All of the "reporting" regarding the situation with Manchester City manager Sven-Göran Eriksson's status clearly illuminates the shambolic state of the English fourth estate when it comes to coverage of sport.
The Manchester Evening News speaks of Eriksson's "shock sacking" as if it has already occurred.
The Telegraph claims owner Thaksin Shinawatra's behavior "had prompted Eriksson to consider resigning at the weekend and forfeiting about £1 million in severance pay."
Even The Guardian runs an article that speaks of "Thaksin Shinawatra's ruthless decision to pay off Sven-Göran Eriksson" as if this has already taken place and refers to Eriksson as already having "given up hope and can expect compensation of £1m."
None of these stories would have been deemed fit to print in the United States, as none of them cite a single source—even anonymously—for these claims.
The only quotes they have run are from Eriksson's assistant and agent. Neither has come close to corroborating the claims that a sacking has already been decided upon.
Sadly, this is par for the course for the English sport media. No sourcing. No quotes. Just rampant hearsay.
And the English have come to expect this behavior from their press, what with newspapermen printing as fact their own rampant speculation about transfer targets on a near-hourly basis. The whole thing is laughable from a journalism perspective.
Why is there such a drastic contrast in journalistic quality between the news and sport departments at the same paper?
Right now the headlines should read "Man City owner considering sacking Eriksson," but instead we're treated to even more blind speculation about his potential successors. And for everyone involved, that's just pathetic.
comments (4) write a comment »
write a new comment
5 months ago
And the american press are encouraged not to criticise their own government. The story has broke and it's true so what's the problem. Tabloids are tabloids and sell papers on such headlines...If you don't want to read it, buy a broadsheet.
5 months ago
That's the thing. How do you know the story is true? The has been no sourcing of these claims, so their validity is completely unproven.
As for your newspaper buying advice, that's incredibly naïve in this day and age. You should know better, writing for an online publication.
5 months ago
I agree with most of that Jake. I can't comment on American newspapers as I have never been there or read one, but your summary of the English press is pretty much spot on.
The 'news' in the tabloids comes across as being either completely made up, or written from a tiny 'source' and blown out of all proportion. While the sport is exactly the same if not worse.
The news in the 'quality' papers can be taken more seriously, but the sport follows the same blueprint as the tabloids, just with better English and more quality editorial pieces. It would be an interesting test this summer to record every transfer story from 1st May to 30th August in the English mainstream press and count how many turn out to be true. Its far too time consuming a task for me to take on, but I bet the results would make very interesting reading.
5 months ago
Well said Jake. British sports journalism is a seedy disgrace.
Stories based on whim and personal or editorial agendas are routinely invented by sleazy, lazy journalists who have no appetite for investigative reporting.
No other industry would pay its workers for telling lies. How come newspapers do?
And yet at the first mention of any sort ot effective watchdog, these hacks start to bleat about freedom of the Press. Freedom to do what? make up lies?
write a new comment