Gives me no pleasure writing this, but something has to change if rugby league is ever going to break through.

[Richard de la Riviere]

https://t.co/XIh63UmJKh

[Worzel]

41 minutes ago, Richard de la Riviere said:

https://t.co/XIh63UmJKh

Well said, and needed saying.

Peter Deakin is sadly missed, and has never been replaced. David Oxley and David Howes at the RFL before him had a similarly enagaging attitiude to the media, and saved the sport in the early 1980's as a result.

I think the clubs believe that with modern media they can disintermediate journalists, and get the stories they want out there in more direct ways. In many ways they're right, but there's no zero sum game here and it's perfectly possible to get the best of both worlds. Only your current fans consume club direct media, you're relying on the virality of supporter friendship networks to get beyond that. Journalists can help bridge into non-consumers in another way, alongside that work not instead of it.

If their fear is misrepresentation or players undermining themselves, then ask gently for some copy approval. In my experience these days journalists who would have never given this before are happy to do so, as long as your subsequent comments are not invasive or disproportionate. Everyone knows the game.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Worzel
Typo

[Simon Hall]

Interesting to see that York Valkyrie are helpful, maybe just write about them and their male counterparts all the time instead. I'll read it.

[EagleEyePie]

While I think the impact of journalists having limited access to players is overstated (it always is, when it comes from a journalist) for me the bottom line is fans are worse off when clubs deny access to players.

No, it's not the reason why attendances aren't always great. No, giving greater access to journalists isn't going to massively increase the profile of the sport. The target demographic for clubs don't really consume that sort of media and its increasingly kept behind paywalls or requires registration to access and people don't bother with that.

However, by limiting access current fans lose out. People with an interest in rugby league want to read or hear the stories from current players and there's value in that. Purely from a quality standpoint the media output from clubs is absolute garbage. It's not a case of clubs trying to replace the work of journalists by keeping everything in-house. they just don't bother at all.

[Futtocks]

An informative and depressing read.

[JohnM]

53 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

While I think the impact of journalists having limited access to players is overstated (it always is, when it comes from a journalist) for me the bottom line is fans are worse off when clubs deny access to players.

No, it's not the reason why attendances aren't always great. No, giving greater access to journalists isn't going to massively increase the profile of the sport. The target demographic for clubs don't really consume that sort of media and its increasingly kept behind paywalls or requires registration to access and people don't bother with that.

However, by limiting accessat bu

current fans lose out. People with an interest in rugby league want to read or hear the stories from current players and there's value in that. Purely from a quality standpoint the media output from clubs is absolute garbage. It's not a case of clubs trying to replace the work of journalists by keeping everything in-house. they just don't bother at all.

People with an interest in rugby league want to read or hear the stories from current players and there's value in that.

I agree with you on that. Picture this:

Journalist question to player:  Goal kicking under pressure can be difficult. How do you train for that?

Journalist question to player: What's your pre-match ritual as you come up to a big game?

Journalist question to player: How much timw do you spend analysing abd countering the way your opponents play - weak spots, bad habits....

Journalist question to player: You've played in the NRL. How does it differ to playing in Suoerleage from a training and playing point of view.

...but equally picture this.

Journalist question to player: What do you think of the RFLs appaling decsion to ruin Maark Aston's career?

Journalist to player: How do you feel about IMG killing P and R?

Journalist question to player: Havwe you stopped beating your wife yet?

That's why media training is so important and why clubs are selective in allowig access. There are enough former players around to cover this stuff without current players being trained in how to avoid traps.

 

[sweaty craiq]

You reap what you sowe, and “journalists” are about as trustworthy as politicians these days. I thought clubs had a weekly press conference btw and I don’t see many pro sports people away from match day giving “interviews” not sanctioned and without the club sat next to them.

[RigbyLuger]

2 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

You reap what you sowe, and “journalists” are about as trustworthy as politicians these days. I thought clubs had a weekly press conference btw and I don’t see many pro sports people away from match day giving “interviews” not sanctioned and without the club sat next to them.

The RFL should be more selective in who they allow to ply their trade as "journalists" and that goes for clubs too.

[JohnM]

Accreditation is required. 

Media training is required 

Not every player should be allowed to talk to the press .

 

[Hopping Mad]

So glad I reported rugby league between 1986 and 1992. Back then, there was never an issue gaining access to anyone - players, coaches, directors, referees etc. At that time, when, thankfully, media training and club press officers did not exist, nearly everybody I interviewed was honest, open and generally forthright (in some cases, looking back, rather naive), which made great copy. These days, finding anything remotely interesting said about the game by insiders is increasingly difficult.

Edited December 2, 2024 by Hopping Mad

[sweaty craiq]

10 hours ago, Hopping Mad said:

So glad I reported rugby league between 1986 and 1992. Back then, there was never an issue gaining access to anyone - players, coaches, directors, referees etc. At that time, when, thankfully, media training and club press officers did not exist, nearly everybody I interviewed was honest, open and generally forthright (in some cases, looking back, rather naive), which made great copy. These days, finding anything remotely interesting said about the game by insiders is increasingly difficult.

The pre professional days then, when folk trained a few nights a week and played on the Sunday around a full time job.

[EagleEyePie]

11 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

You reap what you sowe, and “journalists” are about as trustworthy as politicians these days. I thought clubs had a weekly press conference btw and I don’t see many pro sports people away from match day giving “interviews” not sanctioned and without the club sat next to them.

That would still make them more trustworthy than club owners and chairpersons. I don't really buy this journalists are all liars nonsense. Clubs don't want real journalists because they can hold the clubs to account. Clubs want to control the narrative in every possible way but that's not a good place for the sport to be in, particularly for a sport as political as rugby league.

It may seem like a small thing, but access is one of many things that can help keep journalists employed. Real journalists, as opposed to those who take stories from others without credit and write endless list articles. It's completely understandable why clubs do this micro-managing of every aspect but I don't see how it's something that fans should be supportive of. 

Edited December 3, 2024 by EagleEyePie

[fighting irish]

Oh God. It's heartbreaking. 

[JohnM]

I don't buy this as a reason why our sport doesn't break through. I can't speak for the Telegraph, but The Times is an excellent example of how rugby union goes about it. Whist The Times does not shy away from criticising union, particularly at present with all the financial troubles at the RFU and Premiership clubs, it really focuses by a ratio of ten to one on match previews and reviews. Column inch after column inch, well illustrated, waxing lyrical about a bit of all-pile-on or one decent pass. Six Nations supplements abound, supported by advertising.  And the the readership laps it up, otherwise they wouldn't publish it 

We don't come anywhere near providing that quality and quantity of material. It seems to me we focus on what's wrong with things at a ratio of ten to one. Super greed, IMG, grading, p and r, etc etc.

[Dunbar]

"Clubs were great with journalists when I started doing this in 2005. Then in 2010, Bradford and the Hull clubs were the first to forbid journalists from contacting players without going through them first.

Having spoken to several long-serving journalists recently, there’s a consensus that that’s when the tide began to turn. It became common for interview requests to be turned down, and we’ve now had a whole generation of players who have had significantly fewer media commitments than their predecessors – which goes hand in hand with the ever-decreasing profile of the sport."

So, what happened around 2010 that dissuaded clubs from allowing the media access to their players? 

Did they decide they didn’t want the attention that a higher profile in the media presented or was there something else that meant the benefits were outweighed.  I don’t know the answers to these questions but it seems a strange thing for a whole sport to do without a motivation.

[sweaty craiq]

20 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I don't buy this as a reason why our sport doesn't break through. I can't speak for the Telegraph, but The Times is an excellent example of how rugby union goes about it. Whist The Times does not shy away from criticising union, particularly at present with all the financial troubles at the RFU and Premiership clubs, it really focuses by a ratio of ten to one on match previews and reviews. Column inch after column inch, well illustrated, waxing lyrical about a bit of all-pile-on or one decent pass. Six Nations supplements abound, supported by advertising.  And the the readership laps it up, otherwise they wouldn't publish it 

We don't come anywhere near providing that quality and quantity of material. It seems to me we focus on what's wrong with things at a ratio of ten to one. Super greed, IMG, grading, p and r, etc etc.

We have never had that level of blind loyalty with any paper, especially since the Manchester papers decline from about 1990. Can we regain it or indeed achieve it for the first time - doubt it  but we can do better by operating the “emperors clothes” strategy but need a willing partner.

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, EagleEyePie said:

That would still make them more trustworthy than club owners and chairpersons. I don't really buy this journalists are all liars nonsense. Clubs don't want real journalists because they can hold the clubs to account. Clubs want to control the narrative in every possible way but that's not a good place for the sport to be in, particularly for a sport as political as rugby league.

It may seem like a small thing, but access is one of many things that can help keep journalists employed. Real journalists, as opposed to those who take stories from others without credit and write endless list articles. It's completely understandable why clubs do this micro-managing of every aspect but I don't see how it's something that fans should be supportive of. 

Club owners throwing £millions in to keep clubs alive you mean - get real

[Dave T]

As a sport we just seem really closed and unfriendly. Even as a fan, it can be difficult to read about the sport in the form of any interesting articles. Personally, I don't really find player features or interviews that interesting, but I think if journos are being denied access that feels poor.

I wonder whether clubs have just gone down a bit of a rabbit hole of believing they need to control all aspects of this - let's be honest, there is a good chance of getting some controversial views depending on the journo (but then maybe that would be interesting to read!) and I expect clubs want to create this content themselves and drive traffic to them, but that feels a little small-time thinking.

I do think as a sport we should be all about transparency and honesty - it would make a refreshing change to some other sports, but right from the top we just don't seem to hear from the leaders let alone the players. 

All that said, and I have no reason to doubt RdlR, but he mentions that Sky are frustrated, yet we do seem to see plenty of our players on Sky, on SSN, the pre-match programs (of which their are more than ever), we see extensive post-match stuff - it certainly doesn't come across that the players are kept out of sight.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I wonder whether clubs have just gone down a bit of a rabbit hole of believing they need to control all aspects of this - let's be honest, there is a good chance of getting some controversial views depending on the journo (but then maybe that would be interesting to read!) and I expect clubs want to create this content themselves and drive traffic to them, but that feels a little small-time thinking.

Maybe some clubs are good at this (Wigan?, Leigh fans seems to like what they get from the club by way of communication) but I see more good content from Hastings United than I do from pretty much any RL team. There's no point saying we'll do it all in house if you then don't produce anything to keep people interested.

[Dave T]

59 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Maybe some clubs are good at this (Wigan?, Leigh fans seems to like what they get from the club by way of communication) but I see more good content from Hastings United than I do from pretty much any RL team. There's no point saying we'll do it all in house if you then don't produce anything to keep people interested.

I never see anything interesting from Wire tbh, I see plenty of pics on insta and they get plenty likes, maybe that ticks the box for them and they're happy with that to show to sponsors!

[phiggins]

There is plenty of discussion on this forum about clickbait articles, quotes being taken out of context, embargoes being broken etc... So I can't say I'm overly surprised at clubs being hesitant about the access they give journalists to their players. Too big a chance that a nothing comment could be sensationalised. 

[Richard de la Riviere]

42 minutes ago, phiggins said:

There is plenty of discussion on this forum about clickbait articles, quotes being taken out of context, embargoes being broken etc... So I can't say I'm overly surprised at clubs being hesitant about the access they give journalists to their players. Too big a chance that a nothing comment could be sensationalised. 

I’ve never done those things in 20 years, so why should all journalists be punished, especially when it’s the game that loses out? 

[Richard de la Riviere]

Big thanks to Leeds Rhinos who got in touch this morning to ask for more details of my experiences and for their desire to put things right.
 

And also to 2 more clubs who have been in touch since Monday to say I am welcome to interview their players.  

[Locutus]

Regarding press coverage of our game it always annoys me when, mid season, you get brief announcements about players signing for other clubs for next season. I get that clubs are always looking for players to improve squads but why announce it now? These signing announcements should be announced on a drip feed as easy copy for newspapers (and all other media) during the close season where RL all but vanishes from thier pages. Obviously it's not going to rival the football transfer windows but I dont see how saving transfer announcements until the close season wouldn't improve press coverage for the game. 

[JohnM]

8 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

We have never had that level of blind loyalty with any paper, especially since the Manchester papers decline from about 1990. Can we regain it or indeed achieve it for the first time - doubt it  but we can do better by operating the “emperors clothes” strategy but need a willing partner.

Yes. Agreed. There used to be significant match coverage etc in the M.E.N for example but now it's only League Express that does that. 

The national broadsheets used to provide decent coverage but that was just once a year when we were "up fer t' cup" at Wemberlee or when the Kangaroos were "proper" touring.

At the moment, we're non-exiistent in the national media, unless it's someone having a punt at IMG or grading etc. and then it's only a few column inches supplied by a malcontent.  The wider aspects of the game rarely get mentioned.  

Most other stuff is there on social media, on-line organs and the printed edition of LE.   All that is doing is preaching to the converted and trying to entice lapsed fans back, not reaching a potential new audience.

There's so much more the RFL could do but not only is it just not happening at present, it never really has happened in the past.  

The one exception to this was in my view in the period 1988 to about 1995 when what Mo was doing at Wigan DID break through in the national media, Wigan's success, some famous -name union signings, and Mos ability to get sponsorship money 

So, in my view just giving players the freedom to talk to journalists won't take us anywhere near breaking through. Indeed, it might do more harm than good. The issues that prevent breakthrough are far broader and more general than player interviews.

Having said that, a fair and objective and considered piece on the issue of head injuries, with factual input from medics, owners, insurers, administrators and laced with player quotes, might just start  us on the right path.

Edited December 3, 2024 by JohnM