9 bias - other fans agree

[Dingo]

Skipper I whole heartedly agree with your stance. I, like you and most Canterbury-Bankstown fans are angry and upset with Channel 9 and the Daily Telegraph in particular. The collective biased support of South Sydney during the entire camaign was plain for all to see. In comparison, the media were totally disrespectful of our club, players and supporters alike. I can't remember the last time I had to mute a telecast due to the constant drivel proceeding from the mouth of Andrew Johns and Co. I hung in there watching the red and green telecast, hoping to see my team at the wars end and share in their loss and feel their pain. To my utter dismay there was nothing, no camera shots and no interviews for what seemed like an eternity. I was gutted right there.

What an inglorious send off it was for Mick Ennis, the club needs to also have a good hard look at itself. If you give the media no stories or shut them out they will write what they please to make headlines - or cover the other team more favourably.

I am with you however and believe action needs to be taken. The Club should release a statement. The papers will deny all, however the tide of support from social media can change things. I'm sure we as a proud club can say we have had enough. We cannot tolerate this insidious agenda anymore, it's sickening.

I would be happy to put forth anything that may assist.
Thank you Skipper, it DOES matter to me too

 

[EXPLORER]

If we were the club trying to break a 43 year drought we would have been the major story. My Grandfather told me about how in 1980 the whole focus was on the Bulldogs for the GF and how we were going to end our drought.

It happens, I am actually a little surprised that people seem to have not been expecting it. I sure as hell was.

I have that game on VHS and I can assure you we were not given anything near what souths were given and all the pre game talk was mostly pro easts at the time,

 

[Alexander the Great]

Again, who are these people that are being driven away? It was the highest rating GF in a while (beat the AFL GF). The crowd was the biggest since the ANZ stadium re-config.

Looks like plenty are watching

I know of plenty who have crossed over to soccer and afl who are over all the rubbish,
And many who like me endure it because we love the game and our team,
Why should us fans endure it, the media hype and marketing should be designed and executed to have all fans feeling excited and upbeat, not one side enjoying the moment and the other enduring over the top bias against them

To tell.you the truth skippy this year i have started to watch afl and its not a bad game.. i never thought i would say those words but i am...

 

[Bakes]

That bell ringing BS was an absolute fkn joke!

 

[Alexander the Great]

To tell.you the truth skippy this year i have started to watch afl and its not a bad game.. i never thought i would say those words but i am...

Disagree with you here, Cammo. I agree that it's a business and that explains why Ch9 run biased commentary but that doesn't mean we have to smile while swallowing their s**t sandwich. It was a common theme all through the finals - Ch 9 cheering home the other team, commentating from the perspective of that other team, interpreting any 50/50 (and 60/40?) calls in favour of the opposition.

It's not pleasant to have to listen to, it constantly portrays our club in a bad light and it actually causes us harm in the long run due to the public perception of the club.

That's why it needs to change.

Gould is like a cancer..need to.cut that prick from our game

 

[Symm]

If we were the club trying to break a 43 year drought we would have been the major story. My Grandfather told me about how in 1980 the whole focus was on the Bulldogs for the GF and how we were going to end our drought.

It happens, I am actually a little surprised that people seem to have not been expecting it. I sure as hell was.

Like I said, just because I expect something, doesn't mean it's enjoyable, or that it was the right thing for Ch9 to do.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that Ch9 was against us the whole way through.

You pretty much addressed nothing in the post, actually. Maybe take another look? I don't care what valid reasons you think Ch9 had for doing it - my point is that it's not good for our club and that's the reason we shouldn't be satisfied with it.

 

[c-b-b]

Disagree with you here, Cammo. I agree that it's a business and that explains why Ch9 run biased commentary but that doesn't mean we have to smile while swallowing their s**t sandwich. It was a common theme all through the finals - Ch 9 cheering home the other team, commentating from the perspective of that other team, interpreting any 50/50 (and 60/40?) calls in favour of the opposition.

It's not pleasant to have to listen to, it constantly portrays our club in a bad light and it actually causes us harm in the long run due to the public perception of the club.

That's why it needs to change.

This is very true. It was always about the other team being able to make a comeback or Gould being disgusted in the rules (when it favoured the other team of course).

I actually put the radio on in the second half yesterday however they are a few seconds ahead of the picture so unfortunately had to listen to 9 again.

 

[KimboSlice]

The bias was present through the whole finals series.. i think it was uncalled for, but channel nines "if you wanna call the game, you gotta be from the hall of fame.." thing will lead itself to biased old boys, unfortunate.. but if you ask most fans, channel 9 has little credibility, the only way they won the rights was by having the right of reply once all the other offers had been tabled.. this will change next session and i hope someone else does it better!

 

[Alexander the Great]

That bell ringing BS was an absolute fkn joke!

Totally uncalled for...i was hoping it broke in his hand

 

[Cammo]

I do get what you are saying, I really do despite my continued harping on against it,
I am harping on for a few reasons,
Firstly I don't, won't and can't accept it as a die hard dogs fan who loves our club,
Secondly I don't think it really does much to promote the game as a whole if it is bringing down a club in the process,

Hey I get your passion, and love seeing it.

I just think we are worrying about things that we really don't need to worry about. I highly doubt Des gives a stuff (if anything he probably wanted it this way) and I doubt Raelene does either.

I don't think for a second that it diminishes our club or brand in any way. We have a great board and they will be the ones to market our club to the corporate sector and it won't have anything to do with what happens on Channel 9.

We were part of the GF that was a great story for Souths, congrats to them and congrats to us. Souths could have been playing Brisbane, Melbourne, Saints and it would have been no different. It was the story of the year and it was pushed. You need to accept that that is how sport is and is how the media is and that it is not just a Rugby League issue.

 

[Symm]

Anyone wondering how it impacts on the club? Here's an example:

Every time our captain argues a call with the referee, when the commentators interpret the call against us, it makes our captain look like he's lying to the ref/trying to manipulate the ref. When it looks like your captain is always lying to the ref, this negatively impacts the public perception of the club. The public perception of the club directly relates to what sponsors we attract, which keep the club afloat.

This s**t matters.

 

[EXPLORER]

Skipper I whole heartedly agree with your stance. I, like you and most Canterbury-Bankstown fans are angry and upset with Channel 9 and the Daily Telegraph in particular. The collective biased support of South Sydney during the entire camaign was plain for all to see. In comparison, the media were totally disrespectful of our club, players and supporters alike. I can't remember the last time I had to mute a telecast due to the constant drivel proceeding from the mouth of Andrew Johns and Co. I hung in there watching the red and green telecast, hoping to see my team at the wars end and share in their loss and feel their pain. To my utter dismay there was nothing, no camera shots and no interviews for what seemed like an eternity. I was gutted right there.

What an inglorious send off it was for Mick Ennis, the club needs to also have a good hard look at itself. If you give the media no stories or shut them out they will write what they please to make headlines - or cover the other team more favourably.

I am with you however and believe action needs to be taken. The Club should release a statement. The papers will deny all, however the tide of support from social media can change things. I'm sure we as a proud club can say we have had enough. We cannot tolerate this insidious agenda anymore, it's sickening.

I would be happy to put forth anything that may assist.
Thank you Skipper, it DOES matter to me too

Thank you for this post,
Unfortunately I am not the right person to push this point any further than having a whinge on the kennel.
But I appreciate your post, and again I encourage anyone with the means and know how to please push this very point I am making public so things can hopefully change in our favour.
I do like the point you make about our own club,
You are right, I think we need to look from within our own first, as a strategy to get an even playing field in the media and the games marketing.

 

[KimboSlice]

And very little said about any of the 50-50/dodgy calls last night.. i think Sterlo said something about GI's try being a forward pass but was drowned out by the chorus of other commentators singing "glory, glory" or something.. I was at a party with 20 other people (most "on the night" souths supporters) and everyone was blown away that the ref was right next to it, yet called play on... that was the biggest joke of a call and i will put it down to the refs giving the "fans" a GI sentimental try

 

[Cammo]

Anyone wondering how it impacts on the club? Here's an example:

Every time our captain argues a call with the referee, when the commentators interpret the call against us, it makes our captain look like he's lying to the ref/trying to manipulate the ref. This goes toward the public perception of the club. The public perception of the club directly relates to what sponsors we attract, which keep the club afloat.

This s**t matters.

Public perception doesn't mean as much as you think if you have the right people in place in admin.

Greenburg got us on board with Camp Quality when we where on the nose more than any other time. He did it because of his presentation and how he worked with them.

We have good people and things like what happened on Channel 9 are not an issue.

 

[The DoggFather]

And very little said about any of the 50-50/dodgy calls last night.. i think Sterlo said something about GI's try being a forward pass but was drowned out by the chorus of other commentators singing "glory, glory" or something.. I was at a party with 20 other people (most "on the night" souths supporters) and everyone was blown away that the ref was right next to it, yet called play on... that was the biggest joke of a call and i will put it down to the refs giving the "fans" a GI sentimental try

If we talking about thoses calls, we will be called sore losers.

But in all honesty, the refs were as shit as we were.

 

[EXPLORER]

Anyone wondering how it impacts on the club? Here's an example:

Every time our captain argues a call with the referee, when the commentators interpret the call against us, it makes our captain look like he's lying to the ref/trying to manipulate the ref. When it looks like your captain is always lying to the ref, this negatively impacts the public perception of the club. The public perception of the club directly relates to what sponsors we attract, which keep the club afloat.

This s**t matters.

Exactly right,
And not only that, it affects the way refs ref the game,
I recall 3 head high shots from souths on our players that all year would have been on report and penalty given due to the contact with the head rule, that went un penalised,
Yet soon as Reynolds does one, it's a straight up penalty and Reynolds put on report,
The constant bias towards our club by the media is affecting on field decisions believe it or not,

 

[EXPLORER]

And very little said about any of the 50-50/dodgy calls last night.. i think Sterlo said something about GI's try being a forward pass but was drowned out by the chorus of other commentators singing "glory, glory" or something.. I was at a party with 20 other people (most "on the night" souths supporters) and everyone was blown away that the ref was right next to it, yet called play on... that was the biggest joke of a call and i will put it down to the refs giving the "fans" a GI sentimental try

Make no mistake, souths were the better team and deserved to win the game, but you are correct, from what I could tell the refs did everything in their power to ensure souths maintained momentum in the game,

 

[onceadog]

Your grandfather?
Hell,I was at that game!!

Just get over it , the best team won on the day, as for refs bias?? Gezz there was one sin bin offence which the refs could of quite easily ruled against us but let go

We simply over achieved this year plain and simple, there were two or maybe three teams ..
Manly, storm , roosters) that should of been there ahead of us

 

[Dingo]

Thank you for this post,
Unfortunately I am not the right person to push this point any further than having a whinge on the kennel.
But I appreciate your post, and again I encourage anyone with the means and know how to please push this very point I am making public so things can hopefully change in our favour.
I do like the point you make about our own club,
You are right, I think we need to look from within our own first, as a strategy to get an even playing field in the media and the games marketing.

Yes it seems like a massive task that is unassailable I know. By creating this thread has got the Kennels ears pricked up, that's a start I guess mate.

 

[Symm]

Public perception doesn't mean as much as you think if you have the right people in place in admin.

Greenburg got us on board with Camp Quality when we where on the nose more than any other time. He did it because of his presentation and how he worked with them.

We have good people and things like what happened on Channel 9 are not an issue.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. The perception of the club is directly related to what sponsorship dollars we can attract.

Is your Camp Quality example relevant? Did they pay us for jersey space? I thought we donated them that space as a "community partner", as well as agreed to donate $100K to Camp Quality as part of the deal. So, we actually paid Camp Quality to take the jersey space?

My memory is hazey, but didn't we give the jersey space to Camp Quality, in part, because public perception of the club was so low that we were struggling to attract big sponsors, so we gave it away?