RL Journalism, a weak link?

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Tony Collins is essentially a writer on the politics of Rugby League. If political references are forbidden, this thread is hardly likely to make much sense. Unless we regard RL journalism as no more than rumours of signings and updates on injuries.

Or what an agent wants printing for the benefit of their wallet.

[Tommygilf]

A lot of journos are on facebook and twitter, they get involved with fans on their too.

[ATLANTISMAN]

Going back to the original subject we as a sport are in desperate need of critical journalists in the mainstream (Martyn and co that own this forum do a great job but are preaching to persons like me the converted) 

Paul

[Martyn Sadler]

On 03/06/2020 at 03:27, ojx said:

I just listened to the latest Rugby Reloaded podcast by Tony Collins.  They spent some time criticizing the general quality of RL journalism in the UK, implying that they are too close to major stakeholders and that they are little more than glorified fan boys. It related this to the lack of transparency in major decisions in the sport. I haven't seen confrontational interviews with important constituents of the game and, in fact, many interviews seem to be more of a promotional sounding board for those who are being interviewed. Does this cozy relationship actually hinder the sport, by shying away from exposing difficult issues?

Aussie sports journalist seem to unload blistering attacks on folks in NRL when required.

I'm glad you listened to Tony's podcast, which is always worth listening to.

Sean McGuire, who joined Tony for this episode, is an intelligent observer of the game who was the CEO of St Helens for five years until 2007.

Sean always saw himself, I think, as a potential CEO of the game as a whole. And he might have been very good at the job. He certainly is able to talk publicly about the game in a way that I wish we saw more of from our current senior officials.

When it comes to transparency, however, I don't recall that we were ever given the exact reasons why Sean left Saints, although the time of his departure coincided with an apparent approach for the club by an Irish investor, which the Chairman Eamonn McManus turned down emphatically and apparently with some anger.

So perhaps transparency should begin at home.

[Martyn Sadler]

On 03/06/2020 at 08:31, Man of Kent said:

I think the charge could be levelled at some. I imagine Sean McGuire had Dave Woods in mind when he said some RL journalists are like “fans with a microphone”. As the BBC correspondent, and therefore the most powerful RL journalist in Britain, he’s certainly not used his position to tell truth to power etc.

Then you have some of the trade press journalists like Matt Shaw of League Express, who probably has to lick a bit of ringpiece to get his transfer deal exclusives. He isn’t one to rock the boat either.

But by no means all RL journalists are like that. John Davidson, Steve Mascord and Danny Lockwood at League Weekly aren’t afraid to dig some dirt or voice criticism. Forty-20 is consistently a dissenting voice and recently ran a very long piece about the Bradford Bulls catastrophe, critical of the RFL etc.

The national newspapers have some very good journalists like Gary Carter, Julie Stott and Gareth Walker, but they have to fight tooth and nail against football, cricket etc to get stories in their papers so ‘political’ stories will always struggle to make it. The ‘Rectum of Wigan’ story did recently make some front pages, however.

What I would say is the RL journalists who have ‘guaranteed’ space in national media, such as the BBC RL section or Guardian RL blogs, should compare their style of coverage with their NRL counterparts...

Most Rugby League journalists are fans of the game.

And only Sean knows which journalists he was referring to.

But I must object to your comments about my colleague Matt Shaw, who breaks stories every week in League Express. Super League officials are almost desperate to prevent club officials from talking to Matt because he has the ability to extract information from them like almost no one else.

To say that he doesn't rock the boat is ridiculous.

And to suggest that Aussie journalists who cover the NRL are somehow more incisive in their coverage of the game is not really true, despite the fact that they get much more space to write in national newspapers, although there are some very good individual writers such as Roy Masters, who has the space to write informed and analytical articles in the Sydney Morning Herald.

But ultimately the problem with Rugby League in this country is that the people who run the game, or run the clubs, can't be compelled to speak to the media. And very often they prefer not to.

Until sporting bodies are brought into the Freedom of Information provisions I'm afraid that is likely to continue.

But we will continue, and hopefully with great success, to try to penetrate the almost impenetrable undergrowth of Rugby League bodies.

[Man of Kent]

Appreciate your response, Martyn.

I stand by my view of Matt Shaw’s journalism. Matt is a very good reporter who does a great job of breaking transfer exclusives and so on for League Express, but - while I’m sure his stories put a few noses out of joint - his is a particular brand of trade press journalism that doesn’t lend itself particularly well to this debate.

I don’t buy your line about FoI. That doesn’t stop the likes of David Conn from reporting the murky world of football finances, owners and so on. 

It’s also very easy to see NRL journalists are more incisive than their Super League counterparts. You don’t need to be a serious fan and consume the output of heavyweights like Paul Kent or James Hooper or ‘Buzz’ Rothfield, one look at the Guardian RL page will show you the difference in the quality of journalism. 

While there’s lots of structural reasons why Australian coverage is more incisive, I think some of it comes back to McGuire’s point about a lack of self-esteem in British RL. 

Compared to other major sports coverage, I detect a hint of a cheerleading mentality in some British RL journalism that seeks to promote the game rather than report it. 

That’s an inherently insecure mindset, and one that ultimately does the game a disservice.

It’s the job of marketeers at Super League, the RFL and their member clubs to tell the world how great rugby league is, it’s the job of journalists to hold them to account. 

[Matt Shaw]

On 03/06/2020 at 08:31, Man of Kent said:

I think the charge could be levelled at some. I imagine Sean McGuire had Dave Woods in mind when he said some RL journalists are like “fans with a microphone”. As the BBC correspondent, and therefore the most powerful RL journalist in Britain, he’s certainly not used his position to tell truth to power etc.

Then you have some of the trade press journalists like Matt Shaw of League Express, who probably has to lick a bit of ringpiece to get his transfer deal exclusives. He isn’t one to rock the boat either.

But by no means all RL journalists are like that. John Davidson, Steve Mascord and Danny Lockwood at League Weekly aren’t afraid to dig some dirt or voice criticism. Forty-20 is consistently a dissenting voice and recently ran a very long piece about the Bradford Bulls catastrophe, critical of the RFL etc.

The national newspapers have some very good journalists like Gary Carter, Julie Stott and Gareth Walker, but they have to fight tooth and nail against football, cricket etc to get stories in their papers so ‘political’ stories will always struggle to make it. The ‘Rectum of Wigan’ story did recently make some front pages, however.

What I would say is the RL journalists who have ‘guaranteed’ space in national media, such as the BBC RL section or Guardian RL blogs, should compare their style of coverage with their NRL counterparts...

Hi everyone. I should probably post on here a bit more but I tend to steer clear of all RL forums for a few reasons. I've got a general rule to not reply to anyone who won't reveal their identity and I find the views on most forums to be uninformed, though I do think there's a better level of understanding on this forum than the others.

Everyone wants different things from journalists and I've no drama with that. Some people will like my work and others won't. I don't think a single journalist in the game is universally liked. There are certain journalists I rate very highly and others I do not. That's just the way it is.

Though I must say I did chuckle when I saw the 'lick a bit of ringpiece' comment. Since lockdown I've experienced the following...

• Had one club owner threaten to take an injunction out so I had to reveal my source on a particular story I broke (obviously, this was a ridiculous threat that couldn't be followed through).
• Had two Super League CEO/chairman refuse to speak to me after I broke the pay cuts being implemented at all clubs (I think another said the same to Martyn, too).
• Another refuse to do an interview with me as he 'didn't want to be accused of being the person leaking confidential information to me'.
• Another CEO hasn't spoken to me since writing a transfer story around five weeks ago.
• A player's fiancee accused me of having an impact on their mental health as a result of a story I wrote.
• A public Twitter argument with Wakefield CEO Michael Carter after saying clubs need to be held accountable for a lot of wasted money if Super League clubs decide to realign with the RFL.

That's before mentioning that in the last ten days I accused Super League of lying to supporters about the unanimous salary cap vote (no other journalist has touched that story, by the way) and a column on clubs having far too much control on issues which also caused a stink with CEOs as one warned me.

So, with respect, I'll disagree with you on that one!

As I said, you can't please everyone. Some want you to chase scandals that are conspiracy theories and then criticise you for not proving it to be true. Others believe you have a duty to be a cheerleader. A Salford fan, as an example, said he would no longer buy League Express because we broke the Niall Evalds story... apparently we should wait for clubs to announce it before we report it!

FWIW, I don't think there is enough done to hold people accountable. Just my opinion, but I think there is too much emphasis by journalists (not all, I'm speaking generally) to write follow-up pieces - getting reaction to what has already been put out elsewhere to fill their space. It allows them to cover the story and justify it with a fresh perspective on the story but it isn't getting new information out there on the most part.

As for online, the same applies, too many are happy regurgitating rather than investigating. This is often, but not always, by aspiring journalists, who I tell over and over again if you want to make it in the profession, you have to produce original content that others aren't. Sadly this often falls on deaf ears. I'm sick of certain publications stealing our stories and not even attributing it to us, and there are many journalists out there who, if they read this, will know exactly who I'm on about.  You'll see it happen every Monday after the trade papers come out.

In essence, I don't believe there are enough journalists willing to break stories. How many journalists out there actually break them? A handful.

I will try to come on here more often if anyone has questions, though I can't promise. I try to be as active as possible on Twitter with replies so feel free to get in touch!

[Oxford]

19 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Most Rugby League journalists are fans of the game.

And we've all, always been guilty of being too close to the touch lines and far too biased to see the refs for the linesmen.

And in all truth, anyone not in love with the game would be a completely useless pundit and a worse journalist.

 

 

[unapologetic pedant]

The journalists and commentators who should be most under the microscope are those in a position to portray the game to the wider audience. There may be gaps dividing perception and reality in other sports but in RL it`s a chasm. Media coverage, if not wholly responsible, must be a major factor.

I don`t much care about the quality of ephemeral off-field coverage. The lack of informed analysis of the game on the field is our enduring problem. The previous references to "a lack of self-esteem" and "cheerleading" capture the perennial tendency of RL enthusiasts to oscillate wildly between chippy umbrage and diffident self-loathing. The best answer to this is a technically-minded attention to nuance and detail in on-field coverage. Maybe because of RL`s working-class history, many journalists are nervous of being seen as a bit too intellectual.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Matt Shaw said:

I see TotalRL's USP as being able breaks stories. We aren't as good at the social media engagement but I don't see us as being that (though in an ideal world we'd have resource to do more of it). I think the issue you're explaining there I've kind of, but not really, explained there.

That's a bit of an odd statement for site with a forum.

[Matt Shaw]

3 minutes ago, Oxford said:

That's a bit of an odd statement for site with a forum.

There are more rugby league forums on the internet than there are websites that break stories. We're also talking about the journalistic element here, not the forums.

[Oxford]

1 minute ago, Matt Shaw said:

There are more rugby league forums on the internet than there are websites that break stories.

I meant the idea you are not good at social media, just a bit at odds, that's all.

Breaking stories is an interesting idea, did you mean in print rather than as a site?

[Oxford]

In any case the real problem for all of us is that we're too close to our sport and it's a blessing and curse. The journalists are victims of this too.

[Matt Shaw]

Just now, Oxford said:

I meant the idea you are not good at social media, just a bit at odds, that's all.

Breaking stories is an interesting idea, did you mean in print rather than as a site?

With you. Do we promote the forum as much as we should though? I would say not, though I know Martyn and John do a great job of interacting with you all on here.

Breaking stories - I think it's as a company. We break stories in League Express at the same time they go on TotalRL. But likewise, in the week it's the website.

 

[Matt Shaw]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

In any case the real problem for all of us is that we're too close to our sport and it's a blessing and curse. The journalists are victims of this too.

I agree. I have sympathy for journalists in this sport. They feel there's too much to lose by writing certain stories or airing certain opinions. Some are in more compromising positions than others too. 

 

[Oxford]

2 minutes ago, Matt Shaw said:

I agree. I have sympathy for journalists in this sport. They feel there's too much to lose by writing certain stories or airing certain opinions. Some are in more compromising positions than others too. 

 

I think the natural distance between the athletes of most sports and those who enjoy them is not there is RL, so we are as much a bubble as Westminster. Far more interesting but very similar to political world.

[Oxford]

42 minutes ago, Matt Shaw said:

With you. Do we promote the forum as much as we should though? I would say not, though I know Martyn and John do a great job of interacting with you all on here.

Breaking stories - I think it's as a company. We break stories in League Express at the same time they go on TotalRL. But likewise, in the week it's the website.

 

I think that's about right and was a good insight into how you see the role it plays.

 

[Man of Kent]

Props to Matt for righting a wrong

My major beef is that there are national outlets who don’t seem to realise what they’ve got.

For example, today’s No Helmets Required blog on the Guardian website is another cross-code effort.

I think that’s a bit of an insult, frankly. It’s not like union doesn’t get enough national coverage. 

That blog could be used to discuss the type of things mentioned in this thread, i.e. questioning officials, decisions and holding the game to account (like the NRL writers do on there), but Gavin Willacy seems more interested in somewhat obscure, trivial stuff. Ho hum.

[Angelic Cynic]

22 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Props to Matt for righting a wrong

My major beef is that there are national outlets who don’t seem to realise what they’ve got.

For example, today’s No Helmets Required blog on the Guardian website is another cross-code effort.

I think that’s a bit of an insult, frankly. It’s not like union doesn’t get enough national coverage. 

That blog could be used to discuss the type of things mentioned in this thread, i.e. questioning officials, decisions and holding the game to account (like the NRL writers do on there), but Gavin Willacy seems more interested in somewhat obscure, trivial stuff. Ho hum.

  I like what Gavin Willacy writes.

  He doesn't do match reports - but does a lot of background work for our sport - and I found it interesting a report about a referee I have seen - and it would be good to see more referees do the hard yards from other sports and come into rugby league.

  With reference to journalism - if they view things from a supporters viewpoint - then I would like them to continue gaining information and reporting it.

   Those clubs,say Widnes and Bradford, have had a situation where they have put money into the club which has resulted in club officials/owners walking off into the sunset.The clubs are left in financial difficulty.End of news.Some update would be nice.Has it been a case of dishonesty or incompetence?  How does the governing body intend preventing a reoccurrence?

   Has the question been asked about whether or not a particular referee is permitted to referee again when a certain club plays? I ask because Mr Hicks should officiate another St Helens game.The question should be put to either,the club,the referee or the governing body.

   What is the governing body doing about Odsal ?  I could go on...

[Man of Kent]

27 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

  I like what Gavin Willacy writes.

  He doesn't do match reports - but does a lot of background work for our sport - and I found it interesting a report about a referee I have seen - and it would be good to see more referees do the hard yards from other sports and come into rugby league.

  With reference to journalism - if they view things from a supporters viewpoint - then I would like them to continue gaining information and reporting it.

   Those clubs,say Widnes and Bradford, have had a situation where they have put money into the club which has resulted in club officials/owners walking off into the sunset.The clubs are left in financial difficulty.End of news.Some update would be nice.Has it been a case of dishonesty or incompetence?  How does the governing body intend preventing a reoccurrence?

   Has the question been asked about whether or not a particular referee is permitted to referee again when a certain club plays? I ask because Mr Hicks should officiate another St Helens game.The question should be put to either,the club,the referee or the governing body.

   What is the governing body doing about Odsal ?  I could go on...

Yes and this is precisely the type of reportage almost entirely absent from British RL journalism, especially national coverage. 

Gavin Willacy writes Quite Interesting stuff. He’s good at bringing obscure things to light but it’s more suited to features in magazines like Forty-20 in my view. I’m keener to read more critical, questioning and investigative stories about the British game in the Guardian pages than cross-code curiosities.

[John Drake]

19 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Yes and this is precisely the type of reportage almost entirely absent from British RL journalism, especially national coverage. 

Gavin Willacy writes Quite Interesting stuff. He’s good at bringing obscure things to light but it’s more suited to features in magazines like Forty-20 in my view. I’m keener to read more critical, questioning and investigative stories about the British game in the Guardian pages than cross-code curiosities.

Investigative journalism costs a lot of money, not least because of its very nature, it takes a lot of time to research, cross-check, and be legally sound before publishing, as well as a great deal of journalistic talent to make it interesting.

We already live in an age where fewer and fewer people are willing to pay anything at all to read a newspaper, a magazine or least of all online content and will complain vociferously at being asked to pay a pound or two to read a story that may have cost thousands to produce (without much of that going into the journalist's pocket), because 'they can get it free elsewhere'. (No, you can't).

I think we'd all love to see great, in-depth, investigative stories in the media (and not just about Rugby League), but without readers willing to pay to read it, where does the money come from to invest in it?

Please don't say advertising, especially not now, when the pandemic has virtually killed that off as a meaningful source of revenue.

It has never been truer to say 'you get what you pay for'.

[Oxford]

RL journalists have faults but they are one of the strengths of the sport mostly because when we were let down and ignored by the laughably termed "national" papers they created a world of our own where we could read what they wrote and include them in the list of things to be disagreeable about, convince ourselves they're as wrong as refs, as questionable as the RFL & as villainous as opposition players.

What more could we ask?

Actually I think that might be a good post to finish completely.

 

[JohnM]

21 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Investigative journalism costs a lot of money, not least because of its very nature, it takes a lot of time to research, cross-check, and be legally sound before publishing, as well as a great deal of journalistic talent to make it interesting.

We already live in an age where fewer and fewer people are willing to pay anything at all to read a newspaper, a magazine or least of all online content and will complain vociferously at being asked to pay a pound or two to read a story that may have cost thousands to produce (without much of that going into the journalist's pocket), because 'they can get it free elsewhere'. (No, you can't).

I think we'd all love to see great, in-depth, investigative stories in the media (and not just about Rugby League), but without readers willing to pay to read it, where does the money come from to invest in it?

Please don't say advertising, especially not now, when the pandemic has virtually killed that off as a meaningful source of revenue.

It has never been truer to say 'you get what you pay for'.

Jon Ruskin. " When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done.  

JohnM "something free is worth every penny you've paid" 

The BBC News app now has a section "longer reads" for those who have a span of attention of more than one sentence. 

[Futtocks]

51 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Yes and this is precisely the type of reportage almost entirely absent from British RL journalism, especially national coverage. 

Gavin Willacy writes Quite Interesting stuff. He’s good at bringing obscure things to light but it’s more suited to features in magazines like Forty-20 in my view. I’m keener to read more critical, questioning and investigative stories about the British game in the Guardian pages than cross-code curiosities.

For the Grauniad, Gavin Willacy usually digs up obscure nuggets and left-field observations. Aaron Bower does the more regular mainstream coverage. Which other national newspapers have two people covering our sport on a regular basis?

Then there's the regular and copious NRL content coming from their Australian operation; another thing that the other nationals don't even bother to try and match.

[Bondi Cannon]

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

Investigative journalism costs a lot of money, not least because of its very nature, it takes a lot of time to research, cross-check, and be legally sound before publishing, as well as a great deal of journalistic talent to make it interesting.

We already live in an age where fewer and fewer people are willing to pay anything at all to read a newspaper, a magazine or least of all online content and will complain vociferously at being asked to pay a pound or two to read a story that may have cost thousands to produce (without much of that going into the journalist's pocket), because 'they can get it free elsewhere'. (No, you can't).

I think we'd all love to see great, in-depth, investigative stories in the media (and not just about Rugby League), but without readers willing to pay to read it, where does the money come from to invest in it?

Please don't say advertising, especially not now, when the pandemic has virtually killed that off as a meaningful source of revenue.

It has never been truer to say 'you get what you pay for'.

OK, so I actually work as an investigative journalist and just wanted to echo what JD has said here. Some of my stories take several months to deliver; the cost of the legal advice alone would head comfortably into four figures on most of them. I work for a major news organisation and feel very lucky to have my job - my company employs around 400-odd journalists, but there's only about ten doing my kind of work because it is so costly. The prospect of a sports journalism outlet being able to run and fund such an operation is impossible, esp given most mainstream media doesn't bother any more. So I suppose I am saying give these guys a break!