Source: FOOTYMAD
BBC highlights the media's public and blatant disgregard for fans.
It's not often one feels sorry for the younger football fan. We live in an age where matches from every major league are shown on various satellite and cable channels. So many more can be easily accessed online. And then there is YouTube, where the highs, lows and comedy from all over the world of football are just a click away. I’ve spent rather longer than I’d care to admit enjoying goals and games from yesteryear. But it is here where those younger fans may be in for a shock, and not just at the hairdos, hacking and dubious delights of huge crowds packed onto terracing. No, the surprise will come when they watch a game from the 1980s and the question will be: “Why are the highlights so long?” In bygone days of yore, viewers were treated to two terrestrial highlight programmes, and the main game on Sportscene or Scotsport would often be over twenty minutes of action, giving you a real feel for the game and ensuring all the major incidents were covered. Analysis wasn’t as obsessed with statistics and based on loud music and graphics, but was often, especially when the likes of Bob Crampsey were involved, more than a match for modern efforts. In 2010, we have a multitude of live games. Many more hundreds of hours dedicated to our native league than before. Much more written and spoken about Scottish football, and so many online sites dedicated to the sport. And yet we have one highlight package on ‘council telly’ and that comprises five or six minute chunks from all games. The Monday night Sportscene merely repeats the BBC online content, with minimal contributions from Richard Gordon and others. So the format and the limitations of coverage tend to lead to some incidents being excluded. Editorial preferences will, of course, be obvious. But it also leads to some interesting examples of editorial slant. For instance, the Kilmarnock v Celtic match the other week found no room for this sickening tackle. Those who watched it live were the only ones to see it. There was, likewise, no real mention in the tabloid press. Some won’t even know about it until now. It is Anthony Stokes, for the second time this season, allowing his enthusiasm to be expressed with a thuggish flourish. The older football fan, sat with pen in hand ready to mark their X and play 'Spot the Ball', would struggle with that one. Last week, the highlights from Pittodrie picked up on the lead given by Andy Walker in the live coverage, and chose to focus on Alan McGregor’s fresh-air kick. There was no mention (or footage on the highlights package) of the stamp on Lee McCulloch, just as, on Sky, Walker and Crocker had chosen to brush it aside. But at least we were shown that editors were interested in highlighting acts not relevant to the main action (goals, red cards, etc). You can view it here: http://i54.tinypic.com/xf82ft.gif Fast forward to the present, and after a game at Tynecastle where Rangers had more possession, twice as many shots, twice as many corners, and generally bossed the game we move to watch the highlights to be met with Liam McLeod telling the highlight viewer - who has within the five minutes of edit watched shot after shot from the team in blue - that Rangers were “on the ropes for much of this one.” Bear in mind here that the commentary is not merely extracted from a live radio broadcast – it is done after the game. McLeod’s comments are absolutely unbelievable. What is perhaps easier to believe is the omission of any footage of the worst tackle of the game, wherein Black injured Jelavic, causing the Ranger to leave the field injured shortly thereafter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXDf9XF_ddk When a match has so much excitement and so many chances to show, it is perhaps understandable that those entrusted with editing footage will miss out certain incidents. But why, when we have so much more coverage of the game, are we reduced to such pitiful and limited highlights? Those in the written press, although often working to deadline, do at least have the opportunity to cover games more thoroughly, often expanding on their initial copy with next day round-ups, and complementary online content and blogs. Two of the biggest newspapers in Scotland did not even mention the challenge on Jelavic. It wasn’t deemed worthy of even a sentence in a near 900 word match report. We are faced with the head-scratching conclusion that, in a time where the amount of hours, print and webspace devoted to fooball is at an all-time high, and thus the search for content and controversy able to sustain interest is paramount, we the viewer and reader are finding it harder to discover what actually happens during certain games. It would appear that the actions of some players, and certain teams, seem to those in charge of editing and presenting views of the game to be more worthy of comment and added analysis than others. There is here something very wrong indeed, and it is something we at FF will be keeping a close eye on this season.
