Is media hype a milllstone around the neck of teams

It seems to me we are entering another tournament and already the hype is up.

This seems especially true for England. You can't read an article about the team that doesn't reflect on the win over NZ. My question is does it raise unrealistic expectations. Don't get me wrong, of everything goes well for this England side they could grandslam. However, take the win out of last years record and how does the record stack up. A useful 6 nations, which they finished a credible 2nd and could have won. The word close comes to mind. With the exception of the Ireland game, all games were won or lost by no greater than a converted try. This was followed up by a victory less tour of SA. Despite a win over a hapless Fiji there 2 more close losses to Australia and SA.

My point is. A loss to NZ would have left an empty feeling in many English fans stomachs. Exclude the win and there are reasons to be optimistic, but also to be guarded. England still have to win in Ireland and Wales. They should hammer the Scots and Italians and the French struggle at Twickenham. The media are implying that England more less have to turn up and be focused and they will stroll through their games. I think it will be closer than that.

The same could also be said for the Irish. Big wins over a pretty poor Fijian side and what was effectively the Argentinian B side and the last years cracks have been papered over. I think the Irish could win this year, they have England and France at home and playing the others away holds no fear for them. However, I do think they are at their best when they are the underdogs.

We saw similar things with Wales and Scotland at various times last year. Ultimately, neither side was good as the press built them up to be and I'm not sure they are better for it in the long run. Any thoughts?

The modern media is poison. It is a Millstone of the worst possible kind.

Long gone are the days of reporting a story with reasoned and informed analysis, it's been replaced by non-stories driven by loaded questions in attempt to squeeze out yet another sensationalist headline. Or the most tenuous link between the headline and the story material to fit in with the agenda of some higher up editor.

99% of these hacks are scum bags that couldn't give a sh1t about good reporting, and just see it as a meal ticket to their own notoriety. There are very few true journo's left anymore.

AlastairW wrote:The modern media is poison. It is a Millstone of the worst possible kind.

Long gone are the days of reporting a story with reasoned and informed analysis, it's been replaced by non-stories driven by loaded questions in attempt to squeeze out yet another sensationalist headline. Or the most tenuous link between the headline and the story material to fit in with the agenda of some higher up editor.

99% of these hacks are scum bags that couldn't give a sh1t about good reporting, and just see it as a meal ticket to their own notoriety. There are very few true journo's left anymore.

Couldn't agree more. I particularly hate the headline produced from the loaded question - that when you read the article means nothing - the sort of headline reading "Warburton says Wales for GS" - the question put to Warburton would be can Wales win a GS? What the hell is he supposed to say (Or Robshaw or any other captain or player).

It's rubbish. A player says his team is aiming to win all its games (why would you aim for anything less?) and the headline is that the player thinks his team will win all its games.

nobbled wrote:

AlastairW wrote:The modern media is poison. It is a Millstone of the worst possible kind.

Long gone are the days of reporting a story with reasoned and informed analysis, it's been replaced by non-stories driven by loaded questions in attempt to squeeze out yet another sensationalist headline. Or the most tenuous link between the headline and the story material to fit in with the agenda of some higher up editor.

99% of these hacks are scum bags that couldn't give a sh1t about good reporting, and just see it as a meal ticket to their own notoriety. There are very few true journo's left anymore.

Couldn't agree more. I particularly hate the headline produced from the loaded question - that when you read the article means nothing - the sort of headline reading "Warburton says Wales for GS" - the question put to Warburton would be can Wales win a GS? What the hell is he supposed to say (Or Robshaw or any other captain or player).

Yeah, infuriating isn't it. After the the NZ game the BBC proudly proclaimed that 'Wood said win over NZ was easy'. The embedded video they had was an interview with the guy who talked his injury issues, how lucky he thought he was, the up coming Saints HC game, and a little about the mind set that Bomber promotes in the national camp. Pure agenda driven headline that had absolutley nothing to do with Tom Wood's interview ... This from a flagship national institution

It's amazing how many fans take this on board though, the amount of Englishmen I have spoken to recently who 'just can't look beyond England for the slam' is incredible!!!

Not offence to the English but they were one sick All black win away from an extremely dissapointing season post 6N. Winless against anyone of any note!

The talk of 'improvement' championed by Guscott throughout the 6N is still going strong too.

...which is why Lancaster had Minichiello and Strauss present to the England squad on managing expectations.

The thing I find bizarre is that so many players-turned-journalists succumb to the rollercoaster of hype and despair when they must know that in truth the margins in rugby are very fine and 1% here or there can be the difference between a Grand Slam and mid-table mediocrity.

I can only assume that they've adopted their new profession to such an extent that they think only in terms of headlines. Or maybe the niche for being having your own (informed) opinion is filled completely by Guscott and Moore.

AlastairW wrote:The modern media is poison. It is a Millstone of the worst possible kind.

Long gone are the days of reporting a story with reasoned and informed analysis, it's been replaced by non-stories driven by loaded questions in attempt to squeeze out yet another sensationalist headline. Or the most tenuous link between the headline and the story material to fit in with the agenda of some higher up editor.

99% of these hacks are scum bags that couldn't give a sh1t about good reporting, and just see it as a meal ticket to their own notoriety. There are very few true journo's left anymore.

+1 The Lance Armstrong case hightlighted this. The few real journalists who questioned him were mocked and laughed at by the sheep.

Most rugby fans are casual sports fans. They support their country but don't have much interest or spend much time following the squad players through the domestic leagues.

They go on the most recent result in memory and what is written in the weekly rugby section in the sports extract of the newspaper or online.

All a newspaper truly wants to do is get more eyes on their paper/website in the hope to coaxing advertising revenue out of big corporations.

You can get more readers by (a) producing true quality analysis and incisive commentary on the team/game/competition, (b) use proper investigative journalism to unearth/obtain exclusive comments/news from within the Unions/squads or (c) slap together the usual drivel, putting forward managements line (so you can claim exclusive access) and sensationalise that drivel by hyping a minor quote out of context.
(a) - top quality, difficult to find, articles will be comprehensive (ie. long winded).
(b) - provides a better understanding of how a squad/union is working (short article with a key fact, but difficult to get regular quality level output).
(c) - absolute drivel, small articles, but marketed to get maximum number of eyes on page quickly and regularly.

thebluesmancometh wrote:It's amazing how many fans take this on board though, the amount of Englishmen I have spoken to recently who 'just can't look beyond England for the slam' is incredible!!!

Not offence to the English but they were one sick All black win away from an extremely dissapointing season post 6N. Winless against anyone of any note!

The talk of 'improvement' championed by Guscott throughout the 6N is still going strong too.

I was once told that anything before the word 'but' is pointless, as you have just demonstrated. Blues, this is a thread about the modern media not yet another excuse for you to have an underhanded crack at England.

Wales have been the focus of the media merry-go-round as much as anyone in the last 12 months, and I think they, and all sides have suffered because of the vile British press. The post-RWC hype machine went into overdrive on Wales and there's no way that didn't detrimentally affect performances on the pitch, which is crap, as the players should be 100% focussed on the game. I bet there was more than a little voice in the back of the 'big' players heads about being lambasted for a wrong decision - be it England/Wales/Ireland/<insert media whirlwind of the week's name here>

Two things that get me about Rugby media (especially written)

Firstly,They dont respect rugby for what it is, let alone the source of their own very rewarding employment. Secondly when the rugby media can persuade the IRB to appeal a decision made by a judicial panel then the media tail is wagging the Rugby dog.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Two things that get me about Rugby media (especially written)

Firstly,They dont respect rugby for what it is, let alone the source of their own very rewarding employment. Secondly when the rugby media can persuade the IRB to appeal a decision made by a judicial panel then the media tail is wagging the Rugby dog.

To true. If they explained the rulings accurately half the controversy would disappear. It's all about sales.

I'm just thinking about the last year:

England beats NZ: England become dead certs to win the nations at a trot. Caveat: was it one off, did the flu affect NZ. However, we'll have a better idea this time in 2 years. I'd be surprised if they win at a canter.

Wales make world cup semi and grandslam: Wales should beat 1 of the SH teams. Caveat: No wins against Australia in 2011. Traditionally struggled with boks and AB's. How many granslam Welsh teams have struggled down under. To me the team went forward, but were never the world beaters they were painted to be. A hard schedule where they were competitive in most games.

Scotland beat Australia in Australia. Scotland have been transformed into a competitive team. Caveat: It was Australia "c" with no prep in horrendous conditions. To me they they are still a second/3rd tier team.

Ireland beat Fiji and Argentina at home and are now really great. Two weakened teams. Fiji was dysfunctional, under prepared and understrength. Argentina was a shadow side, at the end of a season that makes other national teams players schedules look like a holiday. I think the wins are good for them, but I wouldn't read anything into them.

Italy. Not really being built up, but they are increasingly hard to beat at home.

France being built up on the back of a successful November. How much does it mean. They had a pretty easy schedule last year. They usually win their first up home games against SH sides (so Australia's not such a surprise and the victories over the other teams were competent rather than crushing. I'd say that like England, the jury is still out.

(NB: Just incase you think I'm just having a go at 6 nations teams. NZ beat Ireland at home and are unbeaten in the RC and are certain to win the rest of the games. A weakened Ireland side at the end of a long year, Bok and Australian sides weakened by injury. To me they had a great season, but weren't as good as the media (NZ in particular) made them out to be.)

All in all reasons for measured optimism for almost everyone.

I can't take anything the British press says about anything that seriously. I doubt the players will either.

bcl - it is the job of newspaper editors to sell the product. They will therefore write stuff that they think will appeal.

Lots of us read the stuff, but still manage to maintain a sense of perspective. Most England fans I have spoken to expect France to win the 6N. Maybe not a slam, but they should win it.

Hound_of_Harrow wrote:bcl - it is the job of newspaper editors to sell the product. They will therefore write stuff that they think will appeal.

Lots of us read the stuff, but still manage to maintain a sense of perspective. Most England fans I have spoken to expect France to win the 6N. Maybe not a slam, but they should win it.

To play Devil's Advocate on this one Hound, that view casts newspapers/multi-media as purely market driven commodity. They aren't; they do have a certain social responsibilities that comes along with that role, which is entombed in law with many & various legislations. They can not use these freedom's of the press, which castes them as a 'who watches the watchmen' type social status to give them unfair advantage in driving a market commodity. It's like insider trading.

They have to be better than they are as it stands. Analytical, measured, contextual repsonses, the looking glass through which news (any subject) is disseminated to the peanut gallery. At the moment, they are delivering punch & judy show theatrics (agenda driven crap, total circus) under the guise of 'news & analysis', which i think is an abuse and detrimental all round.

I think newspapers should have a duty, sworn if possible, to put the truth and public information and specifically avoidance of public misinformation before their own sales. Like the hippocratic oath but for journalists with similar ability to end a journalist's career if they brazenly break said duty. Public information through the media is just as important but a hundred times worse regulated than medicine, and it's one of a few topics that will make me irrationally angry

ChequeredJersey wrote:I think newspapers should have a duty, sworn if possible, to put the truth and public information and specifically avoidance of public misinformation before their own sales. Like the hippocratic oath but for journalists with similar ability to end a journalist's career if they brazenly break said duty. Public information through the media is just as important but a hundred times worse regulated than medicine, and it's one of a few topics that will make me irrationally angry

That would do it. These people have the power to influence massive swathes of people with their opinions, their views. Their writing is literally on peoples breakfast table in millions of homes around the country, on their TV/PC screens all day after that. If they are acting like petulant, short-termist, ADHD riddled brats, this attitude will be distributed (i apologise to the people with ADHD i've jsut done dis-service to). If found unworthy, they should not have that priviledge.

I think with the recent goings on with Leveson we'll see something curb the present press 'standards' (if you can call scraping through the bottom of the barrell standards).

In regard to Rugby we've already seen it affect on field decisions.


EDIT: ok, i've stopped ranting now. Step ... away .. from .. the ... keyboard .....

This millstone thing is interesting.

Firstly it must be said the media's go to guide in the world of journalism is usually controversy or negative sentiment about something or someone.

But even they know when positivity is the only thing that will sell.

I think it is Brian Moore (?) the English commentator that in specific can be hypocritical when he wants to be, other times he tends to pick a player or two and even the basic stuff the player does becomes a thing fables will be written about.

But a turncoat at best, as he will change his allegiance or stance in the blink of an eye.

Sadly he isn't the only one. And to be fair, it isn't only the media that blows hot (optimistic) and cold (dismissive) in the blink of an eye.

I often (most likely most of the time) see posters be overly optimistic of their chances (deliberately choosing to ignore reality) to win matches and then in the aftermath of another (soul destroying ) loss commit the hari kiri of literary condemnation on their team.

I suppose at the end of the day, hope is what makes us believe we can do the impossible or improbable, that's why we love sport at the end of the day, isn't it?

We can live vicariously through our sporting heroes, only to shoot them down the next day.

No I don't think the hype means much to the players. They are focussed on the job in hand.

England in particular will know that beating the ABs is just one result.

England do deserve to be one of the favourites for the grandslam but no game can be taken for granted. You would expect the toughest games to be the two away ones vs Wales and Ireland but every side in the competition has a competitive enough pack to cause problems.

More worryingly for England they'll be missing Tuilagi vs Scotland who was so instrumental in the NZ match. It remains to be seen how they handle his absence.

I would like to think that players avoid reading the media before games/tournaments. Of course some of the expectations will filter through but I'd hope teams try and keep their feet on the ground as much as possible.

Journalists are so bi-polar though, I mean after England lost to South Africa in the autumn Clive Woodward wrote an article about how he would change the England setup, various pundits were having a go at the players etc. The next week, they are world beaters, titans, proud warriors etc.

While on the subject of journalists, does anyone else get annoyed by the use of 'blasts' in a title? As in 'Smith blasts referee'. Then the quote will say 'we are disappointed that a couple of calls didn't go our way'.

YES!!!!!

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Most rugby fans are casual sports fans. They support their country but don't have much interest or spend much time following the squad players through the domestic leagues.

They go on the most recent result in memory and what is written in the weekly rugby section in the sports extract of the newspaper or online.

All a newspaper truly wants to do is get more eyes on their paper/website in the hope to coaxing advertising revenue out of big corporations.

You can get more readers by (a) producing true quality analysis and incisive commentary on the team/game/competition, (b) use proper investigative journalism to unearth/obtain exclusive comments/news from within the Unions/squads or (c) slap together the usual drivel, putting forward managements line (so you can claim exclusive access) and sensationalise that drivel by hyping a minor quote out of context.
(a) - top quality, difficult to find, articles will be comprehensive (ie. long winded).
(b) - provides a better understanding of how a squad/union is working (short article with a key fact, but difficult to get regular quality level output).
(c) - absolute drivel, small articles, but marketed to get maximum number of eyes on page quickly and regularly.

I completely agree with this, TBWS.

A friend of mine with a passing interest in rugby watched a historic feature on Bill McLaren and looked in amazement at footage of the multicoloured, handwritten gant charts that Bill used to support his commentary on each game. He asked where McLaren got all of the information from. Of course, the answer was that McLaren spent a long time at the training camps of each international team chatting to the players and finding out about them. He found out the information first hand, by himself.

Makes me cry to think of the contrast between that and the crapulent, jingo!stic, cheap styrofoam reporting that we get from a number of junctures these days. Why can't we leave the sensationalist hyperbole to the idiots that report on football? I am still of the belief that a better quality of people play this sport. Perhaps I'm just being naive.

Like everybody says, the media do hype it up too much. They sensationalise, over credit in victory and over criticise in defeat. There were positives and negatives in all the 6 nations teams in 2012. All these were blown out of proportion both ways by the media. The French often get let off because most people on these islands don't read their press, but they are just as bad (the hyping up of chabal for the latter half of his career??)

But, the press do build up interest from the casual fan, this in turn makes them watch the six nations. And as the international game props up the whole game on these shores, we need a well followed six nations. If this is what draws in those casual fans, I for one can take the media with a pinch of salt and form my own opinions. Why are you getting so worked up about it? Newspapers who's only rugby reporting is ever on the six nations are only going after cheap headlines... Just ignore them.

As for my opinion, the top four are so close that all will win their home games and the games against Italy and Scotland. They in turn will get one win between them when they meet. Which incidentally, I think Italy will win.

Now, who thinks what the daily mail says matters on any subject, let alone rugby!!!

Xx

Media today team A has lost or won badly,after 80mins a journo sticks a mike in his face.Captain/Coach whatever will be diplomatic with his answers THEN head for the changing rooms.There he will praise or give hell to his team the Media will make of it what they will.
Example NZ played 2 matches more than the Boks drew one lost one pilloried by
there Supporters. The 12 wins don`t matter you lost to a NH side unforgiveable All Blacks don`t lose.
The Bok press in contrast are relatively happy winning streak at the end of a trying season.
France with a clean sweep in the AI`s would expect to be favourites for 6Ns.
BUT no England obtain there customery one in 10 years win versus a tired and
after a nasty virus out of sorts AB side .
Now its RWCs,Grand slams,the skys the limit somewhere in between those extremes lies the truth.
BUT it isn`t a good sound byte,papers only print what they think people want to hear.
NEVER let the truth get in the way of story,Englands victory was Great no.one denies it.
BUT can they replicate it match after match,you can bet it will be shown non stop by the AB Coaches.THEN they will be out for RETRIBUITION 2013 bigtime.