Media Bias

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Anthony Beale

Fool what you want, your life or your jewels?
This.

Hate to break it to people but there is no bias.

Year after our Champions League run all I heard from fans of other teams was "why are Spurs on Sky so much now"? Well, the answer was obvious. We had got to a higher level.

Anyone whinging about bias needs to understand that not only are we considered also runs this season, but that we haven't exactly been putting things on fire before this result.

If Wigan, for instance, put 4 past Man City this week, would they be headliners? Nope, it would just be a giant killing, nothing more, nothing less.

We want the positive headlines then we have to compete in a sustained way, not just expect the tabloid turds to fall out our feet when we have a decent result.
That sounds to me like the very definition of media bias...
 

Anthony Beale

Fool what you want, your life or your jewels?
All the time sky, BBC and other broadcasters only really employ ex scouse , Woolwich scum and mancs we never will get a look in. Smith,merson and co are not going to big us up now are they
One thing about this i have noticed is this...

People always say, well sky bbc etc only hire former liverpool and Woolwich players. but no one mentions paul merson of portsmouth or Alan Hansen of Patrick Thistle. Or how about The Tampa Bay Rowdies Mark Lawrenson. They hire decent or experienced players as pundits, and they're obviously more likely to have played for big teams. No one mentions that Shearer played for newcastle southampton and blackburn? Jason Roberts?

In fact if you look, you've got a few from the "great liverpool team" a few from the Woolwich team that did ok that season (apparently, i missed it) and now we're starting to get a few from the united team of the 90's.
 

Millbanks

Spurs - Champions Cup of Europe Winners 2011
It's very simple really..clubs with the most fans get the most coverage and the most time in the media.
It's really not hard to understand why.
Not true. City don't have "the most fans" but they receive coverage. Stadium was half fucking empty against Sunderland.

It's success + fan base.

It's pathetic.

Lets remember it was covered by BT so Sky have no interest in promoting a classic match. They ran with Stevie G retiring ( cringe shortening of a name). The online tabloids have all covered the game as expected, I haven read the Sun though?
There's the problem. Because BT televised it, Sky don't want to talk about it.

What a great news company...
 

Millbanks

Spurs - Champions Cup of Europe Winners 2011
One thing about this i have noticed is this...

People always say, well sky bbc etc only hire former liverpool and Woolwich players. but no one mentions paul merson of portsmouth or Alan Hansen of Patrick Thistle. Or how about The Tampa Bay Rowdies Mark Lawrenson. They hire decent or experienced players as pundits, and they're obviously more likely to have played for big teams. No one mentions that Shearer played for newcastle southampton and blackburn? Jason Roberts?

In fact if you look, you've got a few from the "great liverpool team" a few from the Woolwich team that did ok that season (apparently, i missed it) and now we're starting to get a few from the united team of the 90's.
But generally dominated by Liverpool/Woolwich/United.

MOTD - Hansen and Lawrenson for how many years? Carragher and Neville at SS (of which I won't complain as they are excellent pundits). Jamie Redknapp who couldn't know less about football who clearly has allegiance with Liverpool. Henry now coming in.

The other guys are bit-part pundits in comparison.
 
This cropped up in a thread a few days ago, but I am interested to hear people's thoughts as to whether -

1) They feel certain clubs maintain a strange-hold over the attention of the media?
and;
2) Whether you actually give a fuck, and would prefer Spurs stay 'under the radar' as it were?

The (main) reason I raise this is I find it exceptionally frustrating to bring up Sky Sports News app on my phone today and I actually struggle to find anything on our battering of Chelsea. I stated the same on the day of our COC clash with Newcastle - it was all Liverpool vs Bournemouth stories.

To list the current stories in order on SSN app -

Gerrard: My Toughest Decision
Gerrard exit saddens Carragher
Thommo: Last of a dying breed
Rodgers pays tribute to Gerrard
Houllier: Gerrard could manage
Liverpool's greatest?
Best Gerrard moments
Transfer Centre
Palace still to confirm Pardew
West Brom to unveil Pulis
Supporter charged by police
New Saints deal for Yoshida
Green admits slice of luck
Regional Paper Talk
Mourinho to rotate for Watford
Jovetic relishing title race
Shaw retains title hopes
Terry: We'll go on a run
Jagielka: We need to step up
Dyche confident of survival
On the FantasyFC...
WIndow opens on Saturday
Football news in brief



That's it. Not a bean on Spurs. Not one interview. No manager comments. No media comments. No player comments. Fuck all. Just Mourinho advising his plans for his next match and Terry confirming they'll win loads of games in a row. Thanks.

YOSHIDA SIGNS NEW DEAL!!

WE FUCKING BEAT CHELSEA 5-3 LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO FOR FUCK SAKE!!!

They can all fuck off, biased wankers.

WE ARE TOTTENHAM
SUPER TOTTENHAM
WE ARE TOTTENHAM
FROM THE LANE

You are right what you say but the match was on BT Sport, they report it but won't promote it the same way they would there own matches.
 
The point I'm trying to make is that merson , smith , keown?, Dixon are rarely going to be the biggest fans of Spurs and give un biased views on a club they were hated by.Thomson only interested in the scousers and Neville only manure. To my knowledge I can't remember any of them really acknowledging great Spurs displays or perhaps only begrudgingly
 
Not true. City don't have "the most fans" but they receive coverage. Stadium was half fucking empty against Sunderland.

It's success + fan base.

It's pathetic.


There's the problem. Because BT televised it, Sky don't want to talk about it.

What a great news company...

Ok, I guess winning 2 PL in the last few years helps. But Liverpool will always be in the media because they have insane amounts of fans and journalists reporting on them.
 

Anthony Beale

Fool what you want, your life or your jewels?
But generally dominated by Liverpool/Woolwich/United.

MOTD - Hansen and Lawrenson for how many years? Carragher and Neville at SS (of which I won't complain as they are excellent pundits). Jamie Redknapp who couldn't know less about football who clearly has allegiance with Liverpool. Henry now coming in.

The other guys are bit-part pundits in comparison.
Yes because of the last 30 years, they've been the best clubs. So chances are, any decent english players are going to have played for them.

Even Robbie Savage once played for united, but you wouldn't associate him with united would you?
 

LeeMcl

Supporter
You are right what you say but the match was on BT Sport, they report it but won't promote it the same way they would there own matches.
Spot on. Media Bias....

Talking of Bias, slightly away from Media perhaps but....

Sir Trevor Brooking, Sir Bobby Charlton, Sir Alex Ferguson, Sir Bobby Robson, Sir Geoff Hurst..................Bill Nicholson MBE ! Fucking disgrace and sadly can't be rectified.
 
Spot on. Media Bias....

Talking of Bias, slightly away from Media perhaps but....

Sir Trevor Brooking, Sir Bobby Charlton, Sir Alex Ferguson, Sir Bobby Robson, Sir Geoff Hurst..................Bill Nicholson MBE ! Fucking disgrace and sadly can't be rectified.

Lord Sugar
 
I can't be asked to read the whole thread but Christ this sort of thing is embarrassing. The whole world went crazy after we beat Chelsea and Kane got all the back page headlines. Complaining about Gerrard, an England great, getting more of a priority over one win is pathetic. I am sorry I hate this crap which EVERY club moans about. In fact we get far more media attention than other clubs. Also who the fuck cares?
B6TF4Z7IcAAf9b7.jpg

B6TF4XAIcAEIFx-.jpg

B6TF4Z5IIAIuhxh.jpg

85054f69d589068139d78da574cc82ba_crop_north.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not true. City don't have "the most fans" but they receive coverage. Stadium was half fucking empty against Sunderland.

It's success + fan base.

It's pathetic.


There's the problem. Because BT televised it, Sky don't want to talk about it.

What a great news company...
Yes, so no bias just self vested interest?
 
Yes, so no bias just self vested interest?
And going for the low-hanging fruit.

Funny that outlets like Sky cover the premiership in a manner where they want the status quo to be maintained, but what would really spice things up is unpredictability.
We may have all assumed Chelsea would win the league this year, but it's hardly surprising that the other mega-rich club would be biting at their ankles.
Hardly Clough's Derby, is it?

An interesting case study for success vs. fanbase is Liverpool. They really had shut the fuck up for about five years before last season, while we were consistently performing better than them, and *bang* - all the twats came crawling out of the woodwork at the first opportunity. This is in no small part down to their former player pundits.

If we did the same thing, I'm not so sure the media response would be the same...
 
I think the gerrard bullshit kind of took the shine off our performance, but fuck it, I'm not bothered if the media are talking about us or not. But if we can win our next few games, ive got a funny feeling they will be talking about us then.

It's sky that get on my tits, and who they allocate to commentate on matches. I'm not sure who decides it, but they must be a complete and utter twat. Alan smith always seems to co commentate on north London derby's...I mean what the fuck is that all about?
I'll never forget when liverpool stuffed us at the lane last season, they had carragher, souness and fucking gerrard. Talk about pisstake. It's not just us either, for the tyneside derby at newcastle the other week, they had nial quinn co commentating. He is the ex sunderland chairman for fuck sake. Unbelieveable. I'm glad I don't pay for sky and I'm wripping them off with a dodgy box. Fuckers!!:levylol:
 
All the time sky, BBC and other broadcasters only really employ ex scouse , Woolwich scum and mancs we never will get a look in. Smith,merson and co are not going to big us up now are they

...not so, ex-Spurs pundits appear quite regularly on tv, like Jermaine Jenas and Jamie Redkna.... oh....
Still, David Pleat always has a good word to say about our players... just a shame he can't pronounce any of them!
 
And going for the low-hanging fruit.

Funny that outlets like Sky cover the premiership in a manner where they want the status quo to be maintained, but what would really spice things up is unpredictability.


A perfect example of how Sky like to big up certain games in their own interest, and how it can backfire on them as they just can't predict the Prem. Going back a few years (maybe more), they already had the last game of the season queued up with a potential title decider between say, Chelsea and Utd (it might not have been those teams specifically but...) as things turned out, the league title was sewn up weeks before the end of the season, Sky's 'big game' was nothing more than a training match, meanwhile at the other end of the table it was frantic, any one of about 6 teams could have been relegated depending on the results of the day, and yet not one of the games was televised!
 
Watching ESPNFC yesterday, out of the 4 guys on the panel, 3 of them talked about how shit Chelsea was and how Tottenham were the better team, one of the bastards Steve Nicol said, (not verbatim) "to be fair to Chelsea, they should have scored 3 more goals from missed chances so it wasn't all that bad of a game for them." Then he started to name off like the Ramires shot that went wide, Cesc shot that I believe was a dribbler right to Lloris, etc. as if we should give Chelsea credit for those shots that didn't go in.

You could have a whole fucking show on shots that didn't go in. Every football match ever could be 34-27 if we half counted those missed shots. Guy is a fucking moron.

Smacks a bit of the argument in the luck thread....people spinning off all Swansea's and Man U's missed chances to say we were lucky. What about our missed chances then? Dont count?

Shit argument.

Edit: Just had a look, and even by that so called pundits own, dogshit argument, it still doesnt add up.

Shots on target:
Spurs 8
Chelsea 7
 
Last edited:

Mrs Perryman

Supporter
I'm a Cockney Malteser 👑
I don't really give a flying fig whether we are in the news or not - it can act as a bit of a double-edged sword anyway. Apart from when 'Arry was in charge, we only seem to get excessive coverage when its all going tits up.
 
Top Bottom