What would you prefer in terms of the local paper reporting about the Albion?

[El Presidente]

Andy Naylor can at best be described as dividing opinion in relation to the Albion. His support of Stoke City, despite being Brighton born and bred and having no connection with the Potteries, is odd. His reporting is structured and objective, never passionate, about the club and its supporters.

I was pretty hacked off that last week he even claimed that when we were promoted in 1979 we won 3-0 at Newcastle, when anyone who was around at the time and supported the club knew it was 3-1.

To me that shows his lack of emotional investment in the club, it's just a job to him, and if we are honest, for most of us, what we do for a living is the same, just a job.

I've been looking at the Evening Gazette (Boro paper) over the past week, and it comes across that the paper and its journalists appear to be fans, such is the enthusiasm with which they write their articles.

I then made the mistake of reading their player ratings for their 11 men against 10 in which their team drew 1-1 at home, which are as follows:





Ramirez was given a 10/10 rating, and I'm totally nonplussed with the narrative too. It's the type of stuff I would expect from an eight year old. How many goals did he score? None. How many goals did he make? None. Normally a 10/10 is given for an outstanding performance seen once or twice in a season, rather than for someone who wears shinpads the size of a set of Panini cards, who didn't last the 90 minutes, and who looked decent, but not a world beater.

Then start reading some of the articles (actually don't, it will start the steam coming out of your ears). There's an article by former Premier League Jeff Winter saying that Mike Dean got the decision right. The article doesn't mention that Winter is a Boro fan, and that might compromise his viewpoint.

Another article refers to Boro being in the Premier League 'where they rightfully belong'. Nothing to back up the comment.

Lots of gushing about chairman Steve Gibson, but the fact that he has used Boro's losses to reduce the tax bills of some of his other companies, and therefore effectively have Boro being subsidised by the taxpayer (and satisfying FFP rules) is ignored.

I genuinely hope that Boro have a good season in the PL. On the positive its good that they are owned by a local lad, and given the recent economic issues in the nearby vicinity it's a place that needs a lift.

It's bollocks like this that makes me start to wonder if Naylor's dispassionate analysis of the Albion is perhaps a better method. A cold viewpoint lacking passion or a one eyed blog style Boro can do no wrong reporting, what is the best?

Personally the best reporting of matches IMO comes from [MENTION=29900]Exile[/MENTION] on NSC. Someone (and it's not one of my many disguises, honest) who is incisive, witty, clearly a fan but also prepared to give the club and players stick whenever appropriate (which, to be fair, has been very rare this season).

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I prefer dispassionate analysis in a local newspaper. Fan views can be read on NSC. The breadth of modern media means there is room for both. Having said that I'm not sure if the argus coverage is good enough to qualify as dispassionate analysis as sometimes it seems to follow agendas/storylines that are more suited to the online world.

 

[The Albion Roar]

I prefer an open and honest analysis - if we were poor, say we were poor. There will always be an element of bias, but the reader should be able to see through it.

What they don't get from that gibberish is any real sense of sensible writing; frankly, it's insulting their fans' intelligence.

 

[knocky1]

[MENTION=29900]Exile[/MENTION] vote from me, as well. Too good for the Argus though.

 

[Ernest]

That was nearly as BAD as that BUFFOON who goes on R5 and Talksport SPOUTING rubbish about FOOTBALL finances but has NEVER spoken about the BIGGEST ever SCANDAL in football FINANCE ever

 

[brightonrock]

I don't mind impartiality or objectivity - what riles me up with Naylor is his lack of research (i.e. 3-0/3-1 v Newcastle) and the fact he seems to revel in winding people up. When the fans are buzzing he'll write something criticising the atmosphere. When he comes in for stick he'll accuse fans on social media and message boards as clueless and biased. Some of that's true at times but he seems to enjoy causing a stir for the sake of it.

I don't mind a local reporter calling us poor if we were poor. But he likes being controversial and has an embarrassingly thin skin, biting back to every critique of his writing (which, as another point of note, is often awful too!).

I far prefer Brian Owen - balanced and an infinitely better writer.

 

[Machiavelli]

Naylor's analysis always seems pretty accurate for me. His problem is he can't write. Which is problematic for his career.
Agree with brightonrock that Owen is better.

 

[Triggaaar]

I've misread the OP, thought you were saying those were Naylor's ratings

I then made the mistake of reading their player ratings for their 11 men against 10 in which their team drew 1-1 at home, which are as follows:

You made the mistake, so why make us see it too?

If I see some nasty image I wish I hadn't seen, I'm not going to post it here and make you lot see it too.

 

[Icy Gull]

I don't have a problem with Naylor's reporting, much prefer it to the Vinnicombe reporting.

Not being a fan is not a bad thing IMO.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Couldn't care less which team Naylor supports. On the rare occasions when I actually buy the Argus, I buy it to read a reasonably objective report of a match, not something which reads like it was written by a fifteen year old fanzine editor. Say what you like about Naylor, he's generally fairly accurate with his reporting (as opposed to the local news reporter Neil Vowles, who filed a story this morning about the upcoming play offs, mentioning our 1-0 defeat to Boro at the weekend, FFS).

If I want a pleasingly one-eyed version of events, I'll come on here. That Boro report above is just playing to the audience. Ramirez a 10/10? Laughable, he'd have had to be outstanding for that, and I have to say I wasn't really aware of him until he had that spat with Stephens just before his injury. Thought Friend was unimpressive in the first half too, that stuck out for me because I was expecting him to be very good, but he looked off the pace. Konstantopolous hardly impressed with Stephens' goal, and Jordan Rhodes ran around hopelessly lost when he came on. Adam Clayton was non-existent in the first half especially.

Still, that's their privilege, isn't it, to talk about their own players in gushing terms. Several of them won't be around next season anyway, even some Boro fans we spoke to said that.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I don't mind impartiality or objectivity - what riles me up with Naylor is his lack of research (i.e. 3-0/3-1 v Newcastle) and the fact he seems to revel in winding people up. When the fans are buzzing he'll write something criticising the atmosphere. When he comes in for stick he'll accuse fans on social media and message boards as clueless and biased. Some of that's true at times but he seems to enjoy causing a stir for the sake of it.

I don't mind a local reporter calling us poor if we were poor. But he likes being controversial and has an embarrassingly thin skin, biting back to every critique of his writing (which, as another point of note, is often awful too!).

I far prefer Brian Owen - balanced and an infinitely better writer.

Another vote for Brian Owen here. Most of the time he writes a good accurate article.

 

[MattBackHome]

That report is the print equivalent of those two goons who do the fans commentary cam guff for Burnley.

I have slagged off Naylor on occasion in the past, but a) he's not that bad, b) he's much better than the above and c) who gives a shiny shite what the Argus says about anything.

The paper won't be in circulation for a great deal longer and NSC will be the primary source of club related news. And Bozza will be our very own Citizen Kane.

 

[studio150]

What I don't want is that ridiculous touch the seagull at 12.30 to all send positive vibes, who on earth believes in this twaddle.

What you want from a local paper is several threads:

A match report which gives a balanced view of the game, so that if you were not at the game the report reflects what went on and is not too negative or positive so that you know whether we were lucky to win, or out played by a better team.

A more reflective piece after the dust as settled on the game to give a view on how the season is progressing what the outlook is for the next few weeks, lessons learned

Pre match press conference with injury updates and a honest view on how the reporter believes the team will do in the upcoming game, not just we will win, and then a draw when evryone expects us to lose.

Also what shouldn't happen is to read large chunks of the away programme notes in the paper after the game, which has happened in the past and is just lazy.

 

[Goldstone1976]

And Bozza will be our very own Citizen Kane.

The last mods' dinner

 

[Easy 10]

Naylor's analysis always seems pretty accurate for me. His problem is he can't write. Which is problematic for his career.

You might not agree with what he writes, but what do you mean he "can't write" ?

 

[Mackenzie]

I prefer an open and honest analysis - if we were poor, say we were poor. There will always be an element of bias, but the reader should be able to see through it.

What they don't get from that gibberish is any real sense of sensible writing; frankly, it's insulting their fans' intelligence.

Perhaps your expectations are greater than the reality.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Another vote for Brian Owen here. Most of the time he writes a good accurate article.

Completely agree - I think Brian Owen is a very good writer. I don't dislike Andy Naylor though, I think they're both pretty decent but I prefer reading Owen's articles.

 

[El Presidente]

To be fair to AN, his analysis column today is fairly spot on IMO.

 

[Machiavelli]

You might not agree with what he writes, but what do you mean he "can't write" ?

I actually said that I do agree with what he writes, hence the opening sentence.
As regards the second sentence -- and hence, with how he writes -- his prose is awful, so wooden and predictable. There's no flair in his writing whatsoever, and I suspect that this is because he doesn't read much literature, which assists with the depth, range and powers of expression.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I actually said that I do agree with what he writes, hence the opening sentence.
As regards the second sentence -- and hence, with how he writes -- his prose is awful, so wooden and predictable. There's no flair in his writing whatsoever, and I suspect that this is because he doesn't read much literature, which assists with the depth, range and powers of expression.

Maybe he's just writing to the style that his editor wants? He's a reporter – he doesn't have to do flair, just present the facts. His job is to report on the game. In this respect I have no problem with him (on Twatter – I don't go near the rag he writes for). As for saying the issue that he 'can't write' being problematic for his career – he's been at The Argus for nearly 20 years, so he must be doing something right...