Posted 18 September 2010 - 09:10 PM
Perhaps the first thing to say is that the question is on its way to being a historical one any way. The printed media is on its way down the toilet at this point in history. Extinction beckons. RL should be thinking more about how it gets its face on the media of the future.
The current situation is, probably, based on the idea that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. I doubt that anyone really knows how many people will read a report on an RU game versus an RL game or indeed how many are actually interested. It is a perception that people will read the former more than the latter whereas people will probably read what ever you put in. If the RU/RL coverage in, say, The Independent were inverted to 1 column of the former and 4 pages of the latter then it would change the sales figure hardly at all. It would affect advertising very little I think. The Independent just hear the same lie as has always been told and hear it as the truth.
I think it takes a big incident (The Sun/Hillsborough/Merseyside) to make a big difference in sales of printed media these days and replacing Leicester v Wasps with Wigan v Hull KR just isn't that big an incident.
RL will outlast The Guardian, may be the last issue will include the thought that more RL coverage would have been a good idea.