Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Johnoco said:

People, whether they are newspaper editors or just the average person in the street aren’t obliged to like RL. They don’t owe it anything. Not liking it or not even being aware of it is not a crime. Most people are pretty much unaware of RL, it impacts very little on their lives so don’t assume they attach as much importance or reverence as you do.

I expect if *you* were a newspaper editor, you would be unlikely to give rugby union much coverage or respect, so it obviously works both ways. 

Okay, I am not asking them to like RL I'm demanding they do their job which is to report sport on the sport pages and other things on the other pages. I expect freedom of the press to be reporting without bias and a fundamental basis of this is not to just report what they prefer. If I were an editor I would reluctantly cover sports and stories I wouldn't agree with written by people whose views I can't stand.

Exhibit A in evidence for this case is on the forum, where I even read your posts!😉

  • Like 1

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You know what, I am not sure the sport could do much more than what it has done so far on the World Cup. The draw was made at Buckingham Palace by the Duke of Sussex among others and the venues a

Just to complete the story, this week's sports section of The Sunday Times begins with a letter from someone in York, criticising the RLWC omission last week, and, unusually, there is a brief but uneq

Both can be true.  The reality is that there aren't many RL journalists out there these days, particuarly at the nationals.  The journalists that are out there are pressured to deliver more

Posted Images

39 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Okay, I am not asking them to like RL I'm demanding they do their job which is to report sport on the sport pages and other things on the other pages. I expect freedom of the press to be reporting without bias and a fundamental basis of this is not to just report what they prefer. If I were an editor I would reluctantly cover sports and stories I wouldn't agree with written by people whose views I can't stand.

Exhibit A in evidence for this case is on the forum, where I even read your posts!😉

Some papers do cover RL but generally it's never been that great anyway.

IMO the ST should have mentioned the RLWC but it's not a requirement for anyone and not some fundamental right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Some papers do cover RL but generally it's never been that great anyway.

IMO the ST should have mentioned the RLWC but it's not a requirement for anyone and not some fundamental right. 

I suppose if you accept it the next thing is coverage will be a bit less next year diminishing finally to nothing because papers don't do their job properly and the world thinks that's acceptable. No wonder they get away with far worse things then they've been practising on RL. It's never been about fundamental right but the basic purpose of a newspaper to cover events sporting and otherwise. And the numbers through the turnstiles marginally smaller than cricket should be enough to guarantee reasonable roughly "cricket size" coverage if they just pick and choose with sport because it's not popular on Canary Wharf then they're not a national newspaper. And they have no right to expect any kind of help, privileges or support on their way to the eternal dustbin of history.

Edited by Oxford
  • Like 2

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I suppose if you accept it the next thing is coverage will be a bit less next year diminishing finally to nothing because papers don't do their job properly and the world thinks that's acceptable. No wonder they get away with far worse things then they've been practising on RL. It's never been about fundamental right but the basic purpose of a newspaper to cover events sporting and otherwise. And the numbers through the turnstiles marginally smaller than cricket should be enough to guarantee reasonable roughly "cricket size" coverage if they just pick and choose with sport because it's not popular on Canary Wharf then they're not a national newspaper. And they have no right to expect any kind of help, privileges or support on their way to the eternal dustbin of history.

Exactly the correct response , as you rightly say , ' National Newspaper ' 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Times has done slightly better today in that it has listed about eleven major sporting events or cluster of events scheduled for 2021 under the headline "Can year's highlights survive virus?"  Our world cup is one of them.  For each of them the same three questions are asked, namely "What is current thinking?", "Are organisers prepared to hold the event without fans, or with restrictions on international travel?" and "Most likely scenario?"

For the RLWC, the replies given are that current thinking is that the RLWC could be the first major, international event staged in England with full attendances after the pandemic; to the middle question, yes; and that there is real hope that full stadiums look the most likely scenario.

If there is one slightly odd thing about this, it is that the person expressing these views is the RFL chairman, Simon Johnson.  It doesn't look as though he is on the board overseeing the event, unless the RLWC website is out of date in that respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Exactly the correct response , as you rightly say , ' National Newspaper ' 

Not

Your original outrage was that they deserved saving in the face of the alternatives but their lack & treatment of RL shows they are one of the alternatives.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I suppose if you accept it the next thing is coverage will be a bit less next year diminishing finally to nothing because papers don't do their job properly and the world thinks that's acceptable. No wonder they get away with far worse things then they've been practising on RL. It's never been about fundamental right but the basic purpose of a newspaper to cover events sporting and otherwise. And the numbers through the turnstiles marginally smaller than cricket should be enough to guarantee reasonable roughly "cricket size" coverage if they just pick and choose with sport because it's not popular on Canary Wharf then they're not a national newspaper. And they have no right to expect any kind of help, privileges or support on their way to the eternal dustbin of history.

Ask yourself....does RL genuinely deserve national coverage? I never hear about curling in English papers for example, for obvious reasons. Not covering hurling or something doesn’t mean they aren’t a national newspaper, it means it’s of little national importance.

Why should a newspaper bend over backwards to cover a game that restricts itself to such a small area? Rather than getting indignant about lack of respect and theorising about the downfall of newspapers,  why not look closer to home.

 

But this is in danger of missing the point, they still should have covered the upcoming 2021 RLWC

 

Edited by Johnoco
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Us older ones remember when there were Northern editions of all the national newspapers (Manchester) and there was some great full time RL journalists John Huxley/John Robinson etc those days have now gone and everything is London centric.

If RL really wants to be taken seriously in London media wise it needs without doubt

* SL team in London

* 1 international played in the capital every year

* Full time press officer in London

Since the BBC moved breakfast to Manchester it has become very localised they struggle to get famous people on (Unless local) and the audience figures for London and the South are awful (Most people I know including myself watch SKY for news) 

 

 

Edited by ATLANTISMAN
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

does RL genuinely deserve national coverage?

Yes it does.

 

32 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

I never hear about curling in English papers for example

If you think RL is as small as curling in England the I can see why you think it should be invisible.

 

34 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Why should a newspaper bend over backwards to cover a game that restricts itself to such a small area?

A small area from London to Newcastle?

And papers bending over backwards is an odd phrase to excuse them from doing their job properly.

37 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

But this is in danger of missing the point, they still should have covered the upcoming 2021 RLWC

Well no they shouldn't cover it if it's as small as curling and has a minor footprint and negligible national level of interest. The World Cup of frog hopping no less.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Yes it does.

 

If you think RL is as small as curling in England the I can see why you think it should be invisible.

 

A small area from London to Newcastle?

And papers bending over backwards is an odd phrase to excuse them from doing their job properly.

Well no they shouldn't cover it if it's as small as curling and has a minor footprint and negligible national level of interest. The World Cup of frog hopping no less.

I used to say exactly the same things as you but the reality is that RL is not national, nor shows any sign of wanting to be. Newcastle has a RL team but that hardly makes it an RL region. London has AFL teams and Wigan and Cas have RU teams....doesn’t mean that much.

You clearly have a problem with people don’t like, or are as fanatical about RL as you, often calling them ignorant and misinformed, so I don’t see the point in reasonable debate with such a fundamentalist. 

Edited by Johnoco
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to my email - small steps:

Thanks for your email re the omission of the RL World Cup from the 2021 sporting highlights. It was a glaring oversight, as you say, for which I can only apologise.

 
Nick Greenslade
Deputy editor, Sunday Times Sport
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a change of tactics?

Why has the Sunday Times been banned from covering the Rugby League World Cup in 2021? 😡🤬

I've noted how well conspiracy theories have spread across the public consciousness in recent years.

Start an online campaign of outrage at how/why the RFL have banned the Sunday Times from covering RL.

I'm sure we can think of spurious reasons why the RFL would do such a thing and then we can spew bile all over twitter about freedom of the press and citizens' rights of access to information. 

Prizes for the best suggested reasons for the Sunday Times ban.

Sow the seeds on 'celebrities' with large followings who are particularly prone to outrage.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Johnoco said:

I used to say exactly the same things as you but the reality is that RL is not national, nor shows any sign of wanting to be. Newcastle has a RL team but that hardly makes it an RL region. London has AFL teams and Wigan and Cas have RU teams....doesn’t mean that much.

You clearly have a problem with people don’t like, or are as fanatical about RL as you, often calling them ignorant and misinformed, so I don’t see the point in reasonable debate with such a fundamentalist. 

I was about to say it's been a good debate ....

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Us older ones remember when there were Northern editions of all the national newspapers (Manchester) and there was some great full time RL journalists John Huxley/John Robinson etc those days have now gone and everything is London centric.

If RL really wants to be taken seriously in London media wise it needs without doubt

* SL team in London

* 1 international played in the capital every year

* Full time press officer in London

Since the BBC moved breakfast to Manchester it has become very localised they struggle to get famous people on (Unless local) and the audience figures for London and the South are awful (Most people I know including myself watch SKY for news) 

 

 

On the whole the shift is is not a natural one and I'm not sure the changes you suggest would be enough any more. They wouldn't hurt though.

Edited by Oxford

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

How about a change of tactics?

Why has the Sunday Times been banned from covering the Rugby League World Cup in 2021? 😡🤬

I've noted how well conspiracy theories have spread across the public consciousness in recent years.

Start an online campaign of outrage at how/why the RFL have banned the Sunday Times from covering RL.

I'm sure we can think of spurious reasons why the RFL would do such a thing and then we can spew bile all over twitter about freedom of the press and citizens' rights of access to information. 

Prizes for the best suggested reasons for the Sunday Times ban.

Sow the seeds on 'celebrities' with large followings who are particularly prone to outrage.

 

Pure bigotry pretty much cuts it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lyvet domicile said:

Pure bigotry pretty much cuts it. 

And if they're that bigoted about something like a sport how can you trust them with the really important stuff>

19 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I got a reply saying apologies for the over site

Fair enough

At least it would be if they changed their behaviour afterwards, an apology is just words if you carry on as before when people stop looking.

And they will.

Edited by Oxford

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/01/2021 at 13:48, Damien said:

Unfortunately this is often the way and not even just the Times, even those organisations that hold RL rights often ignore RL in lists like this.

Yep, I suspect the BBC will only advertise that they will be showing the RLWC the night before the opening game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lyvet domicile said:

Pure bigotry pretty much cuts it. 

Maybe it was actually just an oversight? Whilst I don't think the ST is the go to paper for people looking for RL, it could easily have been just overlooked. Yes, they're unlikely to have done that for the cricket or RU versions but then, they are more geared towards their readership.. Not everything is a conspiracy.

 

3 hours ago, Oxford said:

And id thet're that bigoted about something like a sport how can you trust them with the really important stuff

Not liking RL or missing out a feature on it does not equate to bigotry, get a bloody grip man. Is that how you judge the whole human race? By whether or not they like RL? 

RL needs to stop playing the victim all the time and get on with being the best it can. If it spent a quarter of the time developing the game in other areas, that it spends complaining that all the world is against them it would be in a much stronger position.

And some newspaper or other would be less important and no strops required.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mattrhino said:

Yep, I suspect the BBC will only advertise that they will be showing the RLWC the night before the opening game.

If we're lucky, have you seen the latest recruits to the being in charge department at Aunty?

I doubt we'll be hearing much from the Beeb's a bunch of lefties group for a while.

In fact we might even be saying goodbye to the SL show or if not it'll be on at two in the morning on the red button.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Oxford said:

Exhibit A in evidence for this case is on the forum, where I even read your posts!

Exhibit A has unfortunately moved over to the prosecution evidence file.

The fact is that The Times is only one paper and by their own admission got it wrong over the RLWC but the truth is also that they downgrade RL consistently both in things they allow in print and the visibility of our sport.

You can agree with them or not, that's part of the story too.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Pie tries said:

Response to my email - small steps:

Thanks for your email re the omission of the RL World Cup from the 2021 sporting highlights. It was a glaring oversight, as you say, for which I can only apologise.

 
Nick Greenslade
Deputy editor, Sunday Times Sport

 

Thanks to your provision of the e mail , I also got a prompt reply.

"Apologies for the oversight which you rightly say should not have happened. Hope it didn't detract too much from your enjoyment of the paper.

Regards,

Nick Greenslade,

deputy editor, Sunday Times Sport"

 

Proves it is always worth all of us highlighting poor media coverage as requested on the original post

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wirral Warrior said:

 

Thanks to your provision of the e mail , I also got a prompt reply.

"Apologies for the oversight which you rightly say should not have happened. Hope it didn't detract too much from your enjoyment of the paper.

Regards,

Nick Greenslade,

deputy editor, Sunday Times Sport"

 

Proves it is always worth all of us highlighting poor media coverage as requested on the original post

It certainly does, be interesting to see if coverage improves because a few people moaned at their poor performance.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lyvet domicile said:

Keep up the good work.

As for it not being deliberate, come on. Read Hinchcliffe’s book. The south of England luxuriates in its disdain for the north. For them, RL = the north.

What I don’t understand is how you have only 11 posts but can already post in the cross code forum. Have they changed the rules? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...