Arsenal News
Arsenal News & Transfers
As featured on NewsNow: Arsenal newsArsenal News 24/7

Arsenal News, Only Arsenal, Blogs, Transfer News

Archives

August 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

The false world. How ESPN is involved in its own match fixing

By Arun Mor

Untold readers will be aware of how TV stations may delete certain incidents from a game to influence its viewers’ perception about the game especially in recorded highlights of games. These incidents may include deleting certain controversial decisions by the referee, like a penalty that should have been given but wasn’t or a player that should have been sent off but wasn’t, or editing the game to make a single sided game look like a tight affair.

In India the same applies.  ESPN has the rights for broadcasting EPL matches in India. They have had them since I can remember. Here, I will not talk about the pundits but about the way the editors change the reality of games through their editing decisions.

Here, I will talk about 2 incidents; one that was during a one hour highlights show and the other during a halftime show.

But before that, let me explain where ESPN in the Indian TV system. Their status is equivalent to that of the Sky in the England. At the beginning of the decade, they were your only source for the football action. But then things changed slowly with the arrival of Ten Sports. ESPN’s monopoly on the football was challenged in the 2008 when they lost the rights to the Champions League in India.  Then they also lost the rights to the La Liga to Ten Action, a sister channel of Ten Sports, but got them back last year.   I find Ten Sports’ coverage far better than ESPN as their pundits are less biased, but now, let’s go to the main action.

  1. Man C 1-0 Arsenal (December 2011)

We had a brilliant game away at Man C but lost due to a disallowed RVP goal, (which wasn’t offside) and a handball which wasn’t awarded.

I had my doubts over the offside, so I decided to watch it again on ESPN. They had a show called ‘BPL Express’ which used to show extended highlights of the EPL matches. When they started the highlights of the second half, I was in for a surprise. They showed the full match until the Silva goal, that is full 8 minutes of the match till then and then deleted the RVP’s ‘offside’ goal.

I switched off the TV after that in frustration, and thus missed the chance to see if they had also deleted the handball incident.  But I can say that during an extended highlights package, they didn’t bother about a very crucial game changing incident but had the time to show the full 2nd half till the Silva goal.

I also had the bad luck of tuning into their show titled ‘Verdict’ where their pundits analyse the weekend matches. And not to my surprise, all of them discussed the match without making any reference to the ‘offside’ goal or the handball.

      2.   Arsenal 4-1 Wigan (May 2013)

This is a recent incident compared to the first one. In the first half, Mikel Arteta fouled Maloney twice in the 25th and the 44th minute; of which the second one led to the Wigan goal. Out of these 2 fouls, the first one was straightforward, whereas the second one, at least from the live feed, looked very soft and was debatable. Although the ref review said that it was a correct decision.

But the folks at ESPN had different ideas; they must have had doubts about this decision too. So, while showing the half time highlights, they did a dirty trick. Preceding the Wigan goal, they showed the Arteta foul which was committed in the 25th minute. So, if you have missed the first half and are watching the action now, you will be misled about the foul that led to the goal.

Now, it may be the case that it was a mistake, not a deliberate act. But given the fact that they are owned by Rupert Murdoch, I think that it certainly was a deliberate one.

One can ask why they did it: do they hate Arsenal?  Are they not interested in showing the referee’s mistakes? Do they regularly manipulate such things for other teams too? I don’t have the answers to these questions and maybe someone else can help.

Whatever the answer, these practices are against the ethics, if there is any such thing left, which every media house should follow.

I don’t think that there is any legal recourse to these practices as it is their show and the highlights they choose are completely decided by them. But since I pay them for their services I expect them to provide me with a neutral coverage of the matches and decided to put these observations in the public.

PS: I am thinking about keeping a ‘BBC Watch’ for the MotD’s coverage of the Arsenal matches for the next season. I don’t think that it will be possible for ESPN India as only a very limited, if any, amount of their coverage will be available online. If you are interested in helping me doing so, please mention it in comments.

Recent posts

The books…

The sites from the same team…

57 comments to The false world. How ESPN is involved in its own match fixing

  • Jammathon

    …and this matters why?

  • Epicurean

    Bizarrely I am increasingly finding Al Jazeera as the most impartial source of information. I have been very impressed with them compared with BBC, BT and ESPN. Bit depressing that they seem to have managed to sit on the Leverson reccomendations 🙁

  • WalterBroeckx

    Jammathon,
    it matters for those who care that the truth can come out on some things. Like referee reviewers and so.

    About the Arsenal-Wigan: I remember it being a doubtful decision to give the free kick. But as we always have done in such a case is give he decision as correct to the ref. And so we gave that one as a correct decision.

  • AL

    Arun, very good observations, and if it’ll make you feel any better its the same here in the UK too. Channels like Sky avoid replaying flashpoints especially if they are committed against Arsenal, so even during a live game something happened, say a man united (or even Wigan for that matter) player fouled an Arsenal player in a dangerous area and the ref waves play, don’t hold your breath thinking you will see a replay of the incident. Don’t wait for the halftime analysis either coz the pundits will just choose to talk about how a certain player is bossing the midfield or such, neglecting their job of clarifying any actions that viewers may be unclear on. If the decision is that controversial that it cant be ignored they bring in one of their so-called experts, usually a retired referee, to try and justify why the ref took action A over action B. You just cant win with this lot. So I don’t think ESPN are doing anything out of the ordinary there, they’re just keeping in tradition with what they are all known for. It’s frustrating to think we pay so much money for such shoddy and biased coverage. As a consequence I left Sky about 6 years ago and vowed they’ll never enjoy even a single penny from me, it’s personal with Sky. Unfortunately my kids love other sports and I have had to subscribe to their channels via Virgin media, so they still end up with my money, even though I’m not handing it over to them directly which makes it better somewhat.

    As someone said already, smaller channels like Al Jazeera are less biased. I remember watching a few games on Super Sport while on holiday in South Africa and thinking wow, the coverage is so much better and you can bet they examine and review every incident. And to rub salt into the wound they screen all matches including the Saturday afternoon kick offs which aren’t shown live in England. I am seriously considering getting myself one of the European satellite dishes, so I can do away with the sickening propaganda from Sky and co. About the Bbc watch, go ahead and do it, and you’ll find they are as bad as Sky if not worse. With such poor coverage no wonder people resort to watching live streams online. Thanks for the post.

  • From India

    Not a Suprise, even in 2013/14 season build up show they are portraying Arsenal as relegated team, team with troubles, and no chance of acheiving anything. Where as ESPN presenting even teams like Aston Villas (finish 16 last season) as title contenders.

  • dan

    I thought it was Star Sports had the EPL & CL rights in India and Sri Lanka?

  • Dec

    You want replays of key moments in a game? Sky +.
    Rewind/ pause the game as much as you like. Freeze the play as the ball is kicked to confirm offside decisions.
    In Ireland, we have Espn, BT, Sky and Setanta.
    Between them I rarely miss live coverage of an Arsenal game.
    Setanta have the Villa game live this Saturday. All the Far East games were on live, as well as the drubbing of City last weekend.
    On the downside our national TV station have dropped their MOTD type highlights program that used to go out at 20:00 on. Saturday evening. Always found that to have some of the best analysis across the stations (John Giles, Richie Sadlier in particular).
    Curious to know what access Arsenal fans around the planet get to the games.

    Merry Footie season to one and all, hope this is the one for a bit of bling to satisfy the panicking types who missed out on the seventies and eighties.
    But if not, I have it on good authority that there’ll be another season after this!!!
    Allez les Gunners.

  • Limpar

    Sky sports , Talksport , the Sun newspaper , the BBC, ESPN (on matchdays); these media outlets have an extreme anti Arsenal bias and an extreme pro Man utd / old boys club British bias. 9 times out of ten, any story concerning arsenal on the first 3 mentioned is not worth taking note of as it will be low grade negative propaganda against our club , especially the manager. BBC are a disgrace with their Snide coverage and have obviously sold out to the Man Utd/northern fan club which makes it even worse, as they are basically funded by the taxpayer. ITV apart from roy keene are on the same lines , which is slighly more understandable (but still wrong) as they are a commercial station but pathetic in their coverage and bias. BT sport have already showed their colours this early in the season, and our 2nd premier league fixture (away at fulham after playing away to Fenerbache on Wed eve) has been moved to Saturday morning by them. This means arsenal are the only team to be playing in midweek, and the only team ( along with fulham who have the midweek off and are at home ) to be playing sat morning. De ja vu any one ?

  • AL

    @Dec
    Sounds like you really are spoilt for choice, lucky you. Regarding pausing or rewinding, yes that could work but only to a certain extent as you don’t usually get the best angle from a better camera offered by a replay. Besides, the whole point is the fan wants to hear that they’re correct to think that shouldn’t have been a foul, penalty or offside. And yea, I too wish we could silence a few by picking up a cup or two, so COYG!

    @Limpar
    Oh dear, a fixture congestion already, and for us only. I know we never get any favors from whoever is responsible for the fixtures, but couldn’t they move the Fulham fixture? To Sunday 4pm at least? This is ridiculous, considering we will leave turkey on Thursday, this will only leave us with Friday to rest as well as prepare for Fulham. Scandalous.

  • Dec wrote:

    “Merry Footie season to one and all, hope this is the one for a bit of bling to satisfy the panicking types who missed out on the seventies and eighties.
    But if not, I have it on good authority that there’ll be another season after this!!!
    Allez les Gunners.”

    Same here bro, especially the “a bit of bling to satisfy the panicking types” part! While I’m not so bothered personally, their whine of “no trophies in 8 years” is driving me nuts. It is also the cause of all the animosity being directed at the club and particularly the manager. I hope to FSM that we put that behind us this season.

  • Matt

    These things have obviously happened. Why is there an anti Arsenal policy for all these TV channels though? How does it benefit them to do this? What do they get out of it?

  • Limpar & AL,

    I hope we still get a good result at Fulham because the fixture congestion issue will be ignored and all that would be hammered to death is how Arsenal’s season has started falling apart.

    But I thought that matches are moved in circumstances like this all the time. Can anyone recall at the top of their head when such movement had occurred. I strongly think they do but I’m struggling to remember an example. Or maybe I’m just wrong.

  • Stroller

    The usual situation is when we play a so-called smaller club, the agenda is already set that we are are going to get all the good fortune going and they will suffer some form of injustice that robs them of something.

    Examples are decisive fouls or penalties where if they go our way are to be deemed questionable or unfair, involving endless analysis to prove the point. Whereas if they go the other way are rarely questioned. Often they will go back several phases of the game to link some minor incident with an Arsenal goal to highlight a supposed injustice.

    This usually followed up at the manager’s interview with a leading question on how they should feel cheated at the result.

  • bob

    Arun,
    Examples of the mis-editings by big football/sports media are important to catch. In trying to connect the dots, however, you’ve mistakenly attributed ownership of ESPN to Murdoch. Wikipedia explains the ownership structure: “The Walt Disney Company (which operates the network, through its 80% ownership interest) and Hearst Corporation (which holds a 20% interest).” With respect, it matters to be spot on accurate, or the substance of the rest of your argument and approach thereby becomes easy to sidestep, pooh-pooh or knee-jerk dismiss because one of your key allegations is demonstrably false. That said, being sharp-eyed to notice and remember and expose the lens-crafting bias is most important, so kudos on your work.

  • bob

    “These things have obviously happened. Why is there an anti Arsenal policy for all these TV channels though? How does it benefit them to do this? What do they get out of it?”

    Matt,
    That, indeed, is the question and it deserves further and serious analysis.

    A lot of this was discussed hereabouts with different and interesting rival and overlapping analyses during the summer of Cesc. Just go back and browse the postings and comments (if kept, or retrievable) from say 3 months of the summer of Cesc and the Arsene Out Campaign and you’ll see. If any reader ever wished to excerpt some pearls from that discussion, it would be the basis of an excellent article. And it’s always worth discussing further.

    If you don’t want to make that effort, I’d suggest this as a starting point – it’s AW’s brazen waltz as a dual interview in 2009 with Murdoch’s Times of London and the Daily Mail, where he states his opposition to the ownership and salary models that the EPL and Big Football practices. Read it for at least one clue as to why there might be a media-wide animus, to answer your question: On Arsenal, AW’s interview in 2009 is a must – it’s in two parts:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1206377/ARSENE-WENGER-INTERVIEW-The-transcript-Martin-Samuels-fascinating-meeting-Arsenal-manager–I.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1206363/ARSENE-WENGER-INTERVIEW-The-transcript-Martin-Samuels-fascinating-meeting-Arsenal-manager–II.html

  • Shard

    Arun

    You are absolutely right about the bias on show in ESPN. I have stopped watching any of their football shows because they are either biased, or regurgitated, nonsense. I watched the first ever “Verdict” which involved a red card for Joe Cole in Liverpool vs Arsenal in the first match of the season. The chief football expert (Steve McMahon; ex-Liverpool) said Cole’s card was wrong because he didn’t go in with intent. “There’s got to be intent” he said. I sent an email to espn saying that whether Joe COle deserved a red card or not, surely their chief expert should know that intent was taken out of the rule book. That received no acknowledgment in the next episode, nor on mail and since then I haven’t watched that nonsense.

    I do however, applaud the idea of collecting information on the goings on within the media in this sense. Good luck.

  • bob

    Matt,
    My fuller first response to your question “Who benefits?” from such an anti-AFC media bias is in UA moderation (two links in one posting). Until it’s released, one clue can be found in AW’s amazing 2-part dual interview in 2009 with Murdoch’s Times of London and the (not Murdoch) Daily Mail. Here’s part one: On Arsenal, AW’s interview in 2009 is a must – it’s in two parts:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1206377/ARSENE-WENGER-INTERVIEW-The-transcript-Martin-Samuels-fascinating-meeting-Arsenal-manager–I.html
    The second part follows next….

  • bob

    “With such poor coverage no wonder people resort to watching live streams online.”
    AL,
    No wonder indeed! Cheers 🙂

  • If you want to understand the English media’s attitude towards Arsenal then listen to this interview with the late great Brian Clough:

    It will tell you all you need to know.

    “I’m loathe to confess they could be as good as us. They are brilliant. It sticks in the craw a little bit because nobody likes Arsenal. And of course, there’s a Frenchman in charge – not many English people like Frenchmen.” – Brian Clough

  • Shard

    bob

    I think the reason for the confusion is that ESPN has a tie up with Star (Espnstar), in India, and I believe with Fox in the rest of south east Asia. Both Star and Fox are Rupert Murdoch owned corporations (I haven’t checked the details) In fact, I think that in South East Asia, the ESPN channel has been replaced by Fox sports, but this wasn’t done in India because of low brand recognition for Fox, and the Star and ESPN co-branding working well.

  • Shard

    bob

    Now that I think about it, I think ESPN has sold it’s Asian arm to Murdoch. Which is what allowed the rebranding to FoxSportsAsia for them. I am almost certain I read that somewhere.

  • bob

    Shard,
    Do you recall if Martin Samuel (or someone else) was the TV media briefer (that was exposed via Untold Media) who comes in and “explains” the refshite/controversy to sanitize/adjust the TV talking points? I can’t remember, isn’t/wasn’t this done before one of the highlights show? before all broadcasts or some? and wouldn’t it have been a (semi-regular)occasion to bring the PGMOL perspective to bear on the commentary/editing?

  • bob

    Shard, Arun,
    Really great info on the Fox absorption of ESPN. That would clarify so much, and I’m happy to stand corrected!

  • Shard

    bob

    I believe that was Dermot Gallagher, former referee. He was employed by the Premier League tv channel and his role was to inform the presenters (not the viewers) on how to view/present certain refereeing related incidents. Unlike Mark Halsey on BT, he never spoke directly to the viewers.

  • bob

    “I believe that was Dermot Gallagher, former referee. He was employed by the Premier League tv channel and his role was to inform the presenters (not the viewers) on how to view/present certain refereeing related incidents. Unlike Mark Halsey on BT, he never spoke directly to the viewers.”
    Shard,
    Right! Thanks. I think it’s timely, given Arun’s article, to recall that this was being done. And “perhaps” continues in one form or another.

  • bob,

    Thanks for those links. I recall reading them at the time. How quick time flies?

    This quote stands out for me:

    “Interviewer: So when you look at Chelsea and Manchester City, how do you feel?

    AW: I am not envious.”

    I don’t think that I could respect this man more even if I tried.

  • bob

    Bootoomee,
    Yes, the man has been courageous and principled.

  • dan

    Fair to Cloughy at-least he is man enough to admit he admires Wenger.

  • Rufusstan

    MoTD seems to have a policy as well of airbrushing incidents out of their coverage if they are ‘controversial’ or not the sort of thing they wanted to discuss.

    I cannot count the number of times in the last few years where I’ve been watching a game (in the Emirates or on a stream), seen something I really want to have a second look at (offside, bad fouls, fouls not called etc), and all too often it simply disappears from the highlights. — in the ground its worse because as ant regular knows, they are not allowed to show a replay of anything controversial on the big screens.

    I understand that it is just highlights and they cannot include everything, but often you are talking about key incidents that they just ignore. That, along with the low level of analysis, and the BBC’s need to somehow be even in their coverage of the play that leads to me rarely watching it anymore.

    By the way, the last bit means you watch an Arsenal 3-1 win in the afternoon. MoTD’s edit will show 4 passages of play from Arsenal, including their 3 goals, and 3 from the opposition, including their goal. What it doesn’t show is that they have shown all of the opposition’s major attacks and strikes on goal, and Arsenal has another 12 shots on target through the game.

    These days I love Arsenal’s own archived content, with 12 minute highlights and whole games available to all members.

    @LImpar, Bootoomee — The scheduling thing is going to be interesting. The tightest gaps are Thurs –> Early Sat or Sun –> Tuesday night. We did not have anything like that last year, and it was pretty rare even with fixture congestion at the end of the season (Chelsea got a lot of games moved to preserve their rest days).

    This year is going to be different because for the first time BT and SKY have first choice matches to show. In the past, Sky could schedule a game moved for TV to Sat morning, late Saturday or Sun/Mon to fit it best into the other fixtures.

    BT now has all the early Saturday top slots, and many of the midweek ones. The flexibility is gone, and you have 2 competing companies scrapping over matches, and their interests are not the club’s.

    Once that sinks in, maybe more games will get moved to ease the problems for clubs, but it will have to be the PL, as UEFA’s schedule is set in stone.

  • bob

    Arun,
    Here’s a telling excerpt from last season on ESPN’s FC Blog. Its focus is a press conference where AW blasted the press for focusing on our FA Cup/Blackburn loss and other prickly matters as we stood at the cusp of our match against Bayern in the CL. The article headline was: “Wenger snaps under media scrutiny” by Kevin Palmer. A flavor of its distortion is provided here. (Note the TOTAL erasure of the all-media Arsene Out Campaign of the Summer of Cesc.) Judge for yourself:
    “[T]here can be little doubt that the Arsenal manager’s eagerness to alienate the media he has enjoyed a healthy relationship with since his arrival in English football back in 1996 is a risky move. Jose Mourinho may have mastered the art of convincing his players that the world is against them and using that mentality as a motivating tool, but this is new territory for Wenger, whose has long been a darling of the London media thanks in no small part to the fact that he always guarantees us a good story every time we are invited to meet him. Now, for the first time, it is Wenger himself and not his always enlightening opinions that has emerged as the lead story amid an Arsenal crisis that could explode in ugly fashion at Emirates Stadium on Tuesday night. Is the great man cracking at last? It certainly seems as if he may be.”
    Here’s the link: http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/espnfcunited/id/3566

  • bjtgooner

    @bob & Shard

    Dermot Gallagher was and still is the PGMOL spokesperson on SKY. He was employed today to explain a change to the off-side rule.

    From memory, he was used particularly to “explain” why some obvious ref errors involving goals for and against Man U (and to the advantage of Man U) were in fact not really errors. I remember that SKY led him very carefully through his “explanation”. Video footage however did not really support the re-writing of history!

  • bob

    bjtgooner,
    C’mon now, mate, couldn’t be. An explanation of a pitch decision without using video support on a visual medium watched by very many. Say it isn’t so! Shocked, I say. Shocked.
    (btw, great update on DG!)

  • AL

    @Bootoomee
    This has certainly happened for other teams, and many times too.
    From last season I think this link will tell you two matches that were moved because the respective teams(Chelsea & Newcastle) were participating in the Europa league.
    http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2012-13/mar/premier-league-matches-rearranged-180313.html
    I agree with you that some people must be willing us to have the worst possible start so they can point out to any failed signings and say if only they had signed so and so….

    @bob
    Interesting links, just makes you wonder why a such a sincere and genuine person as AW is reviled so much by the media in the UK.

    Haven’t watched Clough’s interview yet(will do shortly) so the answers may lie in there, but I would also like to think a few things make this the case; challenging & winning against Ferguson a year after coming onto the scene, going a whole season unbeaten, refusing to pay exorbitant prices for average English players, playing attractive & clean football(this may sound ridiculous but Barca have won as many plaudits as criticisms for their tika taka style, and am waiting for the same vultures to descend on Spain too very soon, if they haven’t started already). I think one word sums it all up; jealous.

  • bob

    AL,
    A small tweak. Maybe it’s spelled “jealou$” (I think there’s more afoot beyond that gut feeling.)

  • AL

    @bob
    I quite like that spelling:)

  • bob

    AL, Matt, bjtgooner, Bootoomee, Shard,
    To expand on the concept of jealou$: please consider this parallel. When the images and style of very pricey blockbuster movies become THE standard for movies; it makes it much tougher for indies and less costly movie fare to gain a large audience. My point is that if (because) AW’s approach would lower the costs of doing championship football, it would increase the competition in the league and thereby reduce the hold of the mega-clubs on the EPL and its massive commercial rewards (TV appearances, endorsements, strategic partnerships, worldwide outreach and appeal). Everyone love$ a winner. Anyway, there might be something in this worth a think.

  • bob

    p.s. and, AW laid out that lower cost/more competitive approach to football as his credo – this in the 2009 interview (links above) in the very lion’s den (dual interview with Murdoch’s London Times plus the Daily Mail).

  • Shard

    Preaching to the choir, bob. 🙂

  • AL

    @bob
    Absolutely. I have always felt, and with good reason, that teams such as City or Chelsea get viewed in a much more positive way throwing tonnes & tonnes of $$(some of which may not even be clean money) at their attempts to buy the title.

    You’d think a club trying to do things the right way would get more positive reviews & recognition for that but this isn’t the case.

  • bob

    Shard,
    I know. Actually trying to preach through the choir (for old times sake) to the congregation. (But don’t tell anybody! 🙂 )

  • Brickfields Gunners

    Shad @ 1:08pm. – Fox has replaced ESPN here in S-E-Asia ,but its still old wine in an older bottle ! The only pundit I ‘d listen to is Jaime Reeves – ever since he uttered( and still does ) the magic words , ” The Arsenal ” !
    The Verdict is crap ,so too the pre, halftime and post match
    comments .Thank god for the ‘mute’ button .If only we can ‘mute’ them too !

  • bob, AL, Shard, bjtgooner,

    This is why it gets so sad when our own fans start parrotting these hacks. I can easily tune out the media. I never give them any credence to begin with but how can I escape the vitriol of our own fans who will chase you to any website to influence you with their negativity. Even blatantly and openly positive ones like Untold.

  • iniez

    Dogface,
    I wish you would post your findings more often. On here or twitter

  • C4

    I think that Clough interview sums it up.
    In my early days as a gooner, I quickly noticed how most teams’ fans have very few issues with almost any team except The Arsenal, who they’ll openly admit that they hate. But when asked why, they can’t really say.
    The answer is simple – because they were trained to, by all the repetitive crap in the media.
    Proof for me was when the banter kicked in, and all I heard was verbal copying and pasting of whatever “talking points” the media were brandishing against us at the time – it always coincided exactly with whatever the hytners and kastrinakii of the gutter press were spewing.
    What I’m loving is the steadily decreasing amount of ammo they have to work with of late. The “defensive frailties” talking point has been hard to make use of for some time now, along with the “no plan B” TP that’s also out the window. All they really have left is “Arsenal don’t spend” and “x years” without a trophy. And I believe even that is about to be taken away from the poor hytners and kastrinakii. And of course, the doomers, who really just regurgitate what the hytners and kastrinakii vomit to begin with. Here’s hoping for happy days ahead, when all they can write is “so Arsenal finally lift the …. trophy, but this only paper over the cracks, as the the result flatters their solid performance against…”

  • iniez

    C4,
    Your comment got me thinking. What came first the chicken or the egg? Was it the media that was telling people to hate us or was it just common practice and that’s what came to be and given life by the media? Why would people be so inclined to hate arsenal before a French manager showed up or for whatever reason?

  • Bias exists in all walks of life, so it is not surprising that it translates to TV coverage. After all, the people putting the broadcasts together grew up supporting a particular club, or are glory hunting fans who support the latest and greatest.

    Arsenal have never really been liked by the media – print, digital or broadcast.

    It doesn’t really bother me in the slightest – I make sure I get to watch the full 90 minutes and I make my own mind up. I don’t need a biased pundit, broadcaster, or fan for that matter to tell me what to think.

  • unbelievable belief

    Brilliant Dogface, I miss the old drunk.

    Great post Arun. Dogface nailed it, Arsenal are the team no one else likes.

  • para

    Nice people ALWAYS get stick from not so nice people. Believe me, i know. Come on Arsenal, we are going to give them something to really talk about this season.

  • rantetta

    Arun Mor

    Very well done, Sir.

    Look at the debate that has happened in these comments. The meedja-crap has been going on for years, poisoning and encouraging hatred towards all things Arsenal. It hasn’t been subtle, either.

    Rather than give my 2 cents worth I’d like to thank you, obviously, and also the commentators on this piece. You all have a great ‘take’ on the various shenanigans of the broadcasters.

    A special mention for bob – you’re bang on form with your posts here. Also Dogface. What can I say about Dogface – I luv ‘im. Ta for all the ref work DF.

    “nobody likes The Arsenal”, Damn right. I love ’em.

  • Mihir

    @Bob

    Espn in Asia is owned by Fox international. They bought out Disney in 2012.
    Source:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN_Star_Sports

    oh yes and with people like Steve Mcmahon as experts, there is certainly no bias against Arsenal :).

  • bob

    rantetta,
    Breathless. 🙂

  • bob

    Mihir,
    Great sourcing on who owns/controls the screens. Cheers 🙂

  • Arun

    bob @2:26
    You can see the comments over there. If I remember correctly, he supports either totts or chelsea and he has written highly biased articles against Arsenal in the past as well.

  • Arun

    Shard
    Agree with you regarding why they didn’t bother to change the name of ESPN to Fox Sports. ESPN has been the oldest sports channel in the country and changing the name wouldn’t have been good for the business. They have changed it to fox sports in the most parts of South East Asia, but the ESPN-Star combo was too valuable to be altered.

  • Arun

    Thanks all for the positive comments.