Terrible journalism

Okay, here's the headline:

Shaun Edwards eyes England coaching role

And here's what Shaun Edwards is quoted as saying in the article:

"You consider any roles when you're a free agent. I'm here if anyone makes me an offer."

"I know Roger Lewis has made an approach and he's going to make an offer.

"You can only sign something when it's written down on paper so we will have to wait and see.

"It's been said I would coach old ladies stood at the bus stop because I enjoy coaching so much.

"Hopefully I will be back in the game pretty soon."

Now I'm not disputing that Shaun Edwards is open to overtures from the RFU, of course he is; but he doesn't mention England at all. He mentions Roger Lewis of the WRU. He says nothing to justify the headline's claim that he's 'eyeing' a job with England. So I make that lousy journalism - except that it made me read the article, so maybe it's good journalism after all.

To me its good journalism. Its created a story out of nothing, got people talking about the idea and enticed you to read more.

Let me guess Western Fail?

No, it's on the BBC website.

Stag, I agree that it's created a story out of nothing, and that's exactly why I think it's bad journalism. It's hollow. The headline could just as easily read 'Shaun Edwards eyes Argentina / New Zealand / Philippines coaching role,' he doesn't mention any country.

I've come to expect nothing less from the BBC.

These are the same 'journalists' who will shamelessly lift articles from National and club team websites, and then present them as solid BBC journalism.

On top of that, there's the shocking lack of imagination in their writing. For example, in the past year, these have all been BBC rugby headlines:
"Gavin Henson suffers Six Nations injury blow"
"Matthew Rees suffers World Cup injury blow for Wales"
"Rugby World Cup 2011: Steyn injury blow for Springboks"
"Josh Turnbull injury blow for Scarlets"
"Bedford Blues face double injury blow"
"Six Nations: Andy Powell injury blow for Wales"

Spot a pattern? Well, in case you've still missed it, here's a few more:
"Dragons suffer triple injury blow"
"Wales suffer Tom Shanklin Six Nations injury blow "
"Italy suffer triple injury blow before Wales Test"
"NG Dragons suffer Will Harries injury blow"
"Hooker Andrew Hore injury blow for New Zealand"
"Ireland and Munster suffer Denis Leamy injury blow"


Still not getting it? Well... screw it. Enjoy:
"Wales suffer Gethin Jenkins calf injury blow"
"Williams injury blow for Ospreys"
"Newcastle Falcons' Tom Catterick suffers injury blow"
"Derick Hougaard injury blow for Saracens"

The real trick is to hide that.

What would be top class journalism is to write an article about the pros and cons of him taking the job with these types of quotes intertwined throughout the article.

In this proffesional era Edwards has always struck me as a genuinely honest and loyal person, which is pretty rare these days whose word means a lot.

I think a lot of his decision with regards to any contract the WRU offers him will depend on his loyalty and friendship with Gatland.

As I have said before I hope he stays but if not then good luck to him.

Poor journalism is rife....

And as someone rightly said on the falcons thread...the headline " Gopperth saves falcons" hides the fact that he kicked away posession everytime he got the ball and is a major reason we are actually struggling this season...and last.

IanBru, that's lazy journalism but I can understand why they'd use that phrase.

Luckless - you're right.

I suppose it's not the phrase itself that bothers me, but its constant use - there are other ways of conveying the same message, such as:
[player] injury hits/hurts/damages [team] hopes
[team] hit by [player] injury
[player] injured/out for key [team] clash

I first noticed this during the lead up to this year's 6 Nations when (almost) every injury article had basically the same title.

This annoys me because there are at least a dozen posters on here who could do a better job!

I think it's because these days journalists make stories out of nothing - usually random quotes at a press conference or from Twitter/Facebook. There was a time when journalists had to be educated and know how to find and develop stories - doesn't seem that way these days.

IanBru, I'd be happy enough just to proofread their articles. God knows someone should be doing it!

That's my main gripe, Cari: there's barely a story here. I don't see what Shaun Edwards has said here as newsworthy at all. There were dozens and dozens of matches played over the weekend, why couldn't they bring us a story from one of them?

I guess there's just too much competition out there, and the media are too busy fighting over the scraps of information to promote themselves than actually take the time and trouble to do a good well researched piece. It's like when something major happens - they all send hundreds of media to the event and they're all busy fighting over the "exclusive" rather than reporting fact half the time so you end with crap. To be fair, there are still one or two very interesting journalists out there who go off the beaten track and report of little known stories but they dn't get major coverage.

It's the BBC and without trying to start a war here, they'd undoubtedly be more eager to link him with England than with Wales. The article itself goes on to state that Wales are also expected to offer him an extension, though they present it as a secondary preference to the readers. The title goes against their principles as the British Broadcasting Corporation, especially when you consider that Wales are closer to making him an offer than England.

We don't know what question Shaun Edwards was asked. If he was asked directly whether he would consider a role in the England set-up, there'd be no problem with the headline - but they should make clear in the article that he was replying to a question about England.

Whereas Ellis has been asked directly methinks.

Edwards or Ellis, that's the real question

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Okay, here's the headline:

Shaun Edwards eyes England coaching role

And here's what Shaun Edwards is quoted as saying in the article:

"You consider any roles when you're a free agent. I'm here if anyone makes me an offer."

"I know Roger Lewis has made an approach and he's going to make an offer.

"You can only sign something when it's written down on paper so we will have to wait and see.

"It's been said I would coach old ladies stood at the bus stop because I enjoy coaching so much.

"Hopefully I will be back in the game pretty soon."

Now I'm not disputing that Shaun Edwards is open to overtures from the RFU, of course he is; but he doesn't mention England at all. He mentions Roger Lewis of the WRU. He says nothing to justify the headline's claim that he's 'eyeing' a job with England. So I make that lousy journalism - except that it made me read the article, so maybe it's good journalism after all.

spot on luckless

its market making and has eff all to do with journalism

objective analysis in journalism is a thing of the past, today it is subjectivity and speculation that creates stories

Here is how they do it

Hack speculates

Subject of speculation forced to respond

Story is given foundation by response and runs

simple and disgraceful but newspapers are businesses and increasingly pursue their own agenda in a pseudo political way

The NOW kind of epitomises that

luckless_pedestrian wrote:No, it's on the BBC website.

Stag, I agree that it's created a story out of nothing, and that's exactly why I think it's bad journalism. It's hollow. The headline could just as easily read 'Shaun Edwards eyes Argentina / New Zealand / Philippines coaching role,' he doesn't mention any country.

There's a cue of old Ladies at Penfro's personal bus stop. Perhaps if he coaches them, the WRU can persuade the Ladies to do the MS stadium tour with Stag and lock him in until he signs the back of Roger Lewis' fag packet.