Oliver Holt and his insistent anti Liverpool Campaign

[3827]

Even if the same people are contributing to both simultanously?

So the internet is a continuous stream of consciousness, whilst the paper version is the edited, regulated version of the same report or article?

IMHO i think having the same person report for both the internet and paper leads to a rush to get it online and then an unwillingness to correct it in the paper later

[Kenneth]

Before the Internet and Twitter, reporters had time to write a report and check facts. Now these same reporters are expected to file something on line within minutes of the game/event happening. This rush leads to innacuracies and single sourced stories. The Mirror website reporting the Oldham player being racially abused story is a case in point.

The problem comes that in the old days if a particular newspaper continued making errors then readers could move to another one and circulation would fall, and advertisiers would take there business elsewhere.

Today if a newspaper website reports something that people dont agree with then it receives hundreds of hits from people posting in the comments section. The problem is that this only boosts that particular newspapers website hit count which they can then use to sell advertising.

It no longer matters if what they report is fair and accurate. They can say almost anything and see their hit count go up. Its a win win for them.

Interesting post

[dom9]

IMHO i think having the same person report for both the internet and paper leads to a rush to get it online and then an unwillingness to correct it in the paper later

Currently, that would certainly appear to be true.

[3827]

I first considered this when i read a Paul Hayward article online about Luis Suarez and it struck me that he was writting to get a response and when i looked at the number of comments it was over 600 and thats not including the lurkers!

[Jack D Rips]

Didnt Barclay insinuate in one of his tweets, that editors were telling the journos how to report on Suarez?

[ashey]

Stan Collymore had a set to with a few "journalists" on Twitter the other day. He asked if certain people got jobs in Sports Media due to nepotism. The jist of it was, they were more qualified to be in Sports Media as a qualified journalist who used their (sporting) family links to get a job, than Collymore was 'cause he was just an ex player.

Collymore can come out with some right BS (as we ALL can), but I'd rather listen / read an ex-pro's opinions views on football than a qualified journalist who's never played at any level!

[dom9]

It would explain a lot. Reporting to get a reaction, not to present the facts.

With football, there is always a set of fans that will get upset with a well placed controversial comment. It could be us, it could be anybody else. It perpetuates the myth that the media are all against us too etc etc.

[3827]

Didnt Barclay insinuate in one of his tweets, that editors were telling the journos how to report on Suarez?

It could be read that way. It certainly appears that a line was taken and apart from an Independent journalist repeating what was written in a Irish paper no one from the English media has been willing to challenge it from what i have seen.

I do wonder why the 'LFC' journalists have been unwilling to report the other side of the Suarez story. You would have thought basic journalistic standards would lead them to want to report both sides of a story.

[dom9]

Stan Collymore had a set to with a few "journalists" on Twitter the other day. He asked if certain people got jobs in Sports Media due to nepotism. The jist of it was, they were more qualified to be in Sports Media as a qualified journalist who used their (sporting) family links to get a job, than Collymore was 'cause he was just an ex player.

Collymore can come out with some right BS (as we ALL can), but I'd rather listen / read an ex-pro's opinions views on football than a qualified journalist who's never played at any level!

The majority of ex pros are thick as pig **** and struggle to communicate in their own language. Look at the likes of Merson, for example.

[Chrono]

Collymore can come out with some right BS (as we ALL can), but I'd rather listen / read an ex-pro's opinions views on football than a qualified journalist who's never played at any level!

I wouldn't actually. Footballers are generally too thick or ineloquent to give a real detailed analysis or opinion on even football, they are also very much a part of the cliche football language club. There are exceptions but I don't think ex-footballers on the whole have any decent insight at all.

[BigChief]

At the end of the day its all about money. And for that reason I hunt around for opinions on the internet that are free, even if I don't agree with them. I've almost literally stopped reading 'journalist articles' about football unless I'm looking for stats.

[Jas]

I wouldn't actually. Footballers are generally too thick or ineloquent to give a real detailed analysis or opinion on even football, they are also very much a part of the cliche football language club. There are exceptions but I don't think ex-footballers on the whole have any decent insight at all.

Maybe, maybe not, in my opinion the majority probably would but would not be eloquent enough to put that insight into words of more than 2 syllables!

[Nicey]

Didnt Barclay insinuate in one of his tweets, that editors were telling the journos how to report on Suarez?

He did, I suggested this and some people scoffed. I am telling you this went very high up and its got to do with the Olympics and brand England

[3827]

He did, I suggested this and some people scoffed. I am telling you this went very high up and its got to do with the Olympics and brand England

I think it has more to do with Euro 2012. If sports editors want their journos to have access to England then the have to ask the FA. Not suggesting a conspiracy of the FA telling the papers not to critacise them but more an unspoken acknowledgment that if they did then they may lose access during the Euros.

It will be interesting if England get knocked out early and the press decides to go after the FA. I would not be at all surprised to see some rewriting of the Saurez story post Euro 2012

[Nicey]

I think it has more to do with Euro 2012. If sports editors want their journos to have access to England then the have to ask the FA. Not suggesting a conspiracy of the FA telling the papers not to critacise them but more an unspoken acknowledgment that if they did then they may lose access during the Euros.

It will be interesting if England get knocked out early and the press decides to go after the FA. I would not be at all surprised to see some rewriting of the Saurez story post Euro 2012

Lets hope so, its terribly unfair.