A poor piece underlined by abject Uncle Tommery. Hidden away in there is an acknowledgement that the media is largely to blame for the image of the game but you continue to focus instead on token incidents 'confirming' those prejudices, effectively giving the media a free pass.
Funny. When players like Sandow act up, the journos are quick to put the boot into rugby league and yap on about how the rugby league community needs to do more to change negative perceptions so that we're viewed more favourably, because one individuals actions are a reflection on the sport as a whole.
But when Sandow acted up I didn't once see someone put forward the same rallying cry towards the indigenous community... "Yeah, guys, forget all this institutional racism, forget the fact the media hates you and peddles anti-black propaganda for fun, it's on you if everyone stereotypes and looks down on you because now and again people like Chrissy Sandow make a twat of themselves. Sandow is responsible for negative sentiment." :lol:
Not to trivialise racism by any means, but as a comparison in reason its telling. Could you imagine if that half-arsed logic was applied to anything outside of sport? It would be rightfully dismissed as the drivel that it is.
We all know that journalists and big media outlets are largely responsible for shaping public discourse. And you won't get paid for it, but if you're so fiercely passionate about rugby league and its image, Steve, why not jump on your blog and knock out a few thousand words about the role the media plays in popularising anti-league sentiment.
After all, rugby league does not have a disproportionately high incidence of misbehaviour in relation to other sports - it's worth keeping this point in mind - so putting so much emphasis on player and code accountability, and absolving the media of fault, is a nonsense.
I appreciate that the natural follow-up argument is that rugby league cannot control or hold the media to account, but it can do so of its players and itself, therefore the focus should be on what rugby league can do for rugby league and not what the media can do for rugby league. I get that. I don't agree with it necessarily, but I get it. However, as a journalist and true fan of the game, why not share with us some in-depth musings on the medias relentless assault on rugby league and working people? That's what I don't get.
What it ultimately boils down to is that your article was in many ways a betrayal. You said nothing new, you merely repeated what we've already heard from the media for decades. It was boring, Rothfield-esque shite that was controversial for no other reason than that it came from Steve Mascord - a guy most of us here championed for one reason or another.
Honestly, rugby league must be one of the few sports in the world in which so-called fanaticals and friends of the game get in line to heap shit on it and parrot the same bullshit as the detractors. In a time when the code needs people to defend it, in comes Mascord with his omnishambolic balderdash. That you're continuing on, blind to the harm that YOU have done to the sport with your article, is staggering.
Give the media a fair serve (I appreciate your impartial editors won't allow it in their prized rags) or go away. :lol:
