I'm not sure whether I am just becoming hyper-sensitive to such things, but some of the media coverage of the World Cup, at least in England, has been truly woeful.
One of my major gripes is the ease with which myths and clichés are ceaselessly perpetuated, often by pundits and commentators who should know better. Just to get things off my chest, I will detail one or two of my bugbears, in no particular order of preference...
Not least amongst the myths is the notion that Brazil have always played glitteringly skilful, intricate and carefree football. They just haven't. In my lifetime, they have lived up to the inflated hype in 1970, 1982 and, very very occasionally, in 1998/2002. Most of the rest of the time, they have been like all other football teams - pragmatic, cautious, functional and concentrating on winning, or at least avoiding defeat. This endless "romanticizing" of the Brazil team has become tired.
One of the roots of the delusions of media and public alike is the undue reliance placed on short video clips and "highlights" of old football in forming judgements. Live television coverage has clearly become much more widespread in the past couple of decades, and this has led many to indulge in inaccurate denigration by comparison. During a live game, the humdrum, scrappy and "uneventful" nature of most football of all ages is there for everyone to see. Old and brief clips of spectacular goals and feats of skill leave us with the impression that plodding mediocrity did not exist in "the good old days", as it is filtered out of the collective memory.
In addition to the skewed perception of past "glories", there is an automatic assumption that "entertaining" and "exciting" should be equated with "great", "good" and "accomplished". Concomitant with this is a resort to "all or nothing" thinking if the fare on offer does not comply with the commentator or "journalist"'s distorted expectations. So, we are urged to welcome shoddy and comical defending, and end-to-end basketball-style freak shows are valued above cerebral, tactical duels.
Pointless comparisons are made, and pointless discussions about superlatives take place, about the "best this" and the "greatest that". It is little wonder that the level of discussion across social media is of such paucity when take their cues from the lazy nonsense served up by the mainstream media? The term "lowest common denominator" springs to mind.
There are some pundits who are infuriatingly pompous, self-righteous and overbearing, but ironically they are often the ones who deviate most pleasingly from the dreary norm. It is therefore often a choice between a nondescript but comfortable listen and meaningful content.
I will rely more on "specialist" media next time. Mind you, I said that after 2010...
No comments:
Post a Comment