relative media coverage

[mrb85]

The concentration of the media on just a handful of clubs is getting out of hand. We're all aware of it of course, but the lack of coverage of matches and incidents for any club outside the chosen 4 (the RS, Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal) is becoming more and more evident.

Take two recent events and the relative interest in them shown by Sky and the Press.

Firstly, compare the week long media 'was it or wasn't it' debate on the Suarez penalty award against Villa, with the passing references only (even in the RS Echo) to the refusal to give the spot kick for the foul on Coleman last night. Equally key and controversial decisions, but with massive differences in the attention given to them by all parts of the media.

Secondly, take also the saturation Sky TV coverage of the latest Utd result (a game involving the 7th placed and 20th placed PL sides) with the standard coverage of the Everton-Spurs game, a game of critical importance to the outlook for the two sides. Sky gave extended coverage, every hour, to the Utd game, asking PL managers for their thoughts. FFS, we've had to suffer this Utd-Moyes obsession for 6 months now, surely it's time to give us a break. Yes, Sky has a shareholding interest in Utd and yes Utd are the best supported club in the country, but even so, their support is only a small fraction of the total of football followers in the UK. Wouldn't it have been much more interesting, and novel, to have had in-depth items analysing, for instance, how Spurs managed to win a game with only two shots in 90 minutes.

I hoped BT Sport would give a more equitable, wider coverage, but unfortunately they are just as bad -- in fact worse, with their obsession on the RS!

Wouldn't it be great if Sky devoted a full day on each of the 92 clubs in the PL and FL, using proper research and serious reporting on each club, rather than repeating preconceptions etc, covering the past and present of each in hourly items? What an opportunity that would be for every club to present themselves and educate sports fans everywhere. And how much more interesting and informative that would be for viewers than hearing every hour from various pundits that "Moyes will get it right" "United will give Moyes time" etc etc etc.....

 

[bol-uk]

The concentration of the media on just a handful of clubs is getting out of hand. We're all aware of it of course, but the lack of coverage of matches and incidents for any club outside the chosen 4 (the RS, Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal) is becoming more and more evident.

Take two recent events and the relative interest in them shown by Sky and the Press.

Firstly, compare the week long media 'was it or wasn't it' debate on the Suarez penalty award against Villa, with the passing references only (even in the RS Echo) to the refusal to give the spot kick for the foul on Coleman last night. Equally key and controversial decisions, but with massive differences in the attention given to them by all parts of the media.

Secondly, take also the saturation Sky TV coverage of the latest Utd result (a game involving the 7th placed and 20th placed PL sides) with the standard coverage of the Everton-Spurs game, a game of critical importance to the outlook for the two sides. Sky gave extended coverage, every hour, to the Utd game, asking PL managers for their thoughts. FFS, we've had to suffer this Utd-Moyes obsession for 6 months now, surely it's time to give us a break. Yes, Sky has a shareholding interest in Utd and yes Utd are the best supported club in the country, but even so, their support is only a small fraction of the total of football followers in the UK. Wouldn't it have been much more interesting, and novel, to have had in-depth items analysing, for instance, how Spurs managed to win a game with only two shots in 90 minutes.

I hoped BT Sport would give a more equitable, wider coverage, but unfortunately they are just as bad -- in fact worse, with their obsession on the RS!

Wouldn't it be great if Sky devoted a full day on each of the 92 clubs in the PL and FL, using proper research and serious reporting on each club, rather than repeating preconceptions etc, covering the past and present of each in hourly items? What an opportunity that would be for every club to present themselves and educate sports fans everywhere. And how much more interesting and informative that would be for viewers than hearing every hour from various pundits that "Moyes will get it right" "United will give Moyes time" etc etc etc.....

I am with you entirely and was thinking about it today

The only way it will change will be if all the non-sky luvvy teams fans stop subscribing to sky sports and BT sports.

The ****e are on tv 7 weeks in a row. What about Newcastle, us, Stoke etc etc? Why should we pay the same to watch our teams once every 6 weeks as the current glory sides who are on all the time?

Most on here will tell you that it is not important or that we just sound bitter but the fact is, it is bad for our club. The "big 5" get far more money from TV which perpetuates their place as the richer teams and therefore buy better players, get into europe etc.

We just sit here and lap it up.

The sh1te are 4th and not in Europe yet are on everything on BT and sky aswell as adverts and all the pundits.

It's as if they are world champions.

We need to vote with out feet imo.

 

[bluestevon]

The concentration of the media on just a handful of clubs is getting out of hand. We're all aware of it of course, but the lack of coverage of matches and incidents for any club outside the chosen 4 (the RS, Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal) is becoming more and more evident.

Take two recent events and the relative interest in them shown by Sky and the Press.

Firstly, compare the week long media 'was it or wasn't it' debate on the Suarez penalty award against Villa, with the passing references only (even in the RS Echo) to the refusal to give the spot kick for the foul on Coleman last night. Equally key and controversial decisions, but with massive differences in the attention given to them by all parts of the media.

Secondly, take also the saturation Sky TV coverage of the latest Utd result (a game involving the 7th placed and 20th placed PL sides) with the standard coverage of the Everton-Spurs game, a game of critical importance to the outlook for the two sides. Sky gave extended coverage, every hour, to the Utd game, asking PL managers for their thoughts. FFS, we've had to suffer this Utd-Moyes obsession for 6 months now, surely it's time to give us a break. Yes, Sky has a shareholding interest in Utd and yes Utd are the best supported club in the country, but even so, their support is only a small fraction of the total of football followers in the UK. Wouldn't it have been much more interesting, and novel, to have had in-depth items analysing, for instance, how Spurs managed to win a game with only two shots in 90 minutes.

I hoped BT Sport would give a more equitable, wider coverage, but unfortunately they are just as bad -- in fact worse, with their obsession on the RS!

Wouldn't it be great if Sky devoted a full day on each of the 92 clubs in the PL and FL, using proper research and serious reporting on each club, rather than repeating preconceptions etc, covering the past and present of each in hourly items? What an opportunity that would be for every club to present themselves and educate sports fans everywhere. And how much more interesting and informative that would be for viewers than hearing every hour from various pundits that "Moyes will get it right" "United will give Moyes time" etc etc etc.....

Like it or loathe it mate, sky are a media company and as such they go were the money is, more people will tune in to see a story about utd or the rs than they will us or swansea or newcastle etc.

For example today on bbc norteest the hsd a 5 min section in the sport analysing the utd and rs results, didnt mention our game Or man cities, then straight to showing two nw championship teams results.

Given a choice between any of the teams in the league they will always prio utd and the rs, even chelsea arse spurs and city will be pushed aside for those due to amount of non local supporters they have, factor into it the rs punditry dominance and the likelihood the people deciding which stories to run are more likley sopporters of those global brand teams like

 

[Steve Wigan]

Like it or loathe it mate, sky are a media company and as such they go were the money is, more people will tune in to see a story about utd or the rs than they will us or swansea or newcastle etc.

For example today on bbc norteest the hsd a 5 min section in the sport analysing the utd and rs results, didnt mention our game Or man cities, then straight to showing two nw championship teams results.

Given a choice between any of the teams in the league they will always prio utd and the rs, even chelsea arse spurs and city will be pushed aside for those due to amount of non local supporters they have, factor into it the rs punditry dominance and the likelihood the people deciding which stories to run are more likley sopporters of those global brand teams like

Yes Sky are a media company, and I agree with you in what you say. Its also significant that Sky give consistently less coverage to games that are on BT Sport, both in pre match analysis and in post match comments. They do not seem to have a deal(deliberately?) to show highlights of BT games. Personally I will not subscibe to BT because their after sales service and reputation for duff equipment is very bad, in my experience and that of many others. In suspect that BT will struggle for renewed subsciptions next year, and will find no alternative but to do a deal with Sky which isn't exhorbitant like the current one, or as has been rumoured, get into bed with Al Jezirah Sports.

 

[fozzy]

i gets on my nerves just as much as anyone but.

the big 5 are wher the viewing figures are. if you owned sky or bt who would you show? a team where your ads sell for lets say £5k for 30 secs or a team where your adds could sell for £50k for 30 secs?

its not a media blackout its all about viewing figures.

i also agree about all the fans of the other team should not subscribe but i think that wouldnt change anything as the millions will still want to watch the big 5.

and all the other clubs hands are tied in fighting for more air time as this would push the tv companies and bigger clubs in looking at a europe super league which would leave every other club floundering big style.

 

[Oviedo37]

Great post, agreed with everything.

 

[deipnosophist]

When the people who now run the big media outlets were lads, Liverpool was the BIG team and probably 'captured' their support (not surprisingly). So the big bosses (most not all) are red supporters...those wsho aren't were/are United supporters.

In 10 years time, as that generation retires, you will see a lot more of a Chelsea biased media.

"Capture the child's support and you capture the man"

 

[fozzy]

When the people who now run the big media outlets were lads, Liverpool was the BIG team and probably 'captured' their support (not surprisingly). So the big bosses (most not all) are red supporters...those wsho aren't were/are United supporters.

In 10 years time, as that generation retires, you will see a lot more of a Chelsea biased media.

"Capture the child's support and you capture the man"

i'm sorry but i dont agree.

so lets say a stoke fan gets promoted at sky and gets to choose the live games for next season and shows stoke more than any other team.

do you think his viewing figures will go up?

sky/bt are not a charity they have to make money and they can only do that by getting viewers to watch their programmes and as much as it hurts to say utd/liverpool/arsenal/chelsea and now man city pull those viewers in in their millions.

its like saying itv need to put corrie on at 1pm midweek as loose woman doesnt get fair viewing time.

 

[D410]

Sick of seeing ex liverpool players all over tv football coverage.

Out of hand

 

[Garrick]

This is not an issue uniquely with Sky. I think you'd find it happens just about everywhere.

In America, we have a Wikipedia page about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_Bias

For example, in baseball even when they aren't doing well, the Yankees and Red Sox will get proportionately more coverage than the other 28 clubs in the Majors.

 

[D410]

This is not an issue uniquely with Sky. I think you'd find it happens just about everywhere.

In America, we have a Wikipedia page about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_Bias

For example, in baseball even when they aren't doing well, the Yankees and Red Sox will get proportionately more coverage than the other 28 clubs in the Majors.

When I lived on the west coast it was ok except when Joe Buck came to town with Fox, felt like Fox were doing an east coast thing,

 

[Khalekan]

sky/bt are not a charity they have to make money and they can only do that by getting viewers to watch their programmes and as much as it hurts to say utd/liverpool/arsenal/chelsea and now man city pull those viewers in in their millions.

Can't say I agree with all of that.

At the time Sky and the EPL re-defined football in this country neither Chelsea nor Citeh would have been an attractive proposition for live broadcasts or endless discussion.

Both teams were yo-yoing between divisions back then.

And no one much cared about watching Arsenal or talking about them in those boring George Graham days.

The simple fact is when the Sky gravy train pulled out the station EFC was left standing on the platform.

We were still one of the elite clubs, the "Big Five" as it was then called, in the early 90s and if we had been better managed commercially as well as on the pitch, we would be up there in the "Sky 5" or whatever you want to call it these says.

Everton would, indeed should, have grown with Sky and the PL the way Arsenal, United and the ****e did back then.

As Newcastle and even Leeds almost did.

Chelsea became successful even before Roman took over and they were already becoming an elite club at the turn of the century....ergo they became attractive to Sky and eventually a Russian oligarch.

Citeh's rise has been meteoric and they have elbowed their way into Sky's affections.

The point I am making is that Sky don't decide which are to be the elite clubs....they react to a club's success on the pitch and the snowball starts rolling from there.

Everton Football Club have no one to blame but ourselves for the way the club has fallen from grace in the last twenty five years.

And when success does eventually return to Goodison we will be courted by Sky the way the rest of them are.

As ever....all IMO.

 

[fozzy]

Can't say I agree with all of that.

At the time Sky and the EPL re-defined football in this country neither Chelsea nor Citeh would have been an attractive proposition for live broadcasts or endless discussion.

Both teams were yo-yoing between divisions back then.

And no one much cared about watching Arsenal or talking about them in those boring George Graham days.

The simple fact is when the Sky gravy train pulled out the station EFC was left standing on the platform.

We were still one of the elite clubs, the "Big Five" as it was then called, in the early 90s and if we had been better managed commercially as well as on the pitch, we would be up there in the "Sky 5" or whatever you want to call it these says.

Everton would, indeed should, have grown with Sky and the PL the way Arsenal, United and the ****e did back then.

As Newcastle and even Leeds almost did.

Chelsea became successful even before Roman took over and they were already becoming an elite club at the turn of the century....ergo they became attractive to Sky and eventually a Russian oligarch.

Citeh's rise has been meteoric and they have elbowed their way into Sky's affections.

The point I am making is that Sky don't decide which are to be the elite clubs....they react to a club's success on the pitch and the snowball starts rolling from there.

Everton Football Club have no one to blame but ourselves for the way the club has fallen from grace in the last twenty five years.

And when success does eventually return to Goodison we will be courted by Sky the way the rest of them are.

As ever....all IMO.

i never said sky decide in fact the part you quote me on states that but you say you dont agree?

utd/liverpool/ect.. have been the most successful teams and arsenal playing the best footy by amile (henry and berkamp anyone) and then chelsea and city turn up buying the best players money can buy. which brings them trophys.

millions want to watch that not stoke/hull or barnsley.

its still viewing figures.

IF lets say rooney joined us next season do you think we would be shown more?

damn right we would! as we would have "something" that sells.

 

[deipnosophist]

i'm sorry but i dont agree.

so lets say a stoke fan gets promoted at sky and gets to choose the live games for next season and shows stoke more than any other team.

do you think his viewing figures will go up?

sky/bt are not a charity they have to make money and they can only do that by getting viewers to watch their programmes and as much as it hurts to say utd/liverpool/arsenal/chelsea and now man city pull those viewers in in their millions.

its like saying itv need to put corrie on at 1pm midweek as loose woman doesnt get fair viewing time.

be serious Fozzy

 

[ToffeeDan]

The point made at the OP was - we have to bear with the United media fest day in day out. It's bad enough but here's the rub - it's 1230 and the Spurs-Everton game kicked up an hour later and what are they doing? They are ALREADY at Old Trafford - in Fergie's old seat with fossil Phelan - we then get treated to loads of United, a bit of Fulham, a bit less on Spurs and oh, finally, a short bit on Everton. Now bugger this nonsense - there are at least 10 teams in the PL who almost always get their quota of TV games against big opposition. It's not as if United (and, don't we all know it The RS) aren't on next week and the week after - so just how many United fans are turning up at 12.30 for their game. Not many for sure. So we, Spurs fans and every neutral is "treated" to another United inquisition.

We're also cannon fodder for Sky (BSB, ITV etc) - proven by the lack of coverage in our home games - particularly those where we are favoured to win. Look at the make-up of our games and who we play.

Everton home TV live games in the LEAGUE only since 1986
1985-6 Chelsea
1986-7 Liverpool, Man U (despite Everton being the best team in the land)
1987-8 (defending champions) Liverpool, Forest
1988-9 Liverpool, Man U

now we're in decline we're only worth one visit a season
1989-90 Man City

1990-91 Man City, Spurs
1991-92 Leeds, Forest

spotting a trend yet?

1992-3 Liverpool, Sheff U
1993-4 Sheff W
1994-5 Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle
1995-6 Blackburn, Liverpool, Newcastle, West Ham
1996-7 Blackburn, Coventry
1997-8 Chelsea, Coventry, Southampton
1998-9 Newcastle
1999-0 Leicester, Liverpool, Man U, Newcastle
2000-1 Villa, Liverpool

16 years just 34 games.. just 2 home games a season and mostly against good sides - and no doubt a load of losable away ones.

Between 2004-5 and 2009-10 (114 league games) - now we're half-decent - we feature in FORTY ONE home games but 21 of these are against Liverpool (6), Arsenal (5), Chelsea (5) and United (5)..