|
|
Post by knowingeye on Jan 17, 2008 8:33:03 GMT
The BBC 5live coverage of the match last night just highlighted how poor the media relationship appears to be with Stoke City. Little mention was actually made of the team, the tactics, passages of play and all the time time they talk about the return of Kev the Clueless.
|
|
|
|
Post by banburypotter on Jan 17, 2008 8:35:55 GMT
wankers  |
|
|
|
Post by y_oh_y_delilah on Jan 17, 2008 8:44:12 GMT
knowingeye, I had the 'pleasure' of being exposed to this totally one-sided perspective in Delilah's, watching the beebs pre-edited coverage. Disgraceful coverage! You can appreciate the Newcastle are the 'news' item of the moment, but to train the cameras on Keegan and Ashley for long periods, totally ignoring the match was nothing short of pathetic not helped by Jonathon Pearce's continual verbal adoration of the 'messiah' himself.!  |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 17, 2008 8:49:17 GMT
its up to SCFC to make ourselves newsworthy
steps have been made but its a long road.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Jon on Jan 17, 2008 8:52:11 GMT
Apologies if this has been posted before, but I believe it was the pre-edited BBC coverage that was shown in Delilah's, with Jonathan Pearce "commentating".
If so the the beeb should hang their heads in shame at the most biased, sycophantic, patronising and unprofessional coverage of any football match I've seen in nearly 40 years of watching nogger.
For 40 minutes before the game the only none-Newcastle footage was an accidental shot of Rudgie throwing his chewing-gum onto the floor, otherwise it was NUFC players, fans, offcials etc.
During the game Jonathan f***ing Pearce was appealing for Toon free-kicks louder than the home fans, and if the final edit contained more than 10 minutes of the game then I would be surprised, as most of the footage was focussed on bloody Keegan in the directors' box. They even zoomed in on him immediately after LL's goal!
BBC - truly like my arse, and BTW if Newcastle fans think that this result marks a renaissance then they are deluded!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Jan 17, 2008 9:16:16 GMT
Spot on MrJon, karma coming atcha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Jon on Jan 17, 2008 9:27:19 GMT
Thanks Kenilworth. I'm still seething now thinking about that coverage. Pearce's ability to "commentate" with his tongue up Keegan's crack surely took ventriloquism to a new level  |
|
|
|
Post by KevinWhimper on Jan 17, 2008 9:50:22 GMT
hhahahaha oh my god ive just spat soup all over the laptop mrjon fuck me that was genius have some karma son  |
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 17, 2008 11:26:59 GMT
I emailed a complaint on the BBC radio site last night about the commentary and the comments made throughout by Steve Stone. Tosser!
|
|
izod
Academy Starlet
Posts: 131
|
Post by izod on Jan 17, 2008 13:02:58 GMT
sportsman, I hope that your complaint included the fact that Steve Stone called Lawrence "Whitehead" for the first 20 minutes of the match. Obviously thinking he was Dean Whitehead (who still plays for Sunderland)  Unbelieveable ignorance, just added to by the terrible biased commentary going on for the whole match |
|
|
|
Post by fuggers on Jan 17, 2008 13:05:39 GMT
Stop moaning.
If it was the other way around you wouldn't be up in arms about it would you?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc01 on Jan 17, 2008 13:07:39 GMT
After Emre was sent off Pearce shouted "where is the consistency" - ref Eustace's 50 - 50 suggesting Eustace should have been sent off. Complete Bollox - They were totally different challenges. I've always rated Uriah Rennie... but i agree with this: Ric was incensed that advantage hadn't been played. Rennie should have let him play on, then sent off Emre when the advantage was over. I don't think it would have changed the outcome though. We weren't prepared to take the fight to ten men, and got what we deserved. |
|
|
|
Post by lommack on Jan 17, 2008 13:15:47 GMT
Sportsman
Steve Stone and the whole of the Radio 5 coverage were an absolute disgrace.
Sone said at the begining of the game "I dont know who is playing for them I have been to excited to take any notes" He then went on to call Lawrence Whitehead for the majority of the first half. I finally ripped the radio off the shelf and stamped on it with the gem "At the end of the day this is only Stoke City"
Shameful, lazy , pig ignorant journalism
|
|
|
|
Post by fuggers on Jan 17, 2008 13:18:33 GMT
"Shameful, lazy , pig ignorant journalism"
Because it was about Stoke. Should this ever happen against Stoke's opposition, i expect to see you on here going mad about it.
It's just the way things are, get over it. Newcastle were bound to get more coverage than us, they are after all a much bigger and better known team than we are.
|
|
izod
Academy Starlet
Posts: 131
|
Post by izod on Jan 17, 2008 13:20:01 GMT
Agree totally lommack, the "Whitehead" thing was unreal.
Fuggers, if it doesn't bother you then fair enough, but don't come on here having a go at those of us who do think it matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuggers on Jan 17, 2008 13:21:36 GMT
My point is you only think it matters when it relates to Stoke.
Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 17, 2008 13:29:37 GMT
You have to accept the Keegan thing is a big story. You also have to accept that he is a manager who hasn’t won any trophies going back to a club who haven’t won a major trophy for longer than us. For a national radio station to allow themselves to whipped up in to a state of hysteria which overshadowed the entire game and ultimately ridiculed our participation in it, is a total and utter fucking disgrace. They have a local radio station to peddle this sort of parochial horse shit.
|
|
izod
Academy Starlet
Posts: 131
|
Post by izod on Jan 17, 2008 13:30:34 GMT
Who said anything about only being bothered about this kind of stuff when it involves Stoke? You did. Personally, it bothers me all the time when the media are ignorant or biased in various directions. e.g. Garry Birtles managing to mention Forest at least 5 times a game even when the match doesn't involve them, or Motson constantly creaming himself over Manure and Liverpool in his sycophantic way. Or the numerous inaccurate statements about the game/players' careers/ref's decisionsetc etc in virtually every game covered on tv/radio. The point is, it does matter enough to point it out when it's lazy and/or biased journalism. Which is what happened last night - and by coincidence it invloved the team I support. Having said all that, it does annoy me a bit more when it involves Stoke but I don't think that's hypocritical, just that I care more about Stoke than about other teams. What's wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 13:40:58 GMT
I thought the pictures in Ds came from NUFC-TV (like we get in the concourse, during a game at the Brit). and the BBC used that, with Pearce commentating, for the goals/highlights that were shown. Anyway, BBC/media bias towards premier teams ... not first, won't be last (come on). Also - People in Ds (upstairs anyhow), took the Keegan show very well, best laugh of night was predicting next time they would show Keegan ... "We have the ball! Go on Sto..." -> Cut to Keegan.  ah |
|
Nonum
Academy Starlet
Posts: 178
|
Post by Nonum on Jan 17, 2008 13:50:12 GMT
My point is you only think it matters when it relates to Stoke. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Is it hypocritical to be fucked off with someone who's slating/ having a go at someone you care about? but not giving a fuck if you overhear a argument/fight while out and about? We care about stoke you dickwad! i personally don't listen /watch that many matches that don't include stoke! |
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 17, 2008 13:59:51 GMT
Thing is fuggers, i was listening to BBC 5 live which is supposed to give an unbiased coverage of the match. I didn't tune into Radio Newcastle, although you would never have known.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jan 17, 2008 14:06:12 GMT
My point is you only think it matters when it relates to Stoke.quote] Mainly because we're stoke fans Fuggers! Fact of the matter is if its been covered on a national broadcast then it shouldn't be biased, 5 Live is national and has a big audience so please explain to me why they shoudn't cover it down the middle, or even slightly biased instead of the complete one sided view that they took! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 14:10:44 GMT
Because if 5million people tuned in to Five-Live (which I doubt), only 500 of them would have heard of Stoke. Stokies would have listened to Radio-Nige (wouldn't they!!!?) Asking the mainstream media to have as much airtime and "love" for Stoke as "everyones' favourite barcode" is as daft as the media wondering why championship sides aren't as good as premiership ones. Christ - It's only a week since we were live for the first time (ever) in 144 years, on the BBC ... Whaddya want ... Garth Crooks presenting MoTD every Satdee or summut!!!? ah |
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on Jan 17, 2008 14:42:39 GMT
Andy "only 500 of them would have heard of Stoke", then you go on to acknowledge that only a week ago Stoke looked to have almost caused a cup upset on national tv (plus thios watching on satellite links!).
Surely many would have tuned in to the radio (like I did from my sick-bed), from home, in the car and on the web to end up listening to the typical Premiership BBC-blinkered bias from Radio5, that developed into a hero worship love-in for the return of Kev the clueless. MoTD, the beeb's flagship football programme, really only looks at The Premiership, as it football offering to the masses. Therefore, give them the opportunity and they return to type. The BBC is the largest broadcasting corporation? It was bollocks last night!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 14:49:22 GMT
Yes ke ... but the cameras weren't at Stoke because of Stoke, they were there because of Big-Spam-Man loosing his job. Last night the world's media figured we'd get stuffed (might have actually looked at record books and seen our form in cup replays) and they weren't disappointed. Once Kev was back there was only one story in football ... As Pearce said towards the end "Stoke have been extras in the Holywood movie of King-Kev's return" (or summut equally rubbish but similiar). That's the mainstream-media ... It's populist ... or it wouldn't be mainstream. There was (audio) "local coverage for local people" on FM-Radio, DAB-Radio and www.bbc.co.uk/stoke ... I agree it's not fair ... but then football, sport and life in general; isn't ah |
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on Jan 17, 2008 15:06:32 GMT
I agree Andy with many of your comments. Perhaps it's time to get a tv production company in to do a "fly on the wall" documentary (Ryanjet style) to do a proper (warts an' all) programme on Stoke City, its relationship with fans, the board, the behind the scenes management with football in the community, the need for corporate support, team activities including training for the final push for this season. Not too difficult to arrange and who knows it may record some history.
I think we know of one local celebrity fan who may add his voice as narrator.
If the media won't take notice then do something about it. Raise the profile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 15:12:43 GMT
Raise the profile: Get promoted to the premier league - and don't come back down. Buy "exciting players" (with nice looking WAGs). Achieve a 40,000 fan base (and expand the stadium so they can all get in). Carry on doing that for 20-years. Bingo. As an area and as a club, it will take much more than a documentary ( Cocked-up voice over or not) to make us into a celebrity team. We played our role very well last night; only we (and possibly some Mackems) are disappointed with how the final film turned out (though I could tell from the rushes that it was going to be knackers) ah |
|
|
|
Post by rorymscfc on Jan 17, 2008 15:54:29 GMT
Once the Keegan story broke yesterday evening, there was only one angle the media were ever going to take so the bias is understandable.
That said, if Steve Stone, who was prsumably being paid by the BBC to summarise on the game, couldn't even be arsed to research who was playing for both teams as part of his preparation then that is disgracefully unprofessional and he should not be paid for his services IMO.
The twat!
RoryM
|
|
|
|
Post by Stoke_FaN_DaN on Jan 17, 2008 17:07:35 GMT
The BBC 5live coverage of the match last night just highlighted how poor the media relationship appears to be with Stoke City. Little mention was actually made of the team, the tactics, passages of play and all the time time they talk about the return of Kev the Clueless. was thinkin exactly all that myself, wankers! |
|
|
|
Post by clactonpotter on Jan 17, 2008 17:33:56 GMT
It was not so much bias against Stoke as indifference to their actual job.
Albeit they were in Newcastle and therefore we could expect more verbage with that word in it, BUT in terms of the division of adjectives/descriptions addressed to each team....I found it difficult from their descriptions to visualise who in the Stoke team were doing what.
I had no such trouble with the Newcastle team,their chairman or the colour of Kevin Keegans coat..... so much for the match...and painting pictures of a FOOTBALL match of TWO teams with WORDS!
|
|
"]
