by Kate Forrester
LAZY. Incompetent. Biased. Scum. Parasite.
As a working journalist, I have been called all of the above at least once (but not all at the same time, usually). And I haven’t really done anything more controversial than sit in magistrates’ court and fill a single column downpage with the tale of a drunken teenager who nicked a packet of Rich Tea from the Co-op in Wrexham.
I haven’t, for instance, happily contributed to or actively encouraged the ruination of a 25-year-old man’s career based on nothing more than a questionable ruling that very few in the national media have actually bothered to question.
It’s far easier, you see, to skim read a report from a professional body and just regurgitate quotes from it. Repeatedly. Even adapt them, if you fancy it. No-one’s really going to mind, are they?
It’s not like he’s our own brave, resolute, English JT. He’s not a national treasure.
I have always been a great defender of journalists in general. This is because I know the vast majority of us work hard, for not much money, and spend a great deal of time taking flak from the general public.
A lot of it is harsh and can be pretty cutting, particularly when many personal criticisms reach you via a website comment box, with no name attributed. Sometimes we deserve all we get, because we do make mistakes. When everything you do is very much in the public domain, you have to accept you are fair game and develop a thick skin.
But hearing people – most painfully, LFC fans – say things like: “All journos are parasites” is hard for me to swallow. Firstly, I fucking hate the term ‘journo’, but that’s just because I’m a picky little nark. Secondly, my instinct is to defend the profession I love, but for the first time ever I find I can’t.
I never thought I would become one of those people who refuses to buy a paper (the S*n aside, of course). I previously very much enjoyed my Saturday Guardian, a broadsheet I imagined would always be aligned with my general outlook on life.
Not so. In recent weeks, the paper’s absolutely woeful, shockingly biased (there’s another phrase I never thought I would use) coverage of the whole Suarez affair has had me frothing with rage much more than the Mail, everyone’s favourite foe, ever has.
At least you can attempt to laugh at rags known for their hysteria, but there are no Littlejohns at the Guardian. Allegedly. Just an astounding number of clearly anti-Liverpool writers, whose venom towards the club I have supported since I was a tiny child truly distresses me.
I cannot and will not spend my hard-earned regional news reporter’s pennies on endorsing thinly-veiled (unveiled?) attacks on our club and our city by people who have the audacity to claim they are objective.
Despite all this, we should not forget why journalism is important and why we don’t all deserve to be tarred with the same brush of moral outrage.
There is a spoof Twitter account called @SkyNewsFeed, which a few days ago claimed Luis Suarez had handed in a transfer request (provoking some amazingly moronic/xenophobic comments from its more gullible followers).
We need real journalists to verify information like this and to tell us the real story, whether it concerns the future of a witch-hunted Premier League striker or a planning application to build a block of flats on a patch of waste ground in L4.
The root of our profession is supposed to be to get at the truth and be the eyes and ears of the public.
And if all of us do our jobs as we should, the residents of Walton Breck Road will know what’s going on outside their front door, our football club will have a chance to recover from the incessant blows that have rained down on it and we may just develop a level of public discourse which can help find solutions to wide-ranging problems that go beyond the hounding of individuals.
Nothing wrong with criticism of the club, but the screeds from the likes of Daniel Taylor (Manchester United supporting Nottingham Forest fan) have been polemics motivated by a desire to degrade Liverpool FC and Kenny Dalglish.
The discussions on TAW podcast have been superb – critical of the club, critical of the reaction in certain quarters too. But because its not done from a position of hatred, motivated by malice and a desire to degrade LFC, it gets to the issues, clears a space in the hysteria, and deals with the issues properly and constructively.
I don’t understand this.
You’re moaning at the coverage of the Suarez affair and say it’s anti-Liverpool, biased etc…
Yet you’ve provided no examples?
At least tell us what specifically you disagree with.
No Examples, have you read nothing in the press in the last 2 months?
Come on mate you have to be more intelligent than that post suggests.
Excellent article, sums up much of my frustration with the ‘reporting’ on this issue.
Spot on. I’m a regional journalist – not a fucking journo – and I’m daftly proud of what I do.
I used to avoid the Sunday papers after a bad result, now it’s because I don’t want to read the latest smears against our players, manager and fans.
I guess it’s of little interest to other LFC fans, but we’re going through our latest round of redundancies here – a 20 per cent cut to staffing in the editorial dept.
Regional newspapers are dying and very few people are talking about it.
That’s some introduction to the website. Great article.
Particularly agree with the comments re: The Guardian; really disappointed in recent times.
This is one of those occasions where generalisations really can be painful to those falling under the same ‘professional’ umbrealla as some complete and utter pillocks.
I know I always try to add in the words ‘certain sections of’ when having a grumble about journalists or the media in general, although I know I’m often guilty of only adding it in as an afterthought. My better half is a nurse, so collectively slating the NHS often earns me the odd word or too in defence.
In both these examples though, as Kate points out, it can actually be more distressing to know that, for better or worse, you actually are linked to these people. Be it biased and agenda driven journalists, or NHS staff that have no interest in their patients, only their paychecks. Their reputation is your reputation. Unfair, certainly, but unavoidable regardless.
A good read and always nice to hear from people that fall into the more favourable ‘certain sections of’ the media!
All i have to say is – spot on!
– Cantona assaulted a spectator
– Giggs had an affair with his sister in law.
– Ferdinand clearly dodging a drug test.
– Keane ends a blokes career (Haaland) on purpose.
– Evra leds a strike against the national manager in the World Cup
– He also attacks the Chelsea groundskeepers.
– Keane walked out on Ireland over a slice of pizza.
– Rooney cheats on his missus with geriatric prostitutes.
– Bosnich does cocaine
All these things didnt have any where near the coverage the Suarez/Evra thing did.. and yet Kenny is the bad manager as well…
Seriously.. what a load of shite!!
& don’t forget that KEANE & three other Man Utd players refused to shake Patrick Viera’s hand live on SKY a few years back. The like to forget about that one, not to mention Ferguscum’s own behaviour down the years. Remember how Mr Magner & McManus were treated by the scum & their tabloid friends.
Those kinds of the ga are allowed though…
Not all journalists are ‘parasites’, but a very sizeable minority are doing the journalism game huge amounts of damage. Self appointed Liverpool fan David Maddock springs to mind.
I used to buy a couple of papers regularly. I wouldn’t pick up any of the UK national newspapers anymore, even if it was handed to me for free.
Put into words what I’ve been thinking and doing. Hats off. I’ve promised to never buy a national newspaper in this country again. In their bid to be recognised, the ‘journalists’ have forgotten who they are and what their job is. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to care too much for integrity.
Nice one Kate and TAW.
Exactly but not just nationals read todays comment in the online Daily Post, another shithead no doubt after a job with Murdoch.
I’ll stop tarring all journalists with the same brush when they stop tarring all football fans with the same brush, or all scousers with the same brush, or all working class people withteh same brush, or all benefits claimants with the same brush… (the list goes on, and on, and on)
Yes its childish, yes its petty, but your lot started it.
The newspaper industry in this country is dying. I’ll not be shedding a tear.
An excellent and well reasoned piece, Kate. Having read Nick Davies’ book Flat Earth News, I have more sympathy for your profession, but the antics recently justified my decision to stop buying national newspapers some years ago.
By the way, the Grauniad’s original full title was the Manchester Guardian. And doesn’t it show…
Most ,if not all, of the national newspapers used to have their Norh West offices in Manchester. My uncle, a born and bred Scouser, worked for the Daily Mail ( sorry, Manc ) for many years. He had a strong Liverpool accent and it was not always comfortable for him living/working in Manchester.
“The root of our profession is supposed to be to get at the truth and be the eyes and ears of the public.”
Are journalists no longer taught the above basic requirement on journalism courses at Uni these days?
Kate take heart though in the fact that it is only the few that are tarring you guys with a bad name and I reckon those few days are numbered in the profession, too many people are wise to them now. We want news and facts in our newspapers if we are to be convinced to spend money on buying them. If we want a blog from the likes of Holt or Maddock we can get that free on the internet.
Keep the chin up fight to tell the truth and don’t let the feckers drag you down.
Really good to see that someone ‘on the inside’ feels like this too.
It’s very easy to feel like you’re being paranoid.
Thanks for writing this. Still not sure its anti Liverpool FC per se or whether the journalists just saw a chance to go after a high profile club. Having a dubious independent report in one hand and the ‘against racism beacon’ in the other they realised they could say almost anything they wanted to (and did) about LFC and volley back any inaccuracies pointed out by people ,hiding behind both things above.
Having read the report a few times now it is so frustrating to see the purposely ignorant comments displayed by cowardly journalists. These are educated people and I don’t think for 1 minute they didnt and don’t know exactly what they are doing. The many people both friends and non friends who then take there word as gospel is equally frustrating, yet inevitable i suppose.
So thanks Anfield Wrap for continuing to fight with measured articles. Even if it is a war we cant win against the mainstream media (it seems) at least it gives myself and other LFC fans some solace that we are not totally mad, blinkered, closet racists
Hear Hear
Great read. My favourite word in the article was ‘unveiled’. So true. People’s true colours are coming out, they don’t even try and pretend any more. Even if they give the ‘I used to have great respect for Liverpool’ bollocks
Thanks Kate, a heartfelt plea not tar all Journalists with the same brush.
In my opinion the Fourth Estate is dead on its feet because it no longer reports “news”. Should it ever get back to reporting “news” then it might stand a chance of preventing extinction.
Now can you tell us what is happening on Walton Breck Road? Is it a conspiracy why we are not being told? The truth will out!!!
Having been let down by so many national papers in recent times, it makes it easier to say ‘all journalists’. And im not just talking about football, some of the pro government, anti working poor, anti social welfare crap the media churn out makes me sick. I haven’t bought a paper in months and I dont think I ever will again. Im finding it hard to even watch the news sometimes!!! I know its about the scoop, and to write what sells but the media have a huge responsibility to what they put out into the public. But I just dont think they care anymore. The levels some will go to just to get a story is outrageous. I feel sorry for journalists like yourself who feel you are being punished for doing a job you love. Unfortunately it will continue.
Also want to say sorry too, I use the word ‘journo’ quite a bit..
We sometimes forget that it is not just the newspapers that employ Journalists. SSN and TalkSPORT have been at the forefront of the attacks on LFC and Luis Suarez.
Good stuff – I think an equivalent term to ‘Shock Jock’ is required for these guys. Journalism is a noble profession.
Excellent article, although I suspect the media’s wilfully sloppy handling of the Suárez-Evra case is not born out of hostility to LFC.
Instead I think it comes from the general tendency to sensationalise with little regard to the facts and the reputations of individuals concerned. However, what makes this much worse is that these journalists are sports writers, and as such are no more qualified to speak on issues of race and discrimination than the rest of us. I would have hoped that a journalist who is addressing a serious topic outside his area of specialism would taken additional care over establishing facts, their interpretation, and the effects of their words on their readers. This is not a contentious offside decision or a debate about two-footed tackles! The subject matter is far more serious and complicated. The alarmingly casual condemnation of a Suárez as a lying racial abuser seems to me to be irresponsible and negligent.
As a previous poster pointed out, the fact that this concerns racism, seems to allow the journalists additional freedom to write carelessly, but I also wonder whether they are scared to position themselves and their newspapers somehow on the wrong side of the racism argument. Of course it is difficult to appear to be questioning the integrity of a black man complaining about racial abuse, but surely when the reputation of the accused is at stake, there is some duty to examine both sides of the story.
I have not seen a single article in the mainstream media that attempts a critical analysis of the Commission’s report (I sometimes wonder whether it was stretched to 115 pages to a) appear thorough, and b) to intimidate journalists into not reading it). What is even stranger is that there is so much material in this report that is worthy of further investigation; Evra’s changing narrative, the amateurish approach to recording initial versions of events (notes being lost, non-Spanish speakers providing translations for Suárez), the strange fixation on seemingly unimportant incidents (e.g. the arm-pinching and Suárez’s use of the word “conciliatory” instead of “friendly”), the absence of evidence etc etc.
The ultimate frustration is that the things which we all condemn, racism and discrimination, are the products of lazy and inherited thinking, and it is these very traits that are evident in the coverage of this story,
Absolutely brilliant, Alex, well done.1 have posted comments on my view of the panel’s findings on here and other sites but I cannot compete with the qualiy of your reposte. I was listening to TalkSPORT ( unforgivable, I know ) when the report was finally released. Immediately, like a pack of salivating wolves, the media descended on the final conclusions. If I had a pound for every time I read or heard ‘unreliable’ and ‘inconsistent’ I would not be posting this but sitting on a beach in Hawaii. To a man or woman they set about assassinating the character of Suarez and yet it was patently obvious that they could not possibly have read the full report. Well I stayed up that night and did. The more I read, the angrier I became. I will summarise my feelings by saying that, in my humble opinion, Luis Suarez was more sinned against than sinning. Evra’s behaviour was despicable.
Im with you Alex. If i hear one more thing about the arm pinching I’ll tear my hair out!! Anyone would think he had boxed the head off him. And the language thing as well has me baffled. The transation of Suarezs Spanish into Dutch and then into English…of course there would be errors or mis-interpretaion. I have read so many articles that have been literally translated from Spanish to English and found some of them very garbled and hard to read. So literal translation AGAIN is a problem. We only have to look at the Tevez case at the minute. Apparently his Spanish was literally translated and it came out worse than what was actually intended. For journalists who claim to be educated, they are not very bright if they cant see the fundamental error in translating on Goolge Translate! And dont say it doesn’t happen like that, it bloody happened to some poor polish immigrant in Ireland a few weeks ago and caused uproar.
That’s basically it. Not one of them had the balls to stick his/her head above the parapet and look for the shades of grey. Let’s face it, you didn’t need to look too hard.
There’s a phrase for this sort of behaviour: moral cowardice.
Well said Kate. Too often of late it’s been my default setting to disparage journalists as a whole because of how wide-spread the bias and laziness seemed to be. Refreshing to read your slant.
I’d go further. i think Fergie has control of the national press. How many chief reporters are linked to United? They have been following his agenda and no one else’s.
Like the posts on this site, newspapers and their website are allowed to publish articles that may be divisive and opinionated.
Unlike this site, their code of practice means they’re not allowed to be inaccurate.
No, but they can leave things out and edit facts to fit their agenda. The Telegraph had an edited ‘transcript’ of KD’s interview under the whole complete video in which they removed half of what he had said! It just seemed bizarre…
Thats Bollocks. Ask ‘Magda’ the Polish girl in Ireland who was nearly hounded out of the country because of a poorly translated, unbelievebly inaccurate article. Where was the code of practise then? Newspapers print bullshit all the time and if you believe everything you read in the paper you would want to get your head tested!!
“Unlike this site, their code of practice means they’re not allowed to be inaccurate.”
Most of the inaccuracies on this site last night were in the comments you left on the podcast post. I should know as I spent half of last night correcting them.
agree with you Kate about The Guardian. Daniel Taylor writes as if he is on the MUFC payroll. There has been no balance in their reporting of the Suarez affair since the outset.
“Like the posts on this site, newspapers and their website are allowed to publish articles that may be divisive and opinionated.
Unlike this site, their code of practice means they’re not allowed to be inaccurate.”
Well I know it’s not a newspaper, but the BBC site is one of the biggest media sites in the world and its sports editor, David Bond, had an op-ed up 2 days ago in which he claimed Suarez had called Evra “a negro”. When approx 149 commenters pointed out that this is just plain wrong, he imediately corrected his piece.
All of the above is true apart from the last sentence,
So after 4 months, the sports editor at one of the world’s largest media sites still can’t recount the most basic of facts about this case. It’s bad enough that Bond libelled Suarez in the first place, but just not caring enough to correct his mistake after dozens have pointed it out seems somehow even worse.
Not read the piece you’re on about. So David Bond mistakenly wrote Suraez said “a negro” rather than “negro” and then quickly corrected it?
No Claire not ‘quickly’ but after 149 people had pointed out his mistake. It doesnt matter that he corrected it. If 149 people read it and corrected him how many just read it and never went back to it again? Once the mistake is out there, its there. Not many people read an article twice.
“my instinct is to defend the profession I love, but for the first time ever I find I can’t”
Is this article for real? After everything the press in this country has done, backing illegal wars, ruining professional careers for the sake of a quick buck, committing illegal acts for the sake of a story, spreading unfounded rumours, printing lies about troops abroad to name a few and the first time you can’t defend the profession is now?
Talk about playing to the crowd.
149 comments on a BBC article, what’s that in actual time? An hour?
Oh take a bloody day off will you!! What does it matter how long it was there? A minute, an hour, a bloody year? And? It was there, thats the point and enough people have seen it. Its obvious by the comments people are making on different articles. Too many people form their opinions on what they read in the press so they have a responsibility to be factual when writing on such serious matters.
Looks like I confused matters with my flippancy. To be clear, after more than 1000 comments, the ‘mistake’ remains uncorrected. Bond clearly doesn’t know it is a mistake or he doesn’t care enough to correct it. Either way, that’s bloody appalling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2012/02/owners_step_in_to_settle_suare.html
Thanks for the link… Hmmmm, is it really “bloody appalling” to say going “negro, negro, negro” at a black man is calling him a “negro”?…. OK…….
You got any other great links to bloody appalling errors in the media?
Anyway, I have to go out now! I’m 249 comments late!! :)
Claire
repeat after me…………’neg-gro’ not ‘negrow’, ‘neg-gro’ not ‘negrow’, ‘neg-gro’ not ‘ne-grow’ 100 times. Then go and read the 115 page report. Then come down from the high ground and admit that, notwithstanding the fact that Suarez should not have called Evra ‘neg-gro’ (repeat after me) and should have received a ban (four matches), the narrative that the mainstream UK media has peddled has been horrifically one sided for a case in which Suarez was found to have called Evra ‘neg-gro’ (repeat after me) 7 times with not one single piece of corroborating evidence. ignore the fact that the club have handled the press and the FA badly because that detracts from the facts of the matter. The facts are that Suarez admits to calling Evra ‘neg-gro’ once. The FA appointed panel found that, on the balance of probabilities, he had said it seven times and banned him for eight games. The FA panel found that Evra’s evidence was more reliable than Suarez’s. One man’s word against another yet Suarez was given the double the minimum possible penalty.
I (and I’m sure many other like minded reds) grow tired of having to explain why we feel aggrieved on behalf of Suarez. Should he have called Evra ‘neg-gro’ (repeat after me)…………no. Should he have received a ban……….yes. Should he have shook Evra’s hand……………yes (if for no other reason than he had told the club he was going to). Should the ban have been for eight matches………….no. Does it seem fair that one man’s word is deemed to carry more weight than another’s……………….? Maybe you can answer that one Claire? your flip question ‘You got any other great links to bloody appalling errors in the media?’ misses the point that for the BBC to be mis reporting (and still mis reporting) on such an important (and possibly libellous) point is a bloody appalling error as it serves to continue the one sided narrative of the whole sorry affair.
I’m a bit hungover… and this all seems a bit weird, but okay….
…Well I just repeat “neg-gro’ not ‘negrow’” 100 times…Then I read the report again. And walked downstairs.
After all that I’m still pretty sure Suarez said “negro”. Not sure why you’re going on about the English word ‘Nergo’. Bit odd that.
Maybe I’m still tipsy, but I still have no idea what’s important, erroneous, possibly libellous and bloody appalling about “calling his Manchester United rival a “negro” ”. I’m confused.
The English word Negro would be capitalized, so it’s not that. Is it the word “a” that’s the problem? Was even more confused by brownie’s comment that it said “a nergo” when is doesn‘t. “A negro” would be wrong, a “Negro” would be wrong… When I say wrong I mean barely significant obviously. If you’re going to split hairs, do so with something better and do so correctly….
Seems you REALLY want me to answer “Does it seem fair that one man’s word is deemed to carry more weight than another’s?” If you mean is it fair that one man’s word is deemed to be more credible or reliable, then yes…. that’s fair.
You’re right, there was not one single piece of corroborating evidence, there was several. I read the report just now (after saying “neg-gro’ not ‘negrow’” 100 times) and I’d say the language experts and the video evidence particularly seem like pretty critical corroborating evidence to me!
The “mainstream UK media” can be as opinionated as it wants, we have a free press in this country! Liverpool and Suarez have done enough wrong recently to keep the most opinionated very busy.
Anyway, I’m still interested if anyone has an inaccurate or misleading article to show me. I’ll make a formal complaint about it myself if you can find one!
Well, I’m guessing Brownie, David and Sul recognise they were wrong now.
A bit hypocrical to make stuff up about the media though, when their point is the media are making stuff up against Liverpool.
No such recognition from me claire. I simply realise that thrying to have a reasoned argument with a troll like yourself would be akin to beating my head against a brick wall. I’ve got better things to be doing………………
That… and you probably feel a bit foolish now you’ve realised you were wrong… :)
Being a fellow journalist it’s true that certain members of the media have an anti-LFC agenda but it’s equally true to say certain fans have an anti-media agenda.
I know a seriously deluded fan who believed that the whole Suarez-Evra affair was a Government coverup to take the shine off the Kevin Williams’ Hillsborough inquest.
But aside from that many fans are right, the reason behind the anti-LFC biased articles is that the majority of national newspapers are based in London and have a London-flavour to them particularly when it comes to controversies.
For proof you only need to compare the coverage from JT and Suarez affairs on Google News.
So by that logic you would think that the best newspaper for unbiased coverage for fans would be the Liverpool Echo. A statement which couldn’t be any further from the truth.
The majority of stories are copied and pasted from the club’s official website the day before plus I have it on good authority that the Echo and the club have a deal where they only write positive stories.
You can count the amount of negative press they give the club on one hand. Remember the paper’s shameless coverage of the Hicks Gillett saga? It was only when it was finally nailed on that the cowboy duo would leave that the paper chose to slate them.
I’d go as far to say the only LFC journalists worth their salt are Brian Reade and Tony Barrett. For these reasons I rarely read LFC articles in the news anymore from anything other than the official site and fan sites such as this one.
Great piece, Kate. It’s always a shame when a handful of people ruin the reputation for so many in any walk of life and journalism is no different. We know there are good journalists out there like yourself, and I really appreciate you writing something about how bias you think this whole attack on Suarez and Liverpool has been. To be honest, it’s shameful. And I really don’t understand not only how these writers get away with it, because surely there must be editors that give the go-ahead to any piece written, but then how they actually believe what they’re writing with no thought given to the other side of the argument.
As you said, journalists should be out for the ‘truth’ and so many throughout this whole sorry affair have done nothing close to looking for the truth. They simply believed what they wanted to believe and what others told them to believe without ever for one moment thinking for themselves. It’s sad and unfortunately means a lot of people who have been attacked in this (namely Suarez, Liverpool, Dalglish, Liverpool fans, and any others with some common sense) no longer have respect for these papers and journalists. I know I don’t. And I loved reading the Guardian. But now I can’t bring myself to read it simply because their reporting and opinions were so horribly one-sided I can no longer believe a word they say! And whose loss is that? Theirs, not ours.