Thursday, November 01, 2007
Lazy reporting
Why do reporters try to speak for fans? Where do they get this wonderful insight, the supporter's view, from? Could it be they spend their time in the pubs around the ground necking beer and listening in to the variety of opinions and the arguements fuelled by the beer? Do they travel on the trains and buses fans do and eavesdrop on their discussions? Or do they just revert to tired, cliche flooded drivel as they enjoythe complimentary snacks provided by clubs far from the riff raff?
Louise Taylor writes for the Guardian. One of the better papers with an excellent on line edition, I turn first to the GU for comments and blogs. Is there any excuse for a porfessional journalist regurgitating the same old nonsense months after an event. Nonsense that was nonsense first time around and continues to be nonsense now. Take this example from her report about Arsenal's Carling Cup tie at Bramall Lane.
When the going got tough there were occasions when he wasn't anywhere near the ball. When he went sulking it affected the team. Sometimes when teams got stuck in he didn't want to know. (No arguments there from anybody I think.)
Arsenal fans will disagree because he was such a fantastic player, but the proof of the pudding is in results and their team has had two years without winning anything. (Actually I, and many other I know, do agree. Henry was lacking a yard and was an intimidating presence on the pitch.)
Louise Taylor writes for the Guardian. One of the better papers with an excellent on line edition, I turn first to the GU for comments and blogs. Is there any excuse for a porfessional journalist regurgitating the same old nonsense months after an event. Nonsense that was nonsense first time around and continues to be nonsense now. Take this example from her report about Arsenal's Carling Cup tie at Bramall Lane.
When Eduardo arrived at the Emirates from Dinamo Zagreb this summer he was hyped as the "new Thierry Henry". (Perhaps by Shoot magazine) Still too busy lamenting their hero's departure (excuse me? You're speaking for who exactly?), few Arsenal fans were convinced (Oh do behave. Arsene knows you know.) but the Brazilian-born Croatia striker undid Sheffield United last night with two goals even Henry (Is it not possible to pen an article where Arsenal score goals and not mention Henry? Or even not score and not mention Henry?) would have treasured.
Alan Hansen was a masterful central defender at the heart of Liverpool's great sides in the past. A man who knows a thing or two about the game. When people say been there, done that Hansen has more than most, an elegant player appreciated by Liverpool fans and neutrals alike.
This is what he says on the BBC shortly after the game at Anfield on Sunday.
Henry was one of the greatest players to ever grace the Premiership, but when you are talking about resilience he didn't always have it.
When the going got tough there were occasions when he wasn't anywhere near the ball. When he went sulking it affected the team. Sometimes when teams got stuck in he didn't want to know. (No arguments there from anybody I think.)
Arsenal fans will disagree because he was such a fantastic player, but the proof of the pudding is in results and their team has had two years without winning anything. (Actually I, and many other I know, do agree. Henry was lacking a yard and was an intimidating presence on the pitch.)
For us, not the opponents.
Of course if we were struggling then some fans out there would be wondering why he was allowed to leave but I like to think they would be in the minority. As Hansen accurately points out 'Wenger is the master of knowing when a player is not necessarily past his best, but past his best for Arsenal, and he has done it again with Henry,' and having been with Arsene on his journey to glory since 1996 many fans also appreciate this. Leaving the Arsenal is not good for one's career.
We have moved on. It's a shame some in the media haven't appreciated that and moved on with us.
# posted by Me @ 8:15 AM 
