Thank you daily mail

[Cheadle Leyther]

Last night at the Salford Community Stadium, Sale beat Newcastle 43-10!in the euphemistically named ‘derby’ round .

An half empty stadium watched a desultory match, with the away team having lost it’s 25th game in succession. Yet the Daily Mail managed to devote a 5 small column match report on this uninspiring walkover.

Yet only 2 weeks prior, on the same ground an almost full house of nearly 11,000 saw an intense play off game between Salford and Leigh. Yet in the Daily Mail, not a mention, even though there were almost full page reports in the Sun, Star and Mirror. I also presume the same problem occurs with the Express, Times and Telegraph.

It just shows what we are up against while trying to get publicity from the London based media.

[Whippet13]

I wouldn't expect anything else from them regarding RL coverage, despite it being 2024 there remains plenty of the ruling elite out there still bitter about 1895.

Knew they had slashed funding, but didn't realise Newcastle RU were that bad, so still a bit of a good news story.

Edited October 12, 2024 by Whippet13

[The 4 of Us]

There’s a well known 6 letter 2 word response to rags like that. Second word is ‘em. 

Edited October 12, 2024 by The 4 of Us

[Damien]

The biggest surprise is that anyone is surprised by this.

[Enkidudu]

41 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

Last night at the Salford Community Stadium, Sale beat Newcastle 43-10!in the euphemistically named ‘derby’ round .

An half empty stadium watched a desultory match, with the away team having lost it’s 25th game in succession. Yet the Daily Mail managed to devote a 5 small column match report on this uninspiring walkover.

Yet only 2 weeks prior, on the same ground an almost full house of nearly 11,000 saw an intense play off game between Salford and Leigh. Yet in the Daily Mail, not a mention, even though there were almost full page reports in the Sun, Star and Mirror. I also presume the same problem occurs with the Express, Times and Telegraph.

It just shows what we are up against while trying to get publicity from the London based media.

Surely, it caters to people who read it. I'm not sure what that big whine is, given that three major "tabloids" gave significant coverage. 

[M j M]

There are many other good reasons but this is another: never, ever, ever buy or read the Daily Mail. It's toxic #### that poisons our national discourse.

[Gooleboy]

20 minutes ago, M j M said:

There are many other good reasons but this is another: never, ever, ever buy or read the Daily Mail. It's toxic #### that poisons our national discourse.

Vile newspaper.

[JohnM]

The issue is not that there was a rugby union write up, but why there wasn't a rugby league piece.  The on line version does contain this, though: Gloucester and Leeds Rhinos to play cross-code charity match planned by Rob Burrow and Ed Slater to raise funds for MND"

In my opinion, we'd be better trying to get them to give more coverage of our sport, rather then giving them excuses not to cover it. 

In August, the Daily Mail printed edition, sold over 600,000 copies a day, beaten only by the free-sheet Metro, which as we know, heavily features rugby league - not.

Can we afford to ignore 1,500,000 readers of these papers every day? 

Edited October 12, 2024 by JohnM

[unapologetic pedant]

Put the DM on the psychiatrist's couch. Patient is desperately driven to see themselves as not tabloid. Absolutely not like other tabloids. A superior sort of tabloid.

Patient is an aspirational snob, aspiring to nothing other than being a snob. Knows that all the celebrity gossip and lifestyle tosh betrays their natural prurience. Hence, feels a stronger compulsion to differentiate in other ways. Ostentatiously excessive RU coverage in the sports section fits the bill. Commensurate neglect of RL dovetails neatly into the masquerade. 

More worthy of our attention is the similar dynamic operating less self-consciously at the BBC. Long been apparent that they regard Union as officially "Rugby" and League as a subsidiary thereof. If BBC Sport execs were questioned about women's RL, in the context of DEI, they would likely point to the women's international RU games they've recently been broadcasting as proof of their commitment to "Women's Rugby".

Edited October 13, 2024 by unapologetic pedant
clarity

[JohnM]

1 minute ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Put the DM on the psychiatrist's couch. Patient is desperately driven to see themselves as not tabloid. Absolutely not like other tabloids. A superior sort of tabloid.

Patient is an aspirational snob, aspiring to nothing other than being a snob. Knows all the celebrity gossip and lifestyle tosh betrays their natural prurience. Hence, feels a stronger compulsion to differentiate in other ways. Ostentatiously excessive RU coverage in the sports section fits the bill. Commensurate neglect of RL dovetails neatly into the masquerade. 

More worthy of our attention is the similar dynamic operating less self-consciously at the BBC. Long been apparent that they regard Union as officially "Rugby" and League as a subsidiary thereof. If BBC Sport execs were questioned about women's RL, in the context of DEI, they would likely point to the women's international RU games they've recently been broadcasting as proof of their commitment to "Women's Rugby".

Been on the magic mushrooms?

[crashmon]

4 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

Last night at the Salford Community Stadium, Sale beat Newcastle 43-10!in the euphemistically named ‘derby’ round .

An half empty stadium watched a desultory match, with the away team having lost it’s 25th game in succession. Yet the Daily Mail managed to devote a 5 small column match report on this uninspiring walkover.

Yet only 2 weeks prior, on the same ground an almost full house of nearly 11,000 saw an intense play off game between Salford and Leigh. Yet in the Daily Mail, not a mention, even though there were almost full page reports in the Sun, Star and Mirror. I also presume the same problem occurs with the Express, Times and Telegraph.

It just shows what we are up against while trying to get publicity from the London based media.

Fully agree with you but

like it or loath it, if you want attention an a national level, you need a presence in London.  So until RL realises this, you not going to change anything.

this is not defending the DM.  I would not use that paper for fuel on a bonfire if I was freezing, as I would not want to smell the stench it would release as it burned as its that full of s****

this is also not wanting the broncos to have special treatment either.

Is a simple fact.  The only way you change this is with having a presence and having RL things happening in London

Edited October 12, 2024 by crashmon

[JohnM]

"this is not defending the DM. I would not use that paper for fuel on a bonfire if I was freezing, as I would not want to smell the stench it would release as it burned as its that full of s****"

I guess to hold that opinion, you must read it. In fact, they won't miss you amongst the 600,000 people who do buy the printed version every day, and...

In July 2021, Mail Online had an average of 4.1 million daily visitors. It was the most-read online newspaper brand in the UK, with 518 million page views and 1.7 billion minutes spent on the site. 

It's quite likely that the person next to you, on the bus, train, at work or at play, is a reader. With those numbers, I'd have thought the Mail would be high on the list of the sports target publications. 

[Taffy Tiger]

As mentioned above , it's supply and demand . DM readers on the whole aren't interested in RL .

 

You can look at this another way , how much space was attributed to the Sale v Newcastle game in The Sun, Mirror and Star ?

[JonM]

7 hours ago, JohnM said:

"this is not defending the DM. I would not use that paper for fuel on a bonfire if I was freezing, as I would not want to smell the stench it would release as it burned as its that full of s****"

I guess to hold that opinion, you must read it. In fact, they won't miss you amongst the 600,000 people who do buy the printed version every day, and...

In July 2021, Mail Online had an average of 4.1 million daily visitors. It was the most-read online newspaper brand in the UK, with 518 million page views and 1.7 billion minutes spent on the site. 

It's quite likely that the person next to you, on the bus, train, at work or at play, is a reader. With those numbers, I'd have thought the Mail would be high on the list of the sports target publications. 

With 65 million people in the UK, it seems over 98% likely that they're NOT a daily mail reader?

The Mail's proposed cost-cutting measures earlier in the year reportedly included their rugby union correspondent as a position that was no longer required. It didn't happen, but the fact that it was under consideration suggests to me that the days of Sale v Newcastle games getting column inches won't be around for much longer.

[JohnM]

20 minutes ago, JonM said:

With 65 million people in the UK, it seems over 98% likely that they're NOT a daily mail reader?

The Mail's proposed cost-cutting measures earlier in the year reportedly included their rugby union correspondent as a position that was no longer required. It didn't happen, but the fact that it was under consideration suggests to me that the days of Sale v Newcastle games getting column inches won't be around for much longer.

No all 65 million can read.

Not all 65 million can use the Internet 

Not all 65 million arein a position to buy a print version.

Anti- DM sentiment though, probably belongs on the politics sub-forem.

[Whippet13]

Is the printed press really relevant today? As quoted above, the DM is the top selling daily paper at 600k copies per day, that is less than 1% of the UK population buying it and the vast majority of those are old people who are not the future of RL. There is a lot of nonsense in the IMG ratings system, but at least they do try to focus on other media forms, which is far more influential these days.

[Dunbar]

This entire conversation is redundant in 2024.

Rugby League doesn't need to court any single publication, print or online, to reach an audience.  There are so many different ways to reach people digitally these days that the old barriers don't exist any more.

A lack of national media presence has traditionally held the sport back, in part through prejudice and in part through lack of capability/ambition (I don't want to get into the balance of that) but today our destiny is in our own hands.

[JohnM]

It's a "create once- use many" world. Print media is still relevant,(ask League Express)  though decreasingly so. The mix of print/broadcast/social media varies with age, occupation, location, commute, WFH and more.

Get the stories written, get them out there......any and all ways.

 

[M j M]

1 hour ago, Whippet13 said:

Is the printed press really relevant today? As quoted above, the DM is the top selling daily paper at 600k copies per day, that is less than 1% of the UK population buying it and the vast majority of those are old people who are not the future of RL. There is a lot of nonsense in the IMG ratings system, but at least they do try to focus on other media forms, which is far more influential these days.

I think this is true to some degree but newspapers do have an ability to set the news agenda. That might be less important in sport.

The large number of old, reactionary, permanently furious types who read the Daily Mail potentially has a larger crossover with a certain segment of the Rugby League fan base than we might care to admit.

[JonM]

9 hours ago, JohnM said:

No all 65 million can read.

Not all 65 million can use the Internet 

Not all 65 million arein a position to buy a print version.

None of which changes the likelihood of whether the person next to you reads the Daily Mail or not. The Mail's circulation is down 60% in a decade and continues to fall year on year. It's become the best-selling tabloid because it's not falling as rapidly as the Sun and the Mirror, and that's largely because of the age of its readership.

The mailonline is, of course, a different matter - it's a very significant player in online news, particularly of the celeb/gossip variety. The majority of its website views are outside the UK, and so it does have a fair bit of RL content - 5 NRL stories today, for example.

[Dave W]

19 hours ago, M j M said:

There are many other good reasons but this is another: never, ever, ever buy or read the Daily Mail. It's toxic #### that poisons our national discourse.

I agree entirely. Having said that, I suspect there are more than one or two on here who would consider the DM as being a bit too left wing for them. 

[John Drake]

10 hours ago, JohnM said:

Anti- DM sentiment though, probably belongs on the politics sub-forem.

Indeed.

If this thread can possibly stay on a discussion of its RL coverage (lack of) or the general subject of RL coverage in print media, I'll leave it open in here.

However, if it strays further into 'I hate the Daily Mail because...' (for any other reason), then I'll drop-kick it into the politics sub-forum.

Let's see how it goes.

[Damien]

18 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Indeed.

If this thread can possibly stay on a discussion of its RL coverage (lack of) or the general subject of RL coverage in print media, I'll leave it open in here.

However, if it strays further into 'I hate the Daily Mail because...' (for any other reason), then I'll drop-kick it into the politics sub-forum.

Let's see how it goes.

Ever the optimist 

[crashmon]

Now if Russell Crowe decided to donate 200K to help save the London broncos I would imagine that would get column inches in the Daily Mail (and god forbid maybe even the Times and Torygraph).

But probably more chance of Elvis popping up out of the grave / alongisde Jim Morrison and Jimmy Hoffa and all combining to buy out the Las Vegas NFL franchise

Edited October 13, 2024 by crashmon

[Gooleboy]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

I think this is true to some degree but newspapers do have an ability to set the news agenda. That might be less important in sport.

The large number of old, reactionary, permanently furious types who read the Daily Mail potentially has a larger crossover with a certain segment of the Rugby League fan base than we might care to admit.

The professional moaners association near me tend to regularly quote the DM!