By Tony Attwood
There is an article in the Telegraph today which runs with the headline “Liverpool capitulate again before Mohamed Salah outburst,” and it struck me that this is a perfect example of how football is reported.
Because football journalism is all about outbursts – virtually every headline is an outburst – a journalist revealing a BIG football story you may have missed (usually because it is nothing of the kind) but football journalists, their editors and their publishers want a headline and when there isn’t an obvious one, knocking Arsenal will do.
Of course papers don’t just turn on clubs. They go for players as well, as with the Telegraph once again saying
“Mohamed Salah has made Liverpool’s crisis all about himself and his bruised ego”
and as if that were not enough today we also have….
“Mohamed Salah says goodbye to Liverpool: ‘I have no relationship with Slot’”
To be fair they do also agree that “Liverpool capitulate again” but suggest that this is still Salah’s fault.
These are all separate articles appearing on the Daily Telegraph website today. In fact it would be nice if there were a collective noun for a lot of outbursts. Google suggests “A series of outbursts” as the most “common and neutral way to refer to multiple occurrences,” although it also offers “A string of outbursts.” Wiki suggests we might have a storm of outbursts, or maybe a volley or a spate… Although I think both are a bit lame, and I would prefer a cacophony of outbursts.
But the point is that “outbursts” are what we get from the media each day. Of their own outbursts they make nothing, but if a player does it, well that needs reporting. And to be fair they also have a go with famed figures they don’t like as in the Telegraph today: “Sepp Blatter eviscerates Gianni Infantino over Trump, Ronaldo and Saudi Arabia” and “Gianni Infantino debasing himself in front of Donald Trump is a new low”.
Now my point is not one as to whether one agrees with these opinions or not, but the fact is that most of the reporting of football in the media is opinion set up as fact, when in fact it is opinion. Indeed part of the game that the media play is that of then criticising a player or manager for coming out with an opinion.
The Mirror has the headline at the moment (1144 on 8 December) reading, “What were Roo thinking? Rooney accuses Salah of destroying Liverpool legacy” It is an opinion dressed up with a question.
The Guardian has “Mohamed Salah’s Liverpool future in doubt as Arne Slot faces Inter decision” and they then try to read the manager’s mind with suggestions that the player might be dropped and transferred in January.
But this is not the reporting of facts. It is speculation based on the deliberate manipulation of a situation in order to criticise one player and boost the collective ego of Liverpool FC. And one can just imagine what the headline would be if the club were Arsenal.
We can see the answer to that in the Mirror with the headline “Mikel Arteta’s angry reaction as two major blows to title hopes emerge.”
But the fact is that football reporting is actually the opinions of journalists following the dominant line laid down by the football editor. Football London says “Arsenal have now dropped points in three of their last five league outings. More troubling still, they’re beginning to concede goals with increasing frequency.”
So let’s check that. Arsenal have conceded nine goals in the league this season. And Arsenal went eight games up to early last month without conceding any goals. That run of course is impossible to maintain all season, so yes, of course, there has been “increasing frequency”.
Arsenal have conceded one goal a game on average for their last six games. Which is fewer than the rate of conceding goals by last season’s champions. But that is not mentioned. Of course
After 15 games last season, Liverpool had conceded 13. After 15 goals this season, Arsenal have conceded nine. But did we hear anything about Liverpool’s whacky defence last season after 15 games? No of course not, because the order of the day in the media is “We support Liverpool”. Which makes life tough for any journalist who realises that if one created a league table based on the number of goals conceded, Arsenal are still top….
| Team | P | W | D | L | F | A | GD | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arsenal | 15 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 28 | 9 | 19 | 33 |
| 4 | Crystal Palace | 15 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 26 |
| 3 | Aston Villa | 15 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 22 | 15 | 7 | 30 |
| 5 | Chelsea | 15 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 25 | 15 | 10 | 25 |
| 2 | Manchester City | 15 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 35 | 16 | 19 | 31 |
And are we seeing notices worrying that ManC have conceded almost twice as many goals as Arsenal? Or that Aston Villa have a goal difference under half as good as Arsenal’s. Of course not, because that is not the brief of the journalist.
Of course, one of the big problems is that this constant attack on Arsenal is a bit like a leaking gutter dripping on a walkway below. Each drop does nothing much, but if the drips keep going for long enough, then cracks start to appear. Journalists are drips – that is worth remembering.
But why? Why do journalists constantly turn on Arsenal in this way? Is that the negative stories about Arsenal are there all the time? Or is it just habit?
Because your a bunch of whining, moaning conspiracy theorists.
Deal I would disagree with you there. I can’t see (and you have not provided) any evidence to show that Arsenal supporters are bunch of whining, moaning conspiracy theorists as you suggest.
But even if there were any evidence to this effect, that still would not suggest why there are more negative stories about Arsenal in the media. For that to be the case the media would need to be picking up articles and reports from Arsenal supporters, rather than journalists and I have never seen any evidence with that in any aspect of the media.
Of course if you have evidence to support your claim we’d all like to see it, but until you do provide such evidence I think your comment will have to be put down as just one more of those “knock Arsenal without any evidence” which the article suggests Arsenal gets more of that other clubs.
In short, I think you rather prove the point of the article, while trying to argue the opposite.
With regard to the “concede goals with increasing frequency” story. I found this highly amusing since recently I’ve read that Man City are the biggest threat to us (until Chelsea….followed by Villa!).
What amused me though was that these stories of Man City having “hit form” failed to mention that within the space of a week, they managed to concede two goals at home against Leeds who had the second worse attack in the league at the time, and four against Fulham who had the fourth worst attack at the time. They won each game by a single goal and conceded six goals against bottom six sides in consecutive games……………but no mention of defensive problems for Man City.
Meanwhile Arsenal conceded the same number of league goals in ten weeks or so and aside from the Spuds, each of the teams we conceded against were in the top four when we played them and, apart from the Spud goals, all of the games were away from home. (Not forgetting that we only conceded one in the whole Champions League campaign so far too.)
You couldn’t make this stuff up……except the media constantly do……and poor old Dale, bless him, still hasn’t spotted it yet lol