Daily. Phht. More like hourly.
Speaking of which, I must go.
Well, this victory has obviously been relegated from the Masturbation Premier League since the result against Germany.
5-1 against Germany compares to 4-1 against Holland in the way that Playboy compares to FHM. 
I can see that, but the annoying thing isn’t just how the media talk up English football, it’s how they seem to completely forget about Scottish football achievements. Like their constant reference to Man U’s “unprecedented” treble until someone reminded them that Celtic had done it 22 years earlier. Like the reference on the BBC’s website to Liverpool being “the first British team to win three trophies in one season”, until someone reminded them that, er, Celtic had done it 22 years earlier. The briefest of mentions, the tiniest of columns, about important Scottish games while relatively minor English games are given oodles of attention … until of course the English teams are all out of their tournaments, or the Scottish team does something really monumental and then all of a sudden it’s “isn’t it great what these players from Northern Britain are doing” (OK, so they don’t quite put it that way, but that’s how it comes across).
I’ll genuinely feel bad for all the wonderful English people I know if England get knocked out but I’m sorry, I can’t bear the thought of having to hear about it for the next 36 years if they win.
Uh, for “22” read “32” in the above paragraph. Both times.
I know that a lot of England fans and sections of the media are quite obnoxious about England wins. I’m getting sick of the lagered-up flag-waving drivers abusing anyone not vomiting happiness into the streets. I cringe when even the ‘respectable’ media forgets that Britain is more than just England. And as much as I want England to win the World Cup, I dread the thought of the blanket of smugness that would descend for the next fifty years. It happens, and it’s wrong.
But, on the other hand, I’m not vastly interested in the Scottish leagues. I don’t like to see Rangers win, but that’s my own hangup from school. I didn’t expect the Daily Record to cover Oldham vs Cardiff at all, and nor do I expect much detail in editions printed in England covering Scottish games. I don’t have figures to prove it, but outside of the Old Firm I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an equal or greater amount of interest in the Nationwide First Division than in the rest of the SPL in most of England. When the English-based elements of the media purport to be British and ignore Scotland, I’m all for calling them on it. But when they say nothing but cover England before Scotland, I just assume they think they know their market.
According to the tabloid media (and the BBC, to some extent)
When you win, your British, when you lose, your Scottish. Ask Alain Baxter.
Market forces, Crusoe. I know. You can’t really blame Scots for being pissed off about it though, any more than you can blame black people for being pissed off about the media ignoring them just because the majority white audience isn’t interested in them.
And plus, “market forces” don’t cut it as an excuse for simple factural errors like the ones I referred to above.
Absolutely. Bad journalism is bad journalism regardless. And you’re right, market forces don’t make the coverage right, but maybe just unsurprising.
I do want England to win, but I won’t watch England matches in a pub or public place. I’ll celebrate with my mates, but I don’t like the smug nationalist baggage that so often seems to be part of being English.
And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the British Broadcasting Corporation to mean Britain when they talk about ‘the nation’. If they mean the English nation then they should say that. And can you spot the vital difference between ‘the whole nation’ and 85% of it?
I didn’t say that. I said patronising.
No, there’s nothing wrong with that. Lineker ,for example, is an ex-England player. I expect him to be biased and I’d actually think less of him if he wasn’t. And I don’t doubt that English support of Ireland, and Scotland (if we ever qualify for anything again) for that matter, is genuine. They just can’t help being patronising with it and ignoring their responsibilities to the rest of the UK whenever the great En-ger-land bandwagon lumbers into action.
The BBC isn’t alone in this. ITV is worse. There’s also been recent examples of mass text messaging spams being sent out by mobile phone companies and others (I can’t imagine why anyone would want to sign up to a text messaging advertising list) urging on England and “buy our product in celebration while you’re about it”. They are either so stupid they don’t realise that sending these to non-English subscribers has the exact reverse of the intended effect, or they simply don’t care. Either way it’s not gone to win them happy customers.
Of course there is a distinction between “the whole nation” and “85% of the nation” - but it wouldn’t make a very catchy phrase if the BBC said that “And in this crucial match for England, 85% of the nation are longing for success, whilst the other 15% are hoping their smug faces get rubbed in the mud!”
But seriously, when the BBC are talking about “the nation” w.r.t. England matches, I think it’s clear what they mean. They mean “the vast majority of this nation”, just as when anyone else talks about “the country being behind this” or “the nation supports that” - it doesn’t mean 100% of the nation.
On the other hand, I would agree that the text-messaging adverts crying “En-grrr-land” would seem a bit daft - but then I’m not an advertising exec. Perhaps they think playing on the huge patriotic fervour in England is worth trading for some bad feeling in other parts of the UK? If they are wrong, I guess they won’t get the advertising account again. I know I wouldn’t want to take the risk - good feeling fades quick, but ill-will lasts a while.
Or they could just say “the English Nation” and there wouldn’t be any problem. 100% accurate.
But we could justify what they’re saying a number of ways. The fact is they are not thinking about it. They are just ignoring their non-English viewers.
Yes, and we know who are keen on statements like that. Politicians. Not exactly known for their accuracy and just as likely to get your back up if you disagree.
It’s obviously clear that most hooligans didn’t go. I hear from old Uni friends the ex-pats (Lawyers, Accountants…) in Hong Kong, Singapore, etc fly in on England match days in plane loads, some with their wives and kids.
I read most of this but I didn’t see anyone make the point that half the Irish squad (and manager) are English – is it 12 out of the 23 players ?..not wishing to denigrate the Irish but, if correct, it would be a factor in the ‘English’ support for ‘Ireland’.
L_C, well, technically, they’re Irish. They have declared for Ireland, and carry Irish passports. But they speak with English accents. They liveds in England, were raised in England, but they’re Irish the same way John Barnes and Ugo Ehiogu are English.
The point is they were born in England. But I’m not arguing the merits or demerits of those, or any other, players. Jojimbo thought the British media support was strange, I offered an explanation.
And I’m still not bitter about Ryan Giggs’ knuckle-headed father.
I gotcha ya L_C.
The great thing is, we are getting a hell of a lot more Irish born and bred players. Harte, Kelly, Doherty, Dunne, Duff, Keane, Richard Sadlier (currently at Millwall, so bound to be a McCarthy Favourite). We have 3 youth teams full of Irish born players. Plus its time to start looking to the US for players.
BTW, isn’t Owen Hargreaves a “Rusedski”?
A talented self-publicist with a funny mouth?
Err, yes. Lets not talk about cricket, either.
I’m just relieved Lennox Lewis was born in London.
Greg Rusedski… I always spell his name wrong…
I mean, Hargreaves was born in Canada and qualified for England through his father.