Balanced Media?

[Vespa Red]

I've been on the thisisbristol website over the weekend and can't help but notice numerous stories about the Gas winning at Wembley as well as the chance to buy photos of the play-off final, the bus tour etc.

I can't remember as I was celebrating heavily but did the Post offer City fans similar coverage/the chance to buy official photos when we got promotion?

It's not a rhetorical question...I'm genuinely interested.

[court_bcfc]

You can buy different accessories off of thisisbristol from our promotion eg. Cups, Mousemats etc

[Guest]

City Open Top Bus Tour organised by EP - 10.30am Sunday Morning

Rovers Open Bust Tour organised by EP - midday Bank Holiday Monday

You decide

Re: Coverage in the paper itself, about the same.

[bh_red]

not just the promotion going's on either,

countless times over the years, there has been trouble at Rovers over the years and it never gets mentioned in the press, anything from City and it makes front page, very much double standards.

still when a paper is run by Rovers fans, what do you expect? FAIRNESS??? that would mean professionelism something we know that they don't have.

[RedRaw]

Various pages of pre-final hype over the past week

11 pages of rovers reports and pictures in yesterdays EP

8 pages of rovers reports and pictures in todays EP

40 page pull out coming on Thursday

Somehow, I don't think we had as much coverage. That said, they won promotion through the play-offs which would of naturally given them more coverage. That said again, they do seem to be going overboard with the tub-thumping EP / Rovers love in!

Ironically, the EP have a full page Ad themselves "celebrating and sharing" the success of both teams.....yuk!

[CiderHider]

Balanced Media = oxymoron

[RedTop]

I've been on the thisisbristol website over the weekend and can't help but notice numerous stories about the Gas winning at Wembley as well as the chance to buy photos of the play-off final, the bus tour etc.

I can't remember as I was celebrating heavily but did the Post offer City fans similar coverage/the chance to buy official photos when we got promotion?

It's not a rhetorical question...I'm genuinely interested.

Newspapers are driven by a wish for profit and to satisfy the demands of their readers. The two are inter-linked.

I don't believe there is an institutional bias towards Rovers. City have more fans, and it follows that needlessly p***ing off a large section of their potential readership would not be a clever thing for the Post to do. It makes no sense commercially at all, so why do people think it would happen?

The same was being said when I worked there (now the best part of 15 years ago) and I can tell you for certain it wasn't the case then. Equally, when I liaised with the Post recently over covering City fans and the Jamie Cooper appeal, all I can say is that they were very eager to do as much on us City fans as possible, and to do it positively. And before anyone suggests it, I don't for a minute believe it was because it also involved a Gashead. It was simply a good story, and they wanted to cover it better than anyone else (which, as it happens, they did).

The Post will (and should) print negative stories about City and its fans when they happen. Ditto The Gas. I disagreed with many of you in that I thought their coverage of the City players' trial was perfectly justified given the interest in it due to their high profile, the number of fans and the implications for the club.

I'm sure in 10 and 20 years' time City and Rovers fans will be complaining about bias in the Post. And it probably won't be true then either.

[Bristol Boy]

Newspapers are driven by a wish for profit and to satisfy the demands of their readers. The two are inter-linked.

Not to mention the political and business aspirations of their owners.

I don't believe there is an institutional bias towards Rovers. City have more fans, and it follows that needlessly p***ing off a large section of their potential readership would not be a clever thing for the Post to do. It makes no sense commercially at all, so why do people think it would happen?

I has happened and, as you say, it would seem foolish to pi$$ off a large element of potential readers.However, undoubtedly they have, so it must just be either poor/lazy journalism?

The sensationalist handling of Romeo Browns (Newsworthy-but 11 months old) and the Bradley Orr incident (I would say not newsworthy-certainly not front page, in any event) are clear examples, as is the way it is resurrected at every opportunity or seemingly so.

The same was being said when I worked there (now the best part of 15 years ago) and I can tell you for certain it wasn't the case then. Equally, when I liaised with the Post recently over covering City fans and the Jamie Cooper appeal, all I can say is that they were very eager to do as much on us City fans as possible, and to do it positively. And before anyone suggests it, I don't for a minute believe it was because it also involved a Gashead. It was simply a good story, and they wanted to cover it better than anyone else (which, as it happens, they did).

They are seeking to find favour with the fans but moreover with SL & GJ.I can understand why because if you're the City feature writer on the EP/WDP and the Manager won't speak to you, then you've got a problem! Good journalist and good papers wouldn't allow themselves to be bullied in that way.

The Post will (and should) print negative stories about City and its fans when they happen. Ditto The Gas. I disagreed with many of you in that I thought their coverage of the City players' trial was perfectly justified given the interest in it due to their high profile, the number of fans and the implications for the club.

I don't think the fans had as much of a problem as the club with the coverage of that particular subject.The same cannot be said of the Orr story or the recent "blindness" to serious hooligan issues at Horfield

I'm sure in 10 and 20 years' time City and Rovers fans will be complaining about bias in the Post. And it probably won't be true then either.

I don't think they're as much biased as poor.I have a simple solution.I never buy the paper and I know many others that don't.That's always the best way to go if you don't like a product-don't buy it.

[RedTop]

I has happened and, as you say, it would seem foolish to pi$$ off a large element of potential readers.However, undoubtedly they have, so it must just be either poor/lazy journalism?

Not necessarily. Sometimes simply doing your job by reporting a story can upset biased people - such as us City fans on occasions. A newspaper should no more shy away from reporting news that upsets City fans than news that upsets a politician. Hence the phrase "unnecessarily p***ing off" a large element of potential readers. A local newspaper has a responsibility to report a story even if it upsets some people with a special interest.

The sensationalist handling of Romeo Browns (Newsworthy-but 11 months old) and the Bradley Orr incident (I would say not newsworthy-certainly not front page, in any event) are clear examples, as is the way it is resurrected at every opportunity or seemingly so.

It was not 11 months old, BB. To suggest a newspaper should not bother reporting a court case just because of the time-lag between the incident itself and the actual trial is farcical and would prevent the basic age-old British principle of having an open court system with justice not just being done, but being seen to be done. The court case was happening there and then and the news articles were relating what the courts were being told that day about the case. For legal reasons the details of what happened at the time could only be related as they unfolded at the courts, and not at the time of the incident, in order to avoid prejudicing their trial. Like it or not, it was a sensational trial in local terms, with extremely wide interest and real consequences for one of the City's major organisations - BCFC - and it was right that its prominence in the newspaper reflected that. Unless you were in the courtroom, you can only have formed an opinion about the fairness or otherwise of the punishment meted out to the players by reading the reports of the evidence presented to the jury. That is justice being seen to be done and being held up to scrutiny, it's an important role for the media and it's one that helped City fans decide for themselves to what extent the players were to blame, and whether their sentences reflected their crimes.

They are seeking to find favour with the fans but moreover with SL & GJ.I can understand why because if you're the City feature writer on the EP/WDP and the Manager won't speak to you, then you've got a problem! Good journalist and good papers wouldn't allow themselves to be bullied in that way.

There is always a balance to be made in the local media. The dynamics between club and paper are very different from on national newspapers, and rightly so because the constituency is different. Incidentally, just as papers shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied by the manager, papers shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied by fans! In both cases, there's a sensible medium to be struck. It's just common sense. But fear of a backlash from fans (or managers or chairmen for that matter) should not lead papers to censor themselves of running stories that are in the public interest.

I don't think the fans had as much of a problem as the club with the coverage of that particular subject.The same cannot be said of the Orr story or the recent "blindness" to serious hooligan issues at Horfield

The Orr story about the loutish fan was a story. It is inevitable that Orr's history will follow him around. To use it in the context it was used in by the Post on that occasion was obviously wrong, as I think the paper admitted soon after. I can understand how it happened, though, since all journalists use cuts to try to place a story into a wider context. The journalist in this case just did a poor job of it which was not spotted by the newsdesk or the sub, both of whom should have seen the error.

I don't think they're as much biased as poor.I have a simple solution.I never buy the paper and I know many others that don't.That's always the best way to go if you don't like a product-don't buy it.

Yup, that's the solution. Buy it if you like it. Don't buy it if you don't.

[JJ365]

Various pages of pre-final hype over the past week

11 pages of rovers reports and pictures in yesterdays EP

8 pages of rovers reports and pictures in todays EP

40 page pull out coming on Thursday

Somehow, I don't think we had as much coverage. That said, they won promotion through the play-offs which would of naturally given them more coverage. That said again, they do seem to be going overboard with the tub-thumping EP / Rovers love in!

Ironically, the EP have a full page Ad themselves "celebrating and sharing" the success of both teams.....yuk!

When you got promoted, you had pages upon pages dedicated to your promotion.

If your looking for Rovers bias, your looking for something that just isnt there.

[Bristol Boy]

Not necessarily. Sometimes simply doing your job by reporting a story can upset biased people - such as us City fans on occasions. A newspaper should no more shy away from reporting news that upsets City fans than news that upsets a politician. Hence the phrase "unnecessarily p***ing off" a large element of potential readers. A local newspaper has a responsibility to report a story even if it upsets some people with a special interest.

I agree, however that reporting should apply to all concerned.In the case of football clubs, both of them.If Orr's brush with a fan-not his fault and very minor is front page news, isn't a pub full of innocent Swindon fans being attacked by thugs with baseball bats worthy of a banner front page headline, asopposed to no mention at all???

It was not 11 months old, BB. To suggest a newspaper should not bother reporting a court case just because of the time-lag between the incident itself and the actual trial is farcical and would prevent the basic age-old British principle of having an open court system with justice not just being done, but being seen to be done. The court case was happening there and then and the news articles were relating what the courts were being told that day about the case.

I'm all for seen to be done-what I don't like is trial by media

For legal reasons the details of what happened at the time could only be related as they unfolded at the courts, and not at the time of the incident, in order to avoid prejudicing their trial. Like it or not, it was a sensational trial in local terms,

Possibly in local "football" terms

with extremely wide interest and real consequences for one of the City's major organisations - BCFC - and it was right that its prominence in the newspaper reflected that. Unless you were in the courtroom, you can only have formed an opinion about the fairness or otherwise of the punishment meted out to the players by reading the reports of the evidence presented to the jury. That is justice being seen to be done and being held up to scrutiny, it's an important role for the media and it's one that helped City fans decide for themselves to what extent the players were to blame, and whether their sentences reflected their crimes.

I don't think that the fact it was reported was the issue.It was the tone of the reporting and a similar incident involving three executives from, say, Cadbury or Somerfield would have attracted the same newstime.Bristol has a population of about 400k of which around 12,000 attend AG on a regular basis so it couldn't really be regarded as in the greater public interest.

But fear of a backlash from fans (or managers or chairmen for that matter) should not lead papers to censor themselves of running stories that are in the public interest.

The club developed a bunker mentality after the RB incident and that has led them, IMHO, to be highly sceptical of the written media.However they are equally averse to any form of criticism, written or spoken not matter how well meaning or constructive.

The Orr story about the loutish fan was a story.

Not front page

It is inevitable that Orr's history will follow him around.

Not inevitable-just plain unfair and out of context with the truth

To use it in the context it was used in by the Post on that occasion was obviously wrong, as I think the paper admitted soon after. I can understand how it happened, though, since all journalists use cuts to try to place a story into a wider context. The journalist in this case just did a poor job of it which was not spotted by the newsdesk or the sub, both of whom should have seen the error.

That it happened in the first place concerns me.Not that it happened, but the thinking that allowed it to happen

[Cider Visor]

Do you think that there is something wrong with the colour RED?? Even on sky sports over the weekend the comentators said and i quote "forget automatic promotion, this is the way to go up". I'm sorry but should there not be ore glamour attached to finishing 2nd?? I posted pretty much the same comment on ashtongate.net before the playoffs but

1st place gets a trophy, national press coverage and promotion = Fair enough outright winners, no taking that away from anyone

3rd pace gets day out at Wembley, trophy, national press coverage and promotion = Mmmmmmmmmmmmm priorities dear chaps, priorities

2nd place gets Thin silver shield, promotion = Well, i believe above comment says it all??

Any other thoughts??

[Guest DanC]

Various pages of pre-final hype over the past week

11 pages of rovers reports and pictures in yesterdays EP

8 pages of rovers reports and pictures in todays EP

40 page pull out coming on Thursday

Somehow, I don't think we had as much coverage. That said, they won promotion through the play-offs which would of naturally given them more coverage. That said again, they do seem to be going overboard with the tub-thumping EP / Rovers love in!

Ironically, the EP have a full page Ad themselves "celebrating and sharing" the success of both teams.....yuk!

And we won promotion to the championship, The 4th most watched league in Europe behind the Premiership, and the Spanish and German leagues.

[samo]

Do you think that there is something wrong with the colour RED?? Even on sky sports over the weekend the comentators said and i quote "forget automatic promotion, this is the way to go up". I'm sorry but should there not be ore glamour attached to finishing 2nd?? I posted pretty much the same comment on ashtongate.net before the playoffs but

1st place gets a trophy, national press coverage and promotion = Fair enough outright winners, no taking that away from anyone

3rd pace gets day out at Wembley, trophy, national press coverage and promotion = Mmmmmmmmmmmmm priorities dear chaps, priorities

2nd place gets Thin silver shield, promotion = Well, i believe above comment says it all??

Any other thoughts??

But it all make naff all difference next year. Just look at the championship team wh went up from league one last year;

Southend - 05/06 League One 1st - 06/07 Championship 22nd

Colchester - 05/06 League One 2nd - 06/07 Championship 10th

Barnsley - 05/06 League One Playoffs - 06/07 Championship 20th

And the season before it was Plymouth, QPR and Brighton, with the Seagulls coming back down just two years later.

I don't give a monkeys how we got up, I'm just pleased we did. I'll celebrate more when we finish outside the relegation zone next year!

[tin]

City win promotion to the Championship and we receive an 8 page spread in the centre of the paper on the Monday. Rovers skank up from the basement division via the play-offs and that warrants the first seven pages of today's edition! How does that work?

I'm absolutely sure there was something more newsworthy going on in the Greater Bristol area than that over the weekend. I would've felt very aggreived if there was something going on in the Bristol area like, say, the Madeline McCann scenario in Portugal for example, and the EP decided to ignore it and go with Rovers overkill instead.

The EP should be objective but unfortunately it's yet another example of their blue tinted glasses.