There was a very salient point made by someone on another thread last week about the news content on the BBC website and how there is a tendency to report incidents concerning BBC programmes as news items. This is a really good point and it is probably worthwhile taking in to account how often programmes like Dr Who or Strictly Come Dancing are perceived by the BBC as having some significance to the news agenda. Unfortunately, I think that the website is not as unbiased as the TV channels and,whilst there is a lot of news reporting on the website that is decent enough in it's content, I think that there a a significant proportion which just perpetuates the whole echo-chamber feel to the BBC's web output. The articles seem to be tailored to a younger audience and you can strongly sense that there is very much a generational thing at play insofar that trivial issues are given too much attention. BBC News is no longer challenging issues in the manner of Channel Four news, for example. In my opinion, Garth Crooks fall perfectly into this rather unthinking agenda. Unfortunately he is an articulate and persuasive speaker which tends to mask the fact that a lot of what he writes is both lazy and condescending. Of all the football pundits, there are none on the BBC who deliver their opinions with such a degree of gravitas which is out of proportion to the message he is putting across. Anything concerning Saints either relates to games were did not deserve to win or, more frequently, players that are too good for Southampton and would be better served by the likes of Liverpool / Spurs /Arsenal , etc, etc for whom they would be a "perfect fit." I have long since ignored his column as he comes across like a pub bore who is only interested in the top five clubs. The BBC has some excellent pundits in their team (don't know why Dion Dublin does not get the praise he deserves as he is balanaced in his views and extremely sensible.) For my money, Crooks is "click bait" and like an intellectual version to Robbie Savage's village idiot. What I dislike about Crooks is the condescending tone of his output and it is a shame that he is never put in a position where he has to come down from his ivory tower and deal with supporters of teams outside the Top Five. There is a perception within his articles that implies he has watched each game in depth but by skimming the surface as he does, so much of what he writes is simplified to the extent to present something too removed from reality.
There are bunch of very upset Arsenal fans in the youtube comments (which is an insane place at the best of times). Apparently they were denied 5 "Stonewall" penalties. Has the meaning of "stonewall" changed recently or something? Because given these weren't mentioned by pretty much anybody including the super-biased Alan Smith it seems crazy how they arrived at this. And this was a general highlights show. I shudder to think what Arsenal Fan TV was like. I don't think I could subject myself to it. I'd go insane
For my sins I have spent more time on twitter after this match than I should have done. The reaction of the Arsenal fans has been truly staggering. Accusations of ref corruption and all sorts (betting syndicates apparently). The number of "stonewall" (a word they clearly don't understand) penalties they apparently should have got has crept up to 5. And the number of red cards we should have got is apparently 3 (I can accept Lyanco was lucky at the very end - but three?) They've even made some pretty sad compilation videos showing all the decisions that went against them (half of which were not fouls) with little captions - summing it off with "Ralph Hassenhuttl thanks the ref at the end of the game". You mean, like every manager does after every game? The outpouring of poisonous bile and bitter salty tears at simply losing two points was shocking. And the swaggering entitlement that made them think that the ref should have bailed them out. And then they resorted to getting all cocky about them likely beating us at the Emirates. I'm not sure they realise that isn't quite the own they think it is. Beating us at home after the fortunes they have spent window after window (that is seemingly never talked about and not usually offset by many sales) should be the bare minimum. If I want to see people bragging about achieving the bare minimum I will go on an online dating app. But what interests me most is how this seems basically silo'd to Arsenal fans. Arteta didn't complain about the ref at all. You'd think if there should have been multiple red cards and penalties that even he wouldn't have held back (look at Gary O'Neill who mouthed off about some admittedly harsh decision despite Bournemouth being on the right end of some non-red cards with Lerma lunging in with leg breakers). And Alan Smith pretty much only called out the Lyanco thing and very meekly suggested there was a foul in the build up to the goal they had ruled out. And he is as biased as they come. It's not 5 penalties though. I dozed off during match of the day but they certainly didn't highlight a long list of refereeing travesties. And the Sky pundits didn't after. And this is in a world where every excuse under the sun is usually trotted out when a "top team" don't win against one of the minnows Has there ever been such a mismatched perception between what happened on the pitch and what the fans see? Or are most fans always like this? Or are Arsenal fans always like this? Or was it very lopsided and no one care because it is just Arsenal (and certainly we don't). It is very strange.
Arsenal has a very large 'internet fanbase', most of which are complete ****ing morons who need introducing to the business end of a shotgun.
I guess driven in the early days by Arsenal Fan TV? Which was the first of it’s kind - a video forum of voca moaning entitled cretins
Yeah I guess. I just found the arsenal fans unusually rabid and seemingly out of touch with what was going on. Wondered if it was just me. I did enjoy saints fans trolling them with the picture of Lyanco smiling whilst riding a horse. What a picture that is. But I had kind of forgotten about Arsenal Fan TV and all that spawned. That still has some comedy gold. I still remember laughing at it after we beat them 4-0. It’s just a bunch of guys moaning and they took themselves so seriously!
Yeah quite a refreshing take to be honest. He looked shocked at the suggestion that this one was more physical than any other. Amazing what tv cameras will do to perceptions I guess. Although aren’t they on tv a lot ?
And the manger. It's painful because we wanted to win again," Arteta told BBC Match of the Day afterwards. "Credit to Southampton as well. There are no complaints."
Remember getting promoted from the Championship? The pressure that season was almost too much to bear. Any dropped point was horrible. Guess that’s what the Arsenal lot are going through. Much more relaxing being a bottom-half supporter!
I don’t think it is a perception caused by tv cameras. More a perception caused by pundits with a vested interest in one of the teams on show (Alan Smith Sunday) and a commentator that that uses different terminology depending on which team he is referring to. Such as “he went down a bit too easily” often aimed at the players of a lower team in the league, as against “there was contact” when aimed at one of the big team players who have gone down “too easily”.
I find it infuriating that ex- footballer co-commentators frequently commentate on their ‘old’ teams.
