The Sun Goals in "we really don't watch what we report on" Shocker

[narly101]

In today's Sun Goals on the Doncaster v West Ham game on Saturday, David Moore reports...

"Already carrying five or six injuries into the new campaign, poor Rovers have been shredded by three further serious blows within the first few days.
Crucially, top scorer Billy Sharp faces more months on the sidelines following a dreadful tackle by Brighton's Lewis Dunk."

Now I was there and there was absolutely nothing wrong with Dunk's challenge. Why the f*ck do they insist on sensationalising this crap?

 

[Triggaaar]

because it's a shit paper - ie, paper that's only fit for whiping your shit.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I have to ask - why do you insist on reading that crap.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Now I was there and there was absolutely nothing wrong with Dunk's challenge. Why the f*ck do they insist on sensationalising this crap?

Well. There WAS something wrong with the challenge. It was a foul. It warranted a yellow card. Just not a red, as Doncaster seemed to think.

But pretty much everyone on here thought it was a foul.

 

[Left Footer]

Don`t think anyone disputed it was a foul.
Live i thought it was a good tackle, watching on the football league show Dunk was nowhere near the ball.

However even O`Driscoll acknowledged it was only a yellow and had the boot been on the other foot he would have been disappointed if one of his players had received a red for that tackle.

 

[narly101]

but was it "dreadful"? i just think it could have been described slightly better. "Dreadful" sounds like he was out to get the man. "Poor tackle" would be better. Newspapers need to get these things right. Any West Ham supporters reading that would now have a misrepresentation of Lewis Dunk.

 

[Storer 68]

dreadful? In the context of today's game, yes. came in late from slightly behind Sharp and from the side. You just can't do that these days and get away with it. Sharp clearly had no idea that dunk was there and IMHO Dunk was fortunate to get away with a yellow. seeen plenty of reds given for lesser challenges.

but unfortunately Sharp is becoming injury prone

and as for the Gills last Tuesday................................

 

[countryman]

because it's a shit paper - ie, paper that's only fit for whiping your shit.

I'll have you know the sun is a rather good read (except for that bit).

 

[Storer 68]

In today's Sun Goals on the Doncaster v West Ham game on Saturday, David Moore reports...

"Already carrying five or six injuries into the new campaign, poor Rovers have been shredded by three further serious blows within the first few days.
Crucially, top scorer Billy Sharp faces more months on the sidelines following a dreadful tackle by Brighton's Lewis Dunk."

Now I was there and there was absolutely nothing wrong with Dunk's challenge. Why the f*ck do they insist on sensationalising this crap?

as Dunk was booked for the challenge, clearly there WAS something wrong with it. So hardly sensationalist but actually quite factual....

 

[Left Footer]

but was it "dreadful"? i just think it could have been described slightly better. "Dreadful" sounds like he was out to get the man. "Poor tackle" would be better. Newspapers need to get these things right. Any West Ham supporters reading that would now have a misrepresentation of Lewis Dunk.

probably not `dreadful`

 

[The Large One]

Like news stories which are often re-cycled press released, the football hacks get their information second- or third-hand from the likes of the Press Association. The PA are not noted for the accuracy of their reporting. They're the ones who give out the stats of 'shots on target' or 'percentage of possession' - usually operated by some poor Work Experience kiddie who struggles to get beyond the fingers of one hand when counting.

Therefore, if the PA reported it was a 'dreadful tackle', it's like it becomes gospel, irrespective of how good or bad it was.

Lazy journalism, I'm afraid.

 

[Storer 68]

Could we please stop all this conjecture about whether Mr Dunk's tackle is "poor" or "dreadful".

After all that's only of concern to the ladies amongst us.

oh BTW, putting the word "dreadful" into the report gets it printed. Calling it "poor" probably makes publication a bit more difficult. The Sun subs like IMPACT!

 

[Albumen]

It's the sun, what do you expect? Scum.

 

[Finally Falmer]

I think that as we majestically rise through the leagues, our players will attract more coverage & we just have to expect this sort of rubbish. Karl Henry got slated by the press after his tackle on Zamora, it was only in the days that followed that both Zamora & Mark Hughes both said it was a great tackle.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'll have you know the sun is a rather good read (except for that bit).

Except for the words

 

[Tooting Gull]

I think one of the things I am LEAST looking forward to this season are the thin-skinned responses to our much-increased media coverage and profile. We're going to be in the papers a lot more in the Championship, so for all those sad cases who get off on criticising journalists 24/7, all your Christmases are about to come at once.

There is a difference between FACTS and a subjective viewpoint. How very dare they have an opinion on what may have happened. And this in a passing reference/report more than a week later in a game not featuring Albion. Some of you people need to get a life, seriously. The actual Sun double-page report spread of the Donny game was at least as good a show as it got anywhere else.

For what it's worth as an Albion fan, I thought it was a very poor challenge, not malicious but with little or no hope of getting the ball. Certainly worth a yellow, and in second behind Naylor's as worst tackle of the game.

 

[Pantani]

Look the Sun do not send a reporter to each game, why would they bother? Our match report in today's Sun featured some rehashed CMS quotes from when he signed, and some stuff from Poyet and Cotterill from their post match interviews. Someone probably watched the highlights on the football league show too, just to make sure they did not miss anything too obvious. It is the same for all the national press, read the BBC's match report for League 1 games, then read the Sun, Mirror, Star etc they are basically the same with a few words changed round.

 

[Mr C Gull]

because it's a shit paper - ie, paper that's only fit for whiping your shit.

As in a Mr Whippy?

 

[seven stands]

Sunday Mirror yesterday gave Dicker and Bridcut 6 out of 10

 

[Tooting Gull]

Look the Sun do not send a reporter to each game, why would they bother? Our match report in today's Sun featured some rehashed CMS quotes from when he signed, and some stuff from Poyet and Cotterill from their post match interviews. Someone probably watched the highlights on the football league show too, just to make sure they did not miss anything too obvious. It is the same for all the national press, read the BBC's match report for League 1 games, then read the Sun, Mirror, Star etc they are basically the same with a few words changed round.

That is incorrect. The Sun have every Championship match covered, and quite a few League One and League Two as well. That's not to say that the freelance they commission isn't doing it for another paper too (you pretty much need to do more than one at today's rates), but they certainly don't go out to use PA. They would only use it if it was better than their guy provided (and if that happened, he'd be swiftly dropped for next week).

The Sun reporter would normally speak to a player(s) afterwards. Only if CMS refused to speak, or Gus banned him from speaking (both of which would be very poor, and I would suggest after a 1-0 win very unlikely) might they use quotes widely circulated locally but not nationally. Far more likely, CMS just said something similar to what we've already read locally.

If they're doing the job properly they would watch the FL show, especially to check any major incidents, before writing it up on the Sunday morning.

I find the criticism of the tabloids, especially Sun/Mirror/Star, amazing when it comes to the Championship and below. Bascially, the broadsheets have all but given up on anything below the Premier League. You get the odd good feature (normally driven by the journalist, rather than the sports desk eg Not Andy Naylor) and these days only one selected game report.