Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: martyn ellis on February 07, 2011, 09:23:34 AM
-
Didn't know where to put this so starting a new, though probably short, thread. Apologies if it has been posted elsewhere.
In Sunday's Observer we got this:
'Fulham were level again within minutes, Clint Dempsey heading in after Friedel failed to clear a corner, and might even have
won it at the death, Johnson cutting inside to draw a fine low save from Mark Schwarzer.'
Then in Today's Guardian we get this:
'Johnson will be happy, for now, simply to complete a few more matches but there was a broad hint of Walker's own international claims in the goal that put Villa back in the lead. Picking the ball up in central midfield the full-back dropped his shoulder to skip away from Danny Murphy, advanced into space that might have been closed down and shot low and hard into the corner past the unsighted Friedel.'
-
Its difficult to get a good view of the game when you are in the bar drinking G&T.
I would say consistently lazy.
-
What point are you trying to make?
-
Unbelievable.To think these people are paid massive amounts of money to report on this
-
Surely these mistakes are down to sub-editors rather than the reporter.
-
What point are you trying to make?
That journos are c***s and shit at their jobs.
-
Seeing as they both work for the same organisation they were probably sat next to each other, so one looks at the others'
notes and thinks, oh well if that one's Schwarzer, this one must be Friedel. For goodness sake, it's not as if they've just come
into the game!
-
What point are you trying to make?
That the reporters don't seem to have a grasp of which goalkeeper plays for which team.
-
Seems to me he has had one too many aswell whoever wrote it.
-
What point are you trying to make?
That journos are c***s and shit at their jobs.
No news there than!
-
Its difficult to get a good view of the game when you are in the bar drinking G&T.
I would say consistently lazy.
Give em a break, once its out there on newsprint they cant do a thing. We can come back and modify comments made on here while we are pissed.
Personally I thought if it hadnt been for Rimmer, Johnson would have had a hat trick.
-
What point are you trying to make?
That the reporters don't seem to have a grasp of which goalkeeper plays for which team.
Same as we don't seem to have a grasp of the role of a sub-editor.
-
What point are you trying to make?
That the reporters don't seem to have a grasp of which goalkeeper plays for which team.
Same as we don't seem to have a grasp of the role of a sub-editor.
Doesn't take away from the point that two newspapers have made the same error with something that should be very easy to get right. We're not employed to know what all the roles at a newspaper entail.
-
What point are you trying to make?
That the reporters don't seem to have a grasp of which goalkeeper plays for which team.
Same as we don't seem to have a grasp of the role of a sub-editor.
Doesn't take away from the point that two newspapers have made the same error with something that should be very easy to get right. We're not employed to know what all the roles at a newspaper entail.
Thats' my point it is the sub-editor, not the reporter, who has fucked up as they're supposed to ensure, amongst other things, that articles are factually correct.
However, it really isn't that important. I don't imagine that there are loads of people wandering ariround scratching their heads thinking, "perhaps the keepers forgot to change ends at half time".
Or does it mean that the press hate us and Martin O'Neill told them to print it incorrectly?
-
What point are you trying to make?
That the reporters don't seem to have a grasp of which goalkeeper plays for which team.
Same as we don't seem to have a grasp of the role of a sub-editor.
I would imagine that the sub-editor would be checking the grammar and stylistic content as he or she wasn't at the game, they would be relying on the reporter that was at the bloody game to at least know which goalie plays for which team!
-
What point are you trying to make?
That the reporters don't seem to have a grasp of which goalkeeper plays for which team.
Same as we don't seem to have a grasp of the role of a sub-editor.
I would imagine that the sub-editor would be checking the grammar and stylistic content as he or she wasn't at the game, they would be relying on the reporter that was at the bloody game to at least know which goalie plays for which team!
In that case they wouldn't be doing their jobs correctly. As I said part of their role is to check that things are factually accurate. For all we know the journo might just put "saved by GK" and the sub then puts in the detail.
-
http://www.clubcall.com/match-reports/aston-villa-2-2-fulham-1161443.html
they even rename the scorers here certainly one anyway
-
What point are you trying to make?
That the reporters don't seem to have a grasp of which goalkeeper plays for which team.
Same as we don't seem to have a grasp of the role of a sub-editor.
Doesn't take away from the point that two newspapers have made the same error with something that should be very easy to get right. We're not employed to know what all the roles at a newspaper entail.
Thats' my point it is the sub-editor, not the reporter, who has fucked up as they're supposed to ensure, amongst other things, that articles are factually correct.
However, it really isn't that important. I don't imagine that there are loads of people wandering ariround scratching their heads thinking, "perhaps the keepers forgot to change ends at half time".
Or does it mean that the press hate us and Martin O'Neill told them to print it incorrectly?
Eh?
Are you saying that it's not important that they get players names right? Or that it's not important if it was the reporter/sub-editor/editor that got it wrong?
Your final sentence makes your post look a bit silly in my opinion. Or are you joking?
-
Bob, I tried to explain that it was the sub-editor that was at fault as a response to the posts blaming the reporter. I don't happen to think it is that important that they got the goalies name wrong but clearly some of you do.
The last sentence was just means as a piss take becaue there has been a running theme on here in recent weeks that the press are against us because of Martin O'Neill.
-
What point are you trying to make?
That the reporters don't seem to have a grasp of which goalkeeper plays for which team.
Same as we don't seem to have a grasp of the role of a sub-editor.
I would imagine that the sub-editor would be checking the grammar and stylistic content as he or she wasn't at the game, they would be relying on the reporter that was at the bloody game to at least know which goalie plays for which team!
In that case they wouldn't be doing their jobs correctly. As I said part of their role is to check that things are factually accurate. For all we know the journo might just put "saved by GK" and the sub then puts in the detail.
How could the sub-editor possibly know the report is facutually correct if they weren't at the game?
-
How could the sub-editor possibly know the report is facutually correct if they weren't at the game?
It's the sub-editor's job to check facts, such as how to spell factually.
-
How could the sub-editor possibly know the report is facutually correct if they weren't at the game?
It's the sub-editor's job to check facts, such as how to spell factually.
Which is what I already said.
If the sub-editor for the football section of a sports paper were to factually check every aspect of the games in their paper, we would be waiting until next week for the paper to come out.
-
What point are you trying to make?
That the reporters don't seem to have a grasp of which goalkeeper plays for which team.
So I've just noticed - I really shouldn't read threads when I've only had about 2 hours kip!
-
manure would have sold i dont know how many programmes last tuesday night and on the front cover in big bold letters was the date 02/02/10.
-
How could the sub-editor possibly know the report is facutually correct if they weren't at the game?
It's the sub-editor's job to check facts, such as how to spell factually.
Which is what I already said.
If the sub-editor for the football section of a sports paper were to factually check every aspect of the games in their paper, we would be waiting until next week for the paper to come out.
The line ups are printed in the paper, he doesn't need to be there to know who was in goal for Villa. He wouldn't be able to check opinion such as "it was a world class pass by Smith" but he would be able to check facts such as "the keeper, USAV, conceded 23".
-
I can't be bothered to look it up now, but I think both match reports were by the same journo, Barney Ronay.
-
I can't be bothered to look it up now, but I think both match reports were by the same journo, Barney Ronay.
Well he's got Egon his face now.
I'll get my coat.