.

And I think the charge of "bad journalism" is a mischaracterisation.

I agree to an extent, but not with the bold.

Honestly I do know the OP was joking and me arguing was a combination of taking umbrage to your criticisms (because you may have taken it in a different way than intended) and because I enjoy agitating you simply due to the fact you can be very caustic and argumentative (I am sure we will disagree on this).

I had not realised they had done a re-write of the article (complete overhaul), which helps explain our difference of opinion and I am man enough to admit that is my error.

I still disagree about the caption and the fact the article constitutes bad journalism. The original had a first paragraph in the summary which had in text references based on the faulty data and conclusions drawn from this (as well as the photo, incorrect data etc....).

 

[grizzlym]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

I'm not saying you could just pick a random person off the street who would do better, but I think if the cream of BF posts were put together and released as a daily AFL paper, it would be miles ahead of what the Herald-Sun and other mainstream publications are putting out. Especially if you gave those posters the access that these hacks have and paid them a healthy wage to do it full-time.

That I doubt. A little akin to putting them in the kitchen with Gordon Ramsay.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

I still disagree about the caption and the fact the article constitutes bad journalism.

Well, I don't know what you would have had them do with that caption.

I think it would have been bad practice to assume that Goddard was reacting to giving away a free kick. It would have been bad practice to write a caption based on that assumption.

And I don't think you can expect people to go back and watch the game to confirm the circumstances. The caption identifies Goddard. The rest is window dressing.

As for being "bad journalism", if you really consider the way that mistake would have come about, it's just human error. Mistakes are made. It's undesirable and it looks sloppy. But it's still just a mistake; an oversight.

I think the charge of "bad journalism" should be reserved for instances where it's not just a mistake or human error; for instances where the press is either dishonest or manipulative or beats up a story or cuts corners or misrepresents people or molds the facts to match an agenda; for when they actually default on their responsibilities.

And believe me, when those instances arise, no-one will skewer the journalists involved more aggressively than me.

But, for mine, mixing up a couple of footy scores doesn't cut it.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Sure, but to continue that analogy, you don't know everything about the architect's job merely by looking at a house he built.

You are suggesting that you know everything about a journo's job, just because you see the end product. Wide of the mark.

If the building falls down, the architect failed. If you are paid to do a job and you don't do it well, then you failed. The behind the scenes stuff only counts if it results in a good piece of work. If you produce crap, it counts for nothing.

Sorry - but that's bullshit.

It's a conceit found too often on these forums.

There are plenty of posters here who know plenty about football. But that, on its own, does not qualify them to be football journalists.

I wouldn't say it's a conceit seeing as I don't place myself in that category. But I read insightful, interesting and informative posts here every day from people who work a day job and have no access to the players, coaches or administration. The mainstream media is usually only good for getting the scores, the stats, quotes from players and coaches and my super coach scores.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

I think it would have been bad practice to assume that Goddard was reacting to giving away a free kick. It would have been bad practice to write a caption based on that assumption.

But you are defending them assuming that he is excited about his team winning a game that they lost.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

I think the charge of "bad journalism" should be reserved for instances where it's not just a mistake or human error; for instances where the press is either dishonest or manipulative or beats up a story or cuts corners or misrepresents people or molds the facts to match an agenda; for when they actually default on their responsibilities.

I agree with this, but I do think that the original article did fall within the vein of cutting corners. Poor journalism would maybe be a better term as opposed to "bad". Yes this is looking at the article after the fact and not making presumptions about extenuating circumstances, but I think that is reasonable assessment of the quality of content and a judgement on whether it had fulfilled its purpose.

Whilst it may simply have been based on the information available, the in text mistakes were deplorable and my position is not that they should have known the context for the picture, but that they should have used a picture that they could caption accurately.

It is disappointing the errors were not picked up during the editorial process and my comments about the author using better sources was not in relation to the caption, but more about at least having a look at a couple of reviews from past matches or watching a video highlights from the previous game (where the mistakes would have been picked up).

At least they have fixed up most of the article.

 

[grizzlym]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

I wouldn't say it's a conceit seeing as I don't place myself in that category. But I read insightful, interesting and informative posts here every day from people who work a day job and have no access to the players, coaches or administration. The mainstream media is usually only good for getting the scores, the stats, quotes from players and coaches and my super coach scores.

Do you think journalists have complete freedom to write what they want? They have masters too you know. What you're saying about the mainstream media is true in part, but don't go blaming the journalists entirely for the product.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

If the building falls down, the architect failed. If you are paid to do a job and you don't do it well, then you failed. The behind the scenes stuff only counts if it results in a good piece of work. If you produce crap, it counts for nothing.

Hang on a second.

You claimed that people believe they know everything about a journo's job because they can see the end product.

That's unreasonable. And your example of the architect and a house he built highlights that. Looking at a house doesn't tell you everything about an architect's job. Similarly, reading an article doesn't tell you everything about a journalist's job.

My claim is not that bad articles don't appear. My claim is that you shouldn't be so quick to assume that you know everything about a journo's job just because you read the paper.

I wouldn't say it's a conceit seeing as I don't place myself in that category.

It's a conceit among the online community in general; the idea that someone with moderate communications skills and a grasp of the subject matter could walk in and replace a journalist without missing a beat.

It wouldn't work that way. Being a journo is harder than you imagine.

But I read insightful, interesting and informative posts here every day from people who work a day job and have no access to the players, coaches or administration.

Sure - but that is not the same as doing it day-in, day-out for a newspaper.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

But you are defending them assuming that he is excited about his team winning a game that they lost.

Huh?

The caption says Goddard was excited during the triumph.

The mistake is that they got the result wrong. But that's just a reproduction of the data entry error that occurs higher up. I have no problem with the identification of Goddard, or the description of him as "excited".

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

I agree with this, but I do think that the original article did fall within the vein of cutting corners. Poor journalism would maybe be a better term as opposed to "bad".

I would describe it as sloppy, and as displaying a lack of attention to detail.

You have to get that stuff right.

But it's still just an honest mistake. It's not indicative of low standards of journalism. It's not worth teeing off on. It's the dishonest mistakes that really worry me.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Hang on a second.

You claimed that people believe they know everything about a journo's job because they can see the end product.

That's not the point I was trying to make. The point is that the only thing that matters is whether the final result of your work is up to par. Good journalists do a whole lot of things behind the scenes that I might not ever imagine. If they did all that and then wrote things that were inaccurate or just a rehashing of common knowledge, then the behind the scenes work counts for nothing. That work has to be just the groundwork for completing the task assigned to them.

Who cares if the journalist responsible for that match preview did all the right things leading up to the point where he actually wrote it (which he obviously didn't, but anyway). He failed to do the job he is paid to do.

Also, it's not like that match was played 10 or even 5 years ago. Someone who is paid to write about football should be able to remember a result from less than a year ago and if they don't remember it, they should check their facts before they start writing.

It's a conceit among the online community in general; the idea that someone with moderate communications skills and a grasp of the subject matter could walk in and replace a journalist without missing a beat.

It wouldn't work that way. Being a journo is harder than you imagine.

They may struggle in the unfamiliar environment of a newspaper office or whatever, sure. So maybe these football pundits are well trained as journalists but they are just lazy and don't really know a whole lot about football, so that's why they write so much utter crap. I'd rather read an article by someone that cares about the facts and has something worthwhile to say even if they haven't been to journalism school.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Huh?

The caption says Goddard was excited during the triumph.

The mistake is that they got the result wrong. But that's just a reproduction of the data entry error that occurs higher up. I have no problem with the identification of Goddard, or the description of him as "excited".

Being "excited" (in the common usage of the word) about a win is nothing like being "excited" that you gave away a free kick in front of goal in a match that you lost.

It's a minor thing, but someone was paid to produce that preview and didn't even bother to research the facts properly. And if a player or coach made such a lazy mistake they would be crucified by these same hacks.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

That's not the point I was trying to make. The point is that the only thing that matters is whether the final result of your work is up to par. Good journalists do a whole lot of things behind the scenes that I might not ever imagine. If they did all that and then wrote things that were inaccurate or just a rehashing of common knowledge, then the behind the scenes work counts for nothing. That work has to be just the groundwork for completing the task assigned to them.

Who cares if the journalist responsible for that match preview did all the right things leading up to the point where he actually wrote it (which he obviously didn't, but anyway). He failed to do the job he is paid to do.

Also, it's not like that match was played 10 or even 5 years ago. Someone who is paid to write about football should be able to remember a result from less than a year ago and if they don't remember it, they should check their facts before they start writing.

That's fair enough.

Journos will ultimately be judged by what gets published.

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't assume you know everything about a journalist's job just because you read the paper. And that once you dispense with that assumption, it's silly to suggest that Joe Bloggs could walk in and replace that journalist without missing a beat.

They may struggle in the unfamiliar environment of a newspaper office or whatever, sure. So maybe these football pundits are well trained as journalists but they are just lazy and don't really know a whole lot about football, so that's why they write so much utter crap. I'd rather read an article by someone that cares about the facts and has something worthwhile to say even if they haven't been to journalism school.

Well, all you'd ever read would be comment pieces and match reports.

You wouldn't get any actual news.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Being "excited" (in the common usage of the word) about a win is nothing like being "excited" that you gave away a free kick in front of goal in a match that you lost.

It's a minor thing, but someone was paid to produce that preview and didn't even bother to research the facts properly.

This is bullshit - what kind of research do you want them to do to determine that Goddard was reacting to giving away a free kick?

No one would ever go back and watch an entire match to get that information for a caption. Not an option.

It's a trite caption, but it's not a mistake to describe him as excited.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Well, all you'd ever read would be comment pieces and match reports.

You wouldn't get any actual news.

What news do we get now that isn't either made public by the clubs or players (therefore requiring the journalist to do very little groundwork) or just tabloid gossip bullshit?

Check the HUN website and tell me which articles there required the journalist to have any investigative skills. The only one that comes close is the Terry Wallace article and that just makes a bunch of statements without revealing where any of the information came from (much like Robinson's inaccurate article this morning).

Other than that, it's just opinions and commentary on things that are made public by the relevant parties (contracts signed, comments from players etc).

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

This is bullshit - what kind of research do you want them to do to determine that Goddard was reacting to giving away a free kick?

No one would ever go back and watch an entire match to get that information for a caption. Not an option.

It's a trite caption, but it's not a mistake to describe him as excited.

Check the result of the match. Oh, they lost. He can't have been excited about their triumph. I better change that caption.

I would assume that the preview actually passed through several people's hands before it was printed and none of them knew enough about the events of last season that they noticed the error.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Now there's a Sheahan article up that basically just says "it is believed" before every statement. In other words, "I have no facts to back up any of this but this is what people are saying might be the case".

He also says that March referred to RFC as a circus today when he was obviously referring to the media. Lazy, pathetic journalism. He has uncovered no new information. He has just transformed hearsay and misquotes into an article.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

What news do we get now that isn't either made public by the clubs or players (therefore requiring the journalist to do very little groundwork) or just tabloid gossip bullshit?

Check the HUN website and tell me which articles there required the journalist to have any investigative skills. The only one that comes close is the Terry Wallace article and that just makes a bunch of statements without revealing where any of the information came from (much like Robinson's inaccurate article this morning).

Other than that, it's just opinions and commentary on things that are made public by the relevant parties (contracts signed, comments from players etc).

It's not strictly investigative journalism, but I would say there are still stories that require some digging, or at least, the ability to cajole comment from sources.

And apart from those, even the stories that are readily available require some skill to pull together.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Check the result of the match. Oh, they lost. He can't have been excited about their triumph. I better change that caption.

Yeah - so it's the one error relating to the result.

It's just a reproduction of the data entry error made earlier in the piece.

They entered the result wrong, and the second error basically stems from there. The suggestion that they need to do further research for the caption is fanciful. They just need to enter the result correctly in the first place, which, because of human error, didn't occur.

I would assume that the preview actually passed through several people's hands before it was printed and none of them knew enough about the events of last season that they noticed the error.

But that section of the piece wouldn't get double-checked at every stage. And I don't think it's surprising that a sub or another writer didn't pick it up.

If I named two random teams, could you, off the top of your head and with certainty, tell me who won their last encounter in 2008?

I doubt it. And I wouldn't expect a sports sub to know all those results off the top of their head either.

Once that error is made initially, it's unlikely that it would be picked up further down the line.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Now there's a Sheahan article up that basically just says "it is believed" before every statement. In other words, "I have no facts to back up any of this but this is what people are saying might be the case".

Actually, I would read that as Sheahan being given information by people who aren't prepared to be named.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

If I named two random teams, could you, off the top of your head and with certainty, tell me who won their last encounter in 2008?

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not paid a full-time wage to write about football and if I WAS, I would check my facts. I do more research for an average BF post than they did for that preview. It's not that hard. You have a couple of AFL related sites in your bookmarks and with a few clicks you can find out any of this stuff. It's just lazy and amateurish.

 

[the ranger]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Actually, I would read that as Sheahan being given information by people who aren't prepared to be named.

No. Then he would say "a Richmond official" or "a source within the club who didn't wish to be named". "It is believed" is just another way of saying something is a rumour.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: BF Media Watch: The Age, Realfooty and the standard of football journalism

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not paid a full-time wage to write about football and if I WAS, I would check my facts. I do more research for an average BF post than they did for that preview. It's not that hard. You have a couple of AFL related sites in your bookmarks and with a few clicks you can find out any of this stuff. It's just lazy and amateurish.

They did check it, they just screwed up when they typed it in. Surely you don't think they just guessed the result.

It was a data entry error. No amount of research can guard against a random human error at the point where the information goes onto the page.

You can be as painstaking in your research as your like. If someone stuffs up and types the scores the wrong way around, that error can still slip through. It's got nothing to do with the amount of research that's been done.

You can accuse them of not paying sufficient attention to detail, but you need to shelve this line about "a lack of research", because that has nothing to do with it.