ITV : irresponsible broadcasting

First topic message reminder :

Whatever the merits of (to my mind trigger-happy) Rolland's decision, the nature of Steve Ryder's summary of the match both at half and full time was inflammatory and inherently biased.

Had the RC gone the other way, would it have been so biased I wonder?

Sorry. But it was stupid especially when there were pubs and clubs serving alcohol up and down the country. It would be interesting to hear how the French and Irish broadcasters dealt with it.

Its just that your resentment and continued assault just seems way OTT to me. You seem happy to give some people the benefit of the doubt at some stages and yet you want to see one of sports great anchormen brought to count here. In fact what bothers me is not the fact that you guys want Steve Ryder brought to count, it is the manner and tone of your assault that I find quite disconcerting, perhaps if you were french i might understand more but I have never witnessed a more severe case of, "the man doth protest too much" in all my life. I just find it intriguing. Why don't you all just move on, even Steve Ryder is allowed to get carried away on occasion. God forbid what you guys must have done when the USA went into hysterics in a Ryder Cup match a few years ago whilst we still had to play out. You must have been on the phone to your lawyers immediately.

I'm just angry cause Phil Vickery's retired.

Comfort wrote:I'm just angry cause Phil Vickery's retired.

From commentating?

RubyGuby wrote:Its just that your resentment and continued assault just seems way OTT to me. You seem happy to give some people the benefit of the doubt at some stages and yet you want to see one of sports great anchormen brought to count here. In fact what bothers me is not the fact that you guys want Steve Ryder brought to count, it is the manner and tone of your assault that I find quite disconcerting, perhaps if you were french i might understand more but I have never witnessed a more severe case of, "the man doth protest too much" in all my life. I just find it intriguing. Why don't you all just move on, even Steve Ryder is allowed to get carried away on occasion. God forbid what you guys must have done when the USA went into hysterics in a Ryder Cup match a few years ago whilst we still had to play out. You must have been on the phone to your lawyers immediately.

i didnt realise you were wumming until i saw that. carry on

Comfort wrote:I'm just angry cause Phil Vickery's retired.

He has?

RubyGuby wrote:Its just that your resentment and continued assault just seems way OTT to me. You seem happy to give some people the benefit of the doubt at some stages and yet you want to see one of sports great anchormen brought to count here. In fact what bothers me is not the fact that you guys want Steve Ryder brought to count, it is the manner and tone of your assault that I find quite disconcerting, perhaps if you were french i might understand more but I have never witnessed a more severe case of, "the man doth protest too much" in all my life. I just find it intriguing. Why don't you all just move on, even Steve Ryder is allowed to get carried away on occasion. God forbid what you guys must have done when the USA went into hysterics in a Ryder Cup match a few years ago whilst we still had to play out. You must have been on the phone to your lawyers immediately.

Think he's more likely to settle for a knighthood

RubyGuby wrote:Its just that your resentment and continued assault just seems way OTT to me. You seem happy to give some people the benefit of the doubt at some stages and yet you want to see one of sports great anchormen brought to count here. In fact what bothers me is not the fact that you guys want Steve Ryder brought to count, it is the manner and tone of your assault that I find quite disconcerting, perhaps if you were french i might understand more but I have never witnessed a more severe case of, "the man doth protest too much" in all my life. I just find it intriguing. Why don't you all just move on, even Steve Ryder is allowed to get carried away on occasion. God forbid what you guys must have done when the USA went into hysterics in a Ryder Cup match a few years ago whilst we still had to play out. You must have been on the phone to your lawyers immediately.

In what way is Ryder/Rider exempt from irresponsible anchorage?

I cant help but notice the hypocrisy of this article

Welshmushroom wrote:I cant help but notice the hypocrisy of this article

?


I've not detected any hypocrisy. Irrelevance - yes.

What hypocrisy?

The funny part is you had 3 options to choose from:-

1. I turn the sound off.

2. I turn the match off.

3. I register my complaint with ITV after being incensed after the incident occured.

Sadly you failed to choose any of the obvious and have instead done the following.

Posted your own opinion on a social website to the general public condeming the ITV broadcasters for expressing their opinions & emotions to the general public. Then after finally concluding that one of the above points merited following through on, you decided to go with option 3.

Sadly however all the above makes you guilty of essentially an abuse of the same media power that ITV had. Admittedly on a smaller scale but you cant tell me that Broadcasters should have a greater duty of care than any other individual. That in turn makes you a Hypocrit.

At the end of the day im glad we live in a culture where one can express himself without reprisal. Don't take freedom for granted Portnoy. You dont have to agree with everything you hear or read but people have a right to an opinion including you. If you dont like it....dont listen to it.

Just a thought really.....

Welshmushroom,you appear to be suporting freedom of speech.I feel obliged to warn you that on this site that there is a hardcore that frown on this sort of thing.Some are wums and some have issues!

I would have to agree, knows his golf but is a sports generalist and whilst i didn't see his coverage more than happy to get on the bandwagon and call for his head for whatever he did out of petty jealousy that he earns more than i do and must be a langer

Bring back David Vine!He was the Jack of all trades,bless him.A good link man a la David Coleman.Sadly departed,the pair of them.

Comfort wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Seems I missed something. I watched in the US and had the NZ broadcast. They covered it well.

I heard other people mentiom the ITV broadcast is less than favourable tones. What happened?

I'm not sure if they'll have removed any bits of the program that were most damning, but it's probably easier to watch it on the ITV website (where you can watch the full match programme).

Generally though, it was a massive 2 fingers up to Rolland and France and screaming "we woz robbed" on behalf of the welsh. Completely biased and factually incorrect statements made repeatedly by nearly everyone on the show at the time. I think they're mainly to blame for the indoctrination of the general rugby public in the UK that it was never a red card and the ref got it horribly wrong.

Thanks mate. That's certainly the drift I get from reading here and speaking to some folks.

Stunningly opposite on the NZ broadcast. I just watched that again. As soon as the tackle occurred, the commentator said that Warburton was in trouble and it could be red. Didn't say it should be red, but didn't disagree either. Afterwards their comments generally supported the red card. All in all a fairly balanced comment. I can understand debating whether it could have been yellow, but not emoting and bitching about the referee. The laws are pretty clear and I thought it was consistent with the laws.

doctor_grey wrote:

Comfort wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Seems I missed something. I watched in the US and had the NZ broadcast. They covered it well.

I heard other people mentiom the ITV broadcast is less than favourable tones. What happened?

I'm not sure if they'll have removed any bits of the program that were most damning, but it's probably easier to watch it on the ITV website (where you can watch the full match programme).

Generally though, it was a massive 2 fingers up to Rolland and France and screaming "we woz robbed" on behalf of the welsh. Completely biased and factually incorrect statements made repeatedly by nearly everyone on the show at the time. I think they're mainly to blame for the indoctrination of the general rugby public in the UK that it was never a red card and the ref got it horribly wrong.

Thanks mate. That's certainly the drift I get from reading here and speaking to some folks.

Stunningly opposite on the NZ broadcast. I just watched that again. As soon as the tackle occurred, the commentator said that Warburton was in trouble and it could be red. Didn't say it should be red, but didn't disagree either. Afterwards their comments generally supported the red card. All in all a fairly balanced comment. I can understand debating whether it could have been yellow, but not emoting and bitching about the referee. The laws are pretty clear and I thought it was consistent with the laws.

its quite simple, when it affects you - you react- when it doesnt you dont! not saying there were right- but lets not get all up in arms over stuff that happens in all countries media when it affects THEM. We have all read since plenty of the rest of the worlds comments in regards to this, there are sides for and against all over the rugby world, and there are alot of very strong opinions.

Rider isn't there to give his opinion. He's there to host it. The fact all the pundits were against the red meant he should have put across the other side. They had 20minutes for someone to do a search before half time to find the IRB edict from 2009 (and then another 40 mins before the end). Don't think it was ever mentioned. It was only the next day when someone must have pointed it out that they started with the "letter of the law" crap. And of course Lynagh and FitzPatrick were there and both thought it was red.

Sounds a bit similar to the Setanta commentators in the last RWC after the England-France semi-final. Their commentators were absolutely flipping out afterwards about what they thought were countless unpunished England transgressions. I did agree England got away with a bundle in that match, but the vehemence of their comments was totally out of proportion. And they were pilloried for their comments.

HammerofThunor wrote:Rider isn't there to give his opinion. He's there to host it. The fact all the pundits were against the red meant he should have put across the other side. They had 20minutes for someone to do a search before half time to find the IRB edict from 2009 (and then another 40 mins before the end). Don't think it was ever mentioned. It was only the next day when someone must have pointed it out that they started with the "letter of the law" crap. And of course Lynagh and FitzPatrick were there and both thought it was red.

oh we all know the truth if it was england another side would have been talked about, it was the welsh they didnt know what to do for the best!

The Great Aukster wrote:So if a referee gets a decision wrong then every other referee thereafter also has to purposely get it wrong to be consistent? Strange way to uphold the Laws of the game!

For those that remain interested, ITV posted me this yesterday pm:

"Dear Mr [],

Thank you for your further email.

In line with our standard process, your complaint has been registered and logged with ITV, and details will be made available to senior editorial management within ITV. In this instance, we passed your complaint on to the producers of ITV’s Rugby World Cup coverage and the editor of this programme, Phil Heslop, has personally responded to your complaint in detail.

I hope this reassures you of the process in place, but if you feel the response is unsatisfactory you can contact Ofcom via www.ofcom.org.uk

Kind regards
Sue
ITV Viewer Services"

To which I replied:

"Noted.

Could I expect I mail back from the ITV RWC producer/editor and Rider himself?

I would expect an apology about the outrageous partiality of Riders' comments not only to me but broadcast in tomorrow's 3rd-place final (to be repeated at half-time).

The man was totally out of his depth and whatever the studio pundits said, there are millions of us out here that know the Laws of RU. So the man must apologise.

Please advise me as to the ITV complaints reference number/code on this matter."

And having waited until after this morning's broadcast for an unforthcoming reply, I followed up with

"Sadly I have had no response regarding my request for a reference number for my ITV complaint.

A method of tracking its progress would also be appreciated.

In the meantime, I have raised an Ofcom complaint ( "The reference number for this contact is: WEBCOMM018933C") regarding the opacity of the ITV.com complaints procedure and the obfuscation by ITV personnel in dealing seriously with the issue. No doubt your senior management will be appreciative of getting dragged into policy matters with the regulator.

I shall of course, being using this correspondence as evidence of the initial* Ofcom complaint.

*If this ITV complaint is not dealt with satisfactorily, I may be forced to raise a second Ofcom complaint about it as a matter of principle.
"
Which prompted the response

"Dear Mr [],
Thank you for your further email.

I can confirm that your complaint has been logged under the reference number 191900.

As previously advised, should you wish to take the matter further, please contact OFCOM at the address provided.

I'm sorry that we are unable to assist you further with this matter.

Kind Regards,
Helen
ITV Viewer Services
"

So I replied:

"And how do I track its progress?

Incidentally, If other like-minded people would like to associate themselves with my complaint should they create new, separate ones - or can I publish a password to associate with 191900?

I will (as I said), pursue an Ofcom complaint should the result be unsatisfactory.
"

To which I am anxiously awaiting a response...

I'm sorry that we are unable to assist you further with this matter.

Port,
Was that broadcast really worth the concerns raised to ITV and Ofcom? As I said before, I watched the New Zealand broadcast so I didn't see what happened on ITV. But to complain was it ofensive or otherwise beyond the pale?

Everyone has said the commentators were over the top, but that bad?

I'm sorry that we are unable to assist you further with this matter.

doctor_grey wrote:Port,
Was that broadcast really worth the concerns raised to ITV and Ofcom? As I said before, I watched the New Zealand broadcast so I didn't see what happened on ITV. But to complain was it ofensive or otherwise beyond the pale?

Everyone has said the commentators were over the top, but that bad?

It wasn't the commentators. It was the provocative Ry/ider (neither Wiki nor ITV can provide a definitive view on that).

So I am engaging in a debate with ITV about the contentiousness of his comments.

It could have been resolved a week back.

But now I am trying to kick arses about the difficultly of simply raising a complaint,

I'm still in the US and cannot access the ITV website to play back their video. Which I now really want to see.

Here is your mistake:
You made an honest comment to ITV.
And you expect a non-pro forma response.

You are not giving them any credit. Afterall your reference number is 191900. So. only 191,900 people in front of you. I am sure someone will get back to you before the end of the century.

This is exactly the kind of tilting at windmills which companies like ITV are afraid of. Keep at 'em.

Will this help?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7715634/Steve-Rider-leaves-ITV-in-amicable-settlement.html

Not really as he didn't.

The timestamp of the article is 4:28PM BST 12 May 2010.

Shoot. I looked at the upper left on the web site and saw today's date. I thought that was the date on the article.

Good thing reading web sites ain't bone surgery, eh?

doctor_grey wrote:I'm still in the US and cannot access the ITV website to play back their video. Which I now really want to see.

Here is your mistake:
You made an honest comment to ITV.
And you expect a non-pro forma response.

You are not giving them any credit. Afterall your reference number is 191900. So. only 191,900 people in front of you. I am sure someone will get back to you before the end of the century.

This is exactly the kind of tilting at windmills which companies like ITV are afraid of. Keep at 'em.

You only really need to watch the post half and full-time studio comments to get the gist of my point.

But I'll keep tilting at windmills...