I have become increasingly frustrated by the coverage of the England team in the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. Not the match coverage - that seems accurate and fair: England are poor, limited, shapeless and seemingly clueless about how to change.
What has frustrated me is the pious finger-pointing within the press that seems determined to label the team as alcoholic, arrogant thugs who've let their country and the sport down.
There are key incidents that have been cited as evidence:
- The squad's attendance at a Queenstown bar holding a 'dwarf racing' evening
- Mike Tindall with his arm around a 'mystery woman' shortly after marrying the Queen's granddaughter.
- Chris Ashton, James Haskell and Dylan Hartley being offensive to a hotel worker
- Manu Tuilagi jumping from a ferry into the sea at Auckland
You can make up your own mind about how you feel about those incidents when you read about them. Some will find them deeply offensive, some will find them not worth mentioning and some will see somewhere in between.
My point is more to do with the lack of honesty in how the media has covered these incidents.
Take the Guardian's rugby correspondent, Robert Kitson. He wrote a very derogatory piece about the players following the night out in the bar.
Fair enough - he's entitled to his opinion. But then we get to the paragraph about this not happening with New Zealand or Australia - and he specifically cites The All Blacks coach Graham Henry as the kind of manager who would not tolerate this behaviour.
But then what was a this story tucked away a couple of weeks later? New Zealand stars caught drinking heavily and smoking in public.
Right. So the 'Henry The Disciplinarian' that Kitson described will take action for sure? No. Cory Jane played a couple of days later in his usual starting berth.
Then we get repeated articles about Warren Gatland and how his success is down to the tight ship he is running and the fact there are alcohol bans in place.
This is the same Warren Gatland desperate to recall Gavin Henson and willing to recall Andy Powell after their numerous previous incidents?
I highlight these not to demand action against these players but rather to highlight the media hypocrisy. They know what they are printing is not true. Gatland has been so embarrassed he has been forced to make a statement denying the drinking ban and admitting that his players have been socialising in bars until 1.30am.
Even David Campese - the self-confessed king of all England haters - has come out to defend England against the media in a podcast for The Times (no link - that's a paywall for you). So you know you're doing something wrong even Campo won't stick the boot in.
I have friends in New Zealand who have reported to me that they had a great night in Queenstown drinking with the players of another Six Nations teams. The boys from that team got a bit squiffy and decided to go diving off the pier into the lake. I don't remember seeing that one reported although there were journalists on that night out as well.
So in light of what has been happening within the media this year, it seems relatively unimportant. But for me this kind of stuff is the thin end of the wedge.
The danger with inaccurate reporting is that it becomes cultural knowledge - assumed behaviour because as we all know, 'there is no smoke without fire'. And as we have seen with Theresa May's cat, even politicans fall for that sometimes. And lo and behold here's Fran Cotton slating Mike Tindall for being 'absolutely hammered' - when there appears to be little evidence that was the case.
I met Richard Peppiat recently and he believes that journalists draw a clear distinction between lying and not telling the truth. So not giving the complete picture about rugby players' behaviour isn't lying but we haven't been told the truth and that annoys me.
If the media really is offended by this behaviour then fair enough report it. But report it evenly or not at all.
My thoughts entirely, Malcolm. Whilst I expected the usual de-railing attempts by the tabloids, the reporting by the usually excellent Telegraph and Guardian sports supplements have been nothing short of disgraceful.
ReplyDeleteRobert Kitson's blog was embarrassingly poor, and the first article that has actually made me angry, it was so bad. As he notes himself in the forth paragraph: "For what it's worth, those players involved apparently did nothing more scandalous than visit a bar, pose for a few pictures and return unaccompanied to their lakeside hotel."... before going on to rip in to them for actions, he himself admits they didn't actually partake in.
Cheers Cameron.
ReplyDeleteLike I say, if they genuinely disagree with this kind of behaviour then by all means highlight it. But don't use other teams as a moral yardstick when they're doing the same.
I've seen Guscott and Ackford laying the boot in where Campese and Josh Kronfeld refused to because they knew they would be hypocrites.
I think it's fair to expect the host country media to lay the boot in a little, it's become part of a world cup to throw some good psychological banter about. Much the same as the England alternative All Black Kit. However, I couldn't agree more that our home media should a) tell the truth (and all of it at that) b)stay behind the team and help to promote the positives of sport. This isn't just for Rugby, for the national side or just during the world cup, this should be a constant. Staying on point with you, truthful reporting is essential and Editors should be insisting upon it. Sadly, though, this doesn't fit in the celebrity dirt culture that our media have created. You'd hope though that at least some of the broad sheets would retain a balance. All reporters (whether they should or not) will have a bias but that shouldn't allow lies or half truths to be published. When it comes to sport, the damage can be huge and beyond repair. The papers happily give a slating to players bringing sport into disrepute or acting with questionable moral judgement - glass houses and black pots and kettles and all that!
ReplyDeleteThere is an unfathomable obsession in the UK media with trying to undermine anyone representing England. I simply don't comprehend it. Are these muck-raking journalists jealous? Did they never get picked for sports teams at school? In the case of people like Paul Ackford, is it because the professional players of today get paid and have more glamorous lifestyles?
ReplyDeleteEditors and proprietors clearly believe that this sort of trash is what sells newspapers and, if you judge by the public's insatiable demand for celebrity gossip, it's hard to argue with that view. But look at the online comments section of any of these hypocritical, pious and - more importantly - inaccurate columns and you'll see close to 100% expressing their disgust for the author and their pathetic views. A far more accurate measure, in my opinion, than newspaper sales.
@Rob: I do have strong opinions about the 'celebrity dirt culture' and the dumbing down of our media. Building up and then attacking our national teams are a huge part of that. I think the thing that struck me about the England coverage here was that it was dishonest. To portray all other countries as whiter than whiter was not truthful.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous: I'm not sure how much jealousy has to do with it or the pressure to come up with something to say - to fill the dead air or the blank pages. In Paul Ackford's case though he does seem to have had an anti-Johnson agenda from the beginning.
ReplyDelete