The festive season brings out the best and the worst: rants, raves & recession specials in the build up to Christmas

What is it about this time of year that stirs up sensation in all of us?

November and December have produced some absurd and entertaining headlines of which I could not do justice to all at once. So for the political and sporting contingent here are two that caught the eye.

Gordon Brown “saved the world”

Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s not so finest hour came when he announced to his peers in the Commons that he had heroically “saved the world” from certain despair.

While others mock, spare a thought for the gentle Scotsman. After months of hesitation, mumblings and aimlessness, Brown has finally latched onto his own unique strengths in this era of economic turmoil.

If that sees him donning a cape and spandex and soaring to the rescue of those dole queue damsels in distress then who are we to burst his superhero bubble. But as in every graphic novel there are always casualties and it’s just a shame that even this hero could not save our beloved Woolworths. Oh well. We’ll have to go somewhere else for our pick’n’mix now.

The world of sport has not been spared the influence of the festive fervour. Football has always found the Christmas period to impose that extra little bit of strain and duress upon its players and pundits.

Maybe this stress was too much for Arsenal defender William Gallas when he penned a personal attack on several of his colleagues in his November released autobiography. Then again perhaps he was just following his publicist’s four-step-plan to any successful autobiography.

1. Behave bizarrely and erratically and appear to be on or just over the brink of a nervous breakdown 2. Make outlandish comments and criticisms of those around you in the hope of jeopardising your career. 3. Release said autobiography. 4. Enjoy the frenzied backlash of media spotlight and public fallouts following its release which practically writes the sequel itself!

Credit Crunch Brunch

So, where do these outcries for attention stem from?

Perhaps there’s something in the water at this time of year. Maybe some people have had one too many of the Credit Crunch Brunches that are proudly emblazoned on every public house and café window. It appears that the perpetual reminder of the doom and the gloom that is setting in being brought to us by the free papers of the Metro on our way to work is not enough for some. Our memory and conscience should be jogged as we stare morbidly into our ‘Recession Special’ lunch time soup or attempt to escape for a pint of refreshment only to be interrupted by the next bulletin of stock falls and share collapses.

Furthermore, as December approached and the impending shopping season gathered pace (or not as the Government’s cut in VAT made evident) it’s enough to drive even the most composed to quiver and shake in fear. Now that Christmas day has rolled around and you have picked yourself up following that unavoidable collision with the relatives, next up is the realisation that those resolutions thought out so commendably have remained hopelessly unaccomplished. It’s a wonder how the Turkey ever gets cooked.

But enough, this is the season of goodwill and cheer. And as long as there are mince pies, there will always be another day and another story – but as we’re all doing it, here’s a rant of my own on the less obvious side of discrimination in football.

John Terry, coincidentally the England football team captain, was sent off for a dangerous foul in the match between Chelsea and Everton last Monday. Following the game the former Premiership referee Graham Poll commented on the incident and revealed his believed duty of discrimination that runs through the mindset of the referee. “You have to remember you are sending off the England captain,” wrote Poll in his article for the Daily Mail. In his press conference the following day Arsene Wenger rightly felt aggrieved by the possibility that one player could be afforded such exemption from the rulebook.

In looking over Terry’s treatment this season there is a glaring example of this special treatment. A red card picked up in the victory over Manchester City on September 8 and the three games he would have been banned for were latterly rescinded by the Professional Game Match Officials Board.

In that instance, Graham Poll’s insights into the Football Association’s thinking may have shed light on further inconsistencies. Vital England qualifying games against Kazakhstan and Belarus on October 11 and 15 were approaching and Terry needed minutes on the pitch to get back to full fitness. I wonder whether those in Soho Square remembered these factors before making their decision to rescind the ban.

Mince pies have run out

In contrast, the FA’s verdict for the bust up between Chelsea ground staff and Manchester United’s Patrice Evra reveals the true might with which they wield recriminations when a player is not protected by the national armband. A whopping fine and a four game ban were swiftly dealt out to the Frenchman.

If the decision makers of the English game are trying to encourage home-grown talent and discourage foreign imports then perhaps this is all part of the plan. Or perhaps the mince pies have finally run out at Soho Square. Either way, these inconsistencies are not going unnoticed.

Wenger rightly argued, “English or not; 17-years old or 30…is it a sending off or not?!” By the FA’s thinking the English football captain walks higher than his fellow professionals. Maybe that is why JT has previously been spared punishment when berating the officials at every decision.

It appears the captaincy of one’s country is almost a ‘get out of jail free card’. Let’s hope the next player to inherit Terry’s mantle carries this trump card with a bit more respect.

Remember, and this goes for Mr. Brown as well, with great power comes great responsibility.

News travels fast – lessons to be learned in covering a story swiftly

As soon as I finished assembling my first blog and clicked the ‘publish’ key two days ago I encountered my first lesson of many in understanding the world of journalism: news travels fast.

Immediately after the blog was released for any potential public scrutiny – or at least for the reading of those who I have suggested/persuaded to look at it – did a follow up story directly affecting what I had argued made its way to the headlines of the evening newspapers and online websites.

My argument was that the Football Association is of late becoming too obsessed with interfering in matters that go above their call of duty in the game. The FA had no need to intervene and hand out reprisals for Liverpool FC’s demonstrations and show of support for their incarcerated and possibly wrongly accused supporter Michael Shields. Furthermore, I recognised problems with the manner of governing bodies who threw their weight about as soon as one member of the public showed any disapproval. And above all I felt there was no need for any agency to feel the need to ‘jump in’ on one side or another as public response should be able to speak for itself.

The follow up report I was referring to came when the FA released a statement on Wednesday afternoon. “We understand that Michael Shields’ case is a very emotive issue,” said an FA spokesman.

“Having heard the club’s explanation we will not be taking any formal action, and we are satisfied that they understand the sensitivities around football matches being used as a platform for political messages.”

I wonder whether what also happened was that the FA eventually understood the sensitivities around freedom of speech and a peaceful public protest.

Lessons learnt

For now at least, I want to focus on the journalistic lessons I learnt in this case.

The press has always had to be first to every story. With so many different regional, national and international repositories for the news competition has fuelled this urgency. And in the last two decades or so the increase in mediums and outlets for news has accelerated this pace to breakneck speed.

During the summer I attended a journalism workshop with News Associates to experience what the course I am taking would be all about. The trainers there threw us into the deep end and exposed us to a hypothetical yet real-life-speed news story.

We were barraged with information from eye-witness and on the scene reports theoretically by phone. Informed by press releases and statements received by live-feed and e-mails. And we were able to instantly bring up any information available regarding the action zone from the encyclopedic information stored on the internet.

This exercise lasted all of 45 minutes – and that was only so we could keep up – but allowed us to compile a comprehensive news report looking at the story from every available angle ready to be released across multiple news media from newspapers to television, mobile phone and internet

What these examples have illustrated is that the modern world has forced us to keep up to speed. With the surge in social media even evident as I am typing, blogging allows even those without journalistic qualifications to be first to report the news. As a journalist or reporter this urgency will be paramount to one’s responsibility to the public and accountability to their editor.

I imagine that this learning curve I am embarking upon will be just as steep and honestly, I can’t wait.

News travels fast, and you better keep up.

Why is the FA getting so shirty?

 

On Monday night, Liverpool’s Anfield football stadium witnessed two important events which have drawn debate across the country. Firstly the stalemate finally saw the Merseyside club go top of the Premier League table yet so unconvincingly that pundits and football fans alike doubt their title credentials. And secondly, the ground set the scene for a protest against the imprisonment of Liverpool supporter Michael Shields which has been so heinously misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Football Association that it will be perceived by the public for all the wrong reasons.

Liverpool publicly backed Shields who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for the attempted murder of a Bulgarian waiter, Martin Georgiev, in May 2005. Since the event, another Liverpool fan admitted being responsible for the crime before later retracting his confession and Shields’ case will go before a high court review tomorrow.

The Liverpool players wore T-shirts bearing the slogan Free Michael Now and the same message was spelled out in a mosaic held up by supporters in the Kop for the televised match. The match-day programme contained the article declaring the 22-year-old’s innocence. “Liverpool fan Michael Shields should be here at Anfield for tonight’s game,” it began. “Instead, he will be sitting in a prison cell.”

There had been limited responses to the act of protest at the time of the game and in the papers the next day but in the FA’s decision to rake up the issue with the football club they have in fact only added detriment to the sentiment by highlighting the issue.

Today, over two days since the event took place, the Guardian and the Telegraph to name but a few have covered the issue. Furthermore, in both articles the link to the FA’s disciplinary action taken against Ipswich midfielder David Norris has been made.

Norris was fined £5000 and made to make a public apology for his ‘handcuffs’ gesture of support for his imprisoned friend Luke McCormick whilst celebrating a goal against Blackpool last month. The former Plymouth Argyle goalkeeper McCormick had recently been sentenced to seven years in prison for causing death by dangerous driving of two young brothers.

The stance that the FA has chosen to take over these two incidents of late suggests something rather more alarming that has been instilled within the institution – that of ushering in characteristics of a Nanny State to the game and its supporters.

With the risk of this appearing as a radical tangent to my line of thought, the strict reaction of the Premier League’s governing body to public outcry can be seen in October’s ‘Sachsgate’ affair concerning the BBC.

Without over analysing the similarities, the media orchestrated witch-hunt and recriminations dealt out to Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand have aroused my concerns. Public complaints were minimal in the initial reaction to the aired show but quickly gathered pace once the papers and the Office of Communications (Ofcom) got wind of the incident.

Similarly, David Norris’ actions were made to be sinister and insensitive by firstly the public and then the FA’s interpretation. One could be forgiven for interpreting David Norris’ goal celebration as purely one of support for his close friend – not a show of support for the terrible tragedy that he was guilty of.

Likewise, the Liverpool fans and those responsible for organising the demonstrations on the terraces and players’ shirts can surely not be accused of anything more than a show of solidarity.

The article on the Guardian website suggests that the main concern amongst the FA is that Liverpool should attempt to play “judge and jury” with Shield’s case about to go to review. Yet, as the FA has been pushed towards the point of taking a firm stance by the matter becoming a subject of controversy on radio phone-in’s, I again question how these events fall in line with our nations’ much protected freedom of speech and freedom of press.

It is understandable that the governing body may not condone such demonstrations for a televised match but a heavy-handed approach to send out a message of reprisals for similar events will surely be detrimental to our freedoms.

The problem is that in reprimanding those involved, the FA and the BBC are in turn imposing upon the public a guideline for how such events should be interpreted.

We as the public should be afforded the right to judge such events as each person sees it. Public backing or outcry should be perceived as just that – for public scrutiny – and not as a signal for the agencies, corporations and governing bodies to lay down the law.