I realise that football fans are notorious for spotting bias where none exists. And I accept that there is no-one so blind as a season ticket holder. However, I do feel that the Guardian’s football writers are obsessed with and partial to the Arsenal.
I am a humble West Ham fan but it seems to me that there is a build-in disposition at Farringdon Road to cover the affairs of Arsenal in more depth and from an Arsenal perspective. I haven’t counted the column inches but it feels like Arsenal (who are only the UK’s third or fourth best club) get much more attention than even the other members of the Big Four – let alone the vast majority of fans who support the vast majority of ‘other’ clubs. I don’t detect the same degree of pro-Gunner sentiment on other papers. And the attention given to the Arsenal always seems to share the same arrogance displayed by Arsenal manager Wenger to other teams. The reporting of West Ham’s victory this weekend – which Matt Scott grudgingly acknowledged was down to astute tactics and a brave performance – was done largely from the Arsenal point of view. The assumption was that the referee had blundered, that West Ham were lucky and that readers would want to know why this great club had failed to collect its deserved three points rather than seeing it from a West Ham point of view.
I’d love to know how many Guardian sports writers live within a courtesy ticket’s throw of Ashburton Grove?
I am, of course, completely biased but it does raise a wider issue about the way that sports reporting is linked to the marketing of the business. To me it seems that the media ignores clubs who are not in the Champions League. When did you last see a feature on Bolton or Portsmouth players or a forensic analysis feature on their tactics? Both clubs are above Arsenal, of course, but somehow inately less interesting to the media.
And don’t get me started about Match of the Day. The BBC would never pack a political panel with members of one party but it feels free to have two ex-Liverpool players hogging their sofa while former Gunner Lee Dixon gets to give his view on my beloved West Ham without even Trevor Brooking to give our right of reply!
Thank goodness for the fanzines that give a truly impartial view..
Charlie, your instincts are absolutely correct. Not, though, that football writers grind club-branded axes but that all fans are apt to read conspiracy where there is none.
Put away the Alf Garnett scarf for a second and look at the facts. My praise for Alan Pardew’s tactics was genuine, and not “grudging” as you suggest. Pardew set out his team, which is undeniably — to all but the most one-eyed fan — of inferior quality to that of Arsenal (who were incidentally last season’s European Cup finalists), with a gameplan that I stated dispassionately was “a tactical success”.
As a fellow journalist, I would have thought your news sense would tell you that the most important issue arising from the match was not the result (though its significance was dealt with in the opening sentence of my match report), rather the numerous altercations involving the players and the assault on the fan. What would neutral readers be talking about 24 hours after the game? The fact that West Ham won a match? Or Arsène Wenger shoving his own physio after he had wrestled Jens Lehmann to the ground? If you want to read something from a West Ham perspective, I suggest you look up Over Land And Sea.
I live not in N5 but in south-east London, by the way. Presumably that means I was abusing West Ham because I’m a Millwall fan.
To say that “Arsenal … are only the UK’s third or fourth best club” is rather disingenuous. They may not win as much, but the football they play is absolutely exquisite. That is the reason for the media’s obsession with them, not any supposed bias from Islington-dwelling hacks.
Steve (not an AFC fan BTW)
Couldn’t it be argued that the reason so much importance is placed on the Wenger / Pardew spat and the coin throwing is to deflect the attention away from the fact West Ham won, because of favouritism towards the likes of Arsenal? It seems their defeat should be ignored at all costs in favour of sensationalism so the actual result can be forgotten about as soon as possible.
Last year when West Ham beat Arsenal at Highbury, the commentators on Sky could only talk about Sol Campbell, not the fact that West Ham won. It was like West Ham were bit part players to the media. This time it’s about Pardew/Wenger, which most fans, including other team’s fans, couldn’t give a damn about. You ask a Spurs fan what they will remember from that day. I can guarantee you it won’t be Wenger / Pardew, it will be the fact that not only did they have a great win against Chelsea but their rivals Arsenal also lost to West Ham.
It seems that despite West Ham getting 7 out of the last 9 points from Arsenal, we are to be treated with utter contempt for daring to be the better team because we are not as glamourous. Furthermore, the coin thrown at Fulham by Everton fans seems to have been forgotten on Sky in favour of continually showing the West Ham one, although this could probably be because despite getting the coin in his face, Claus Jensen was not trying to make a meal of it like Robin Van Persie did.
Sky’s biased coverage is simply an audio visual extension of the attitude of the press.
I agree about this particular report . Matt Scott’s article, as well as not having a particularly engaging tone, seemed to be written from an Arsenal perspective.
For example, the description of the build up to the goal seemed to suggest that West Ham had gained an unfair advantage (a point that even the Arsenal panel on Match of the Day 2 didn’t even dare to suggest): “The game was severely stretched in the closing minutes as Etherington was sent down the wing. Mathieu Flamini’s sliding challenge dispossessed him but the Englishman regained the ball with what might have been deemed a foul.”
Mind you the patronising tone of his reply on this site suggests that he will not welcome the musings of a non-journalist who is devoid of nonsense, sorry I mean news sense (whatever that ghastly phrase is meant to mean).
In recent times though the Guardian have been pretty fair and we West Ham supporters have been lucky that at the end of last season and the start of this, David Lacey reported on many of our matches. Now there’s someone who Matt Scott could learn a lot from.
I’ve got to say I don’t find The Guardian biased against West Ham. In fact Russell Brand’s regular Saturday column is undoubtedly biased in favour of the Irons.
In response to Matt Scott, I must be a one-eyed fan. Pardew’s team has beaten Wenger’s team twice and drawn once so I would question your assertion that they are undeniably inferior. The fact that Wenger has been pursuing our captain would suggest he also disagrees with you.
I don’t support either Arsenal or West Ham,so I could speak from a neutral stand. It is interesting to observe from the sideline that you are blaming each other for the bias. In terms of the news sense, there is nothing right or wrong here. The news sense of West Ham fans will be different from that of the Arsenal supporters. Even football writers can’t be free from this.
Scott may give more attention to the altercation, which, in my view, is quite understandable, as that is the drama which journalists will lose no time to go for. As a fellow sports journalist from outside of UK, I would feel it pointless to elaborate on the competition details, which should be left to the television. For printed press, they are supposed to write something behind the scenes. Compared with the dramatic off-court incident, the football competition itself is not very newsworthy. But the danger for the football writers focusing on human interest story is liable to be accused of being biased. That is what unfortuantely happened to Scott.
Arsenal is really charming for their flowing game, but West Ham also deserves respect for their victory.
A search on Guardian Unlimited for West Ham yields 6875 results. A similar search for Arsenal returns 18676 results. Even if we take into account Arsenal’s greater number of fixtures from European competition and the likelihood of longer cup runs, the coverage appears to be wildly disproportionate. The BBC are no better. I couldn’t count the times I have stayed up until 12.30 for a pathetic 12 second snippet of the West Ham match on Match of the Day after sitting through 30 minutes each of Man Utd/Arsenal/Chelsea coverage.
As Charlie rightly points out, the media are increasingly interested solely in the Champions League teams. This excludes smaller teams like the Irons and caters for the increasing hordes of fickle, arm-chair fans who “support” the big teams. Football journalists, who I assume have a genuine love of the game, have a responsibility to reduce the remarkable hype that surrounds the modern game. Surely those who truly appreciate the football, 11 against 11, be it at Battersea Park or the Bernabau would welcome more balanced media coverage that focusses on purely footballing matters.
Yeah, you are absolutely right.
Don Lapre Billy
webmaster@gidnoc.com
http://www.gidnoc.com