G'day guys and gals,

Thought this might be worth sharing for those who are interested.

Myself and my fellow dees supporting mate have developed a website that ranks teams on the good and bad press they receive over the season. It's a social experiment of sorts, but an idea that we found interesting. And yes, we do have WAY too much time on our hands...

THE FOOTY PRESS

It's constantly in development, so feedback or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Go Dees

Very interesting, I wonder what it will look like when the season actually starts.

Almost all our positive is Jack Watts and the Negative is Hogan's knee.

No percentage?

I think you need to consider that if a team cops an absolute hiding its percentage should drop and vice versa.

Also I think you need a medal perhaps the "Lou Richards one eyed" medal: Voting each week on the site 3,2,1 for the most one eyed reports.

Essendon should be at the bottom

I have no doubt that the AFL are trying to put out as much positive, pat them on the back articles about the dirty drug cheats as possible to try and make people forget how disgusting of a club they are

Too bad we will never forget, nice try though AFL you morons.

Interesting concept.

Does it cover all press or have you selected individual news sources?

G'day guys and gals,

Thought this might be worth sharing for those who are interested.

Myself and my fellow dees supporting mate have developed a website that ranks teams on the good and bad press they receive over the season. It's a social experiment of sorts, but an idea that we found interesting. And yes, we do have WAY too much time on our hands...

THE FOOTY PRESS

It's constantly in development, so feedback or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Go Dees

Interesting idea MD, good luck with it all. A couple of thoughts.

Firstly you have deducted points from Dees for the reports of Jesse's injury. I had assumed negative press meant articles that are critical of a club or put them in a bad light. I don't see how reports of injury are negative, sure bad news but is that what you are trying to measure?

You note in the 'How it works section that you won't be including match reports as you want the table to reflect the 'quality of the football club as a whole'. I can't see how including reports of injuries achieves this goal. Just as match reports from poorly performing clubs would skew the results so would a team that have a really bad run with injuries (and usually there s a correlation between the two). Using a metric of reports of injuries resulting in losing points would have consigned the Dees to the bottom of such a table for the last decade (even leaving aside the genuine negative press we have received)

The other query was your selection of articles. Obviously there are frequent examples of the same articles appearing in those paper owned by the same company and there also examples where competing companies will report on the same issue (eg both the Hun and the Age reported on Hogans' injuries). How will you determine which article to 'score'?

Don't quite know what the point is to this, or the truth you are trying to uncover.

An irrelevant piece about Mitch Duncan's views on his teams ruckmen on a slow news day is neither here nor there when it comes to how Geelong is seen off field.

Analyse, without stats (even though I love them), how Robinson dealt with the Essendrug Scandal, how Wilson 'reported' on Dustin Martin's issues compared to here usual doggedness etc.

Arbitrary numbers used as a relative comparison is useful to the point where your analysis begins.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

To answer some of the queries:

I guess instead of a percentage, we've gone for a weight of numbers approach to how significant a story is. E.g. If a scandal occurs at a club there will be a heap of articles written, therefore dragging down a teams score as opposed to a lightweight story that might only be reported once.

With the selection of news sources, we've selected those with the furthest reach. You could obviously include everything and anything from a footy blog to someone's post on bigfooty, so we had to draw the line somewhere- the opinions of paid journalists. It was also interesting to see that Superfooty and Realfooty are widely syndicated through interstate papers or other news sources- so we only needed to include them once.

As for deducting points for injuries, we once again had to draw the line somewhere. In my experience it is also true that while there are freak injuries, clubs can come under criticism for a spate of injuries over a season. E.g bombers soft tissue issues etc. We decided that a negative article is a negative article, and only decided to exclude match reports because it would probably just align with the regular season ladder.

All good points that will influence the way it evolves. Thanks again

G'day guys and gals,

Thought this might be worth sharing for those who are interested.

Myself and my fellow dees supporting mate have developed a website that ranks teams on the good and bad press they receive over the season. It's a social experiment of sorts, but an idea that we found interesting. And yes, we do have WAY too much time on our hands...

THE FOOTY PRESS

It's constantly in development, so feedback or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Go Dees

I agree with this idea/experiment....I also believe in it...there are individuals within the media who have hatred for clubs and are indeed very often throwing barbs and negativity towards clubs and nobody shoots them down when factually proven wrong. I for one cannot stand one C.Wilson...but at least she apologises when proven wrong......

I also cant stand Commetti who is biased toward W.A..the list goes on..

They usually do this in an indirect way..we know who hates us in the media....we could name them....easily....

Tappy, I agree re Commetti. Yes, he has a deep voice but people mistake that for great commentary. From what I have observed, a great deal of his time seems to be spent trying to include pre planned 'zingers' into his calls of the game.

As for deducting points for injuries, we once again had to draw the line somewhere. In my experience it is also true that while there are freak injuries, clubs can come under criticism for a spate of injuries over a season. E.g bombers soft tissue issues etc. We decided that a negative article is a negative article, and only decided to exclude match reports because it would probably just align with the regular season ladder.

We will have to agree to disagree. I can't see how a report on an injury, in of itself, could be viewed as a negative article (eg the ones about Jesse's injury - indeed you could argue they were positive as they reported it was only a jarred knee, allaying the fears of demon fans and if you recall there was much rejoicing on DL when the first article reporting this went up).

Sure an article criticizing a clubs handling or record with injuries would be negative but these are very rare. I can only recall the ones about the bomber in recent years that might fit that bill, and even with these it was some time before questions were asked. Injuries are a fact of life in footy and each year at least one club has a spate of injuries. Which ever that club is this year will do poorly in your ladder.

Tappy, I agree re Commetti. Yes, he has a deep voice but people mistake that for great commentary. From what I have observed, a great deal of his time seems to be spent trying to include pre planned 'zingers' into his calls of the game.

Yes RTG, he seems to be a protected species within the media because he has got simply put..."One liners"....We dont care Dennis.....just call the game and stop trying to be the next Rex.

My top 5 callers/personalitys

Hudson (Unbiased)

Quartermain (Unbiased when I listen and also a sympathetic caller to the losing sides)

Matty Richardson (Good for special comments ect)

Blight (Unbiased)

Also dont mind Mark Howard channel 10

Just cant have Commetti or BT who is another tool & gets away with murder on air of clubs.

We will have to agree to disagree. I can't see how a report on an injury, in of itself, could be viewed as a negative article (eg the ones about Jesse's injury - indeed you could argue they were positive as they reported it was only a jarred knee, allaying the fears of demon fans and if you recall there was much rejoicing on DL when the first article reporting this went up).

Sure an article criticizing a clubs handling or record with injuries would be negative but these are very rare. I can only recall the ones about the bomber in recent years that might fit that bill, and even with these it was some time before questions were asked. Injuries are a fact of life in footy and each year at least one club has a spate of injuries. Which ever that club is this year will do poorly in your ladder.

I'm on the fence with the injury negativity....I can see how the media really play it for all its worth to sell papers ect.... but injurys need to be reported regardless or people will be wondering where there favorite player is when he's out.

Unless we are in the inner sanctum we wouldnt know otherwise good or bad.

Essendons fitness gurus were at one stage blown out of the water negativity wise in the media because of the soft tissue problem...but then the media made it an all out issue for months...then it hit the forums ect...rumors ect...

Flow on effect...so it can kind of be measured....but its a hard one to measure I say...especially when self inflicted like Essendon who deserve it!

Yes RTG, he seems to be a protected species within the media because he has got simply put..."One liners"....We dont care Dennis.....just call the game and stop trying to be the next Rex.

My top 5 callers/personalitys

Hudson (Unbiased)

Quartermain (Unbiased when I listen and also a sympathetic caller to the losing sides)

Matty Richardson (Good for special comments ect)

Blight (Unbiased)

Also dont mind Mark Howard channel 10

Just cant have Commetti or BT who is another tool & gets away with murder on air of clubs.

But Hudson just YELLS ALL THE TIME.

Claassic little man syndrome.

Drives me to anger. Saw him in the Bakers Delight in Elwood late last year...i had to restrain myself!!

But Hudson just YELLS ALL THE TIME.

Claassic little man syndrome.

Drives me to anger. Saw him in the Bakers Delight in Elwood late last year...i had to restrain myself!!

yep,and hes bias

agree on quartermain and blight,better than most

richo=about as sharp as a 2 dollar hooker

dont even ask about channel essend7n

jakovich=not to shabby

But Hudson just YELLS ALL THE TIME.

Claassic little man syndrome.

Drives me to anger. Saw him in the Bakers Delight in Elwood late last year...i had to restrain myself!!

Hahaha...I see what you mean about Huddo...but its his job to be excited! lol

Someone needs to shoot Macavaney also...that would be special!

Saints at the top??!!

So, dwarf burning is a positive then? I guess it depends on one's perspective.

This is actually a really interesting notion. We've all complained at various times about the media bias and their love of bagging the red and blue. This is a clear and unbiased analysis assessment of the reports being produced for each club. Personally I would like to see them ranked in order of who gets the most coverage as well as the current good/bad press. I find it interesting htat WC, Freo and GC are leading in that respect with 18 articles each for the year. It's also not at all surprising that the Doggies have only had four mentions.

Edit: Bookmarked it

Edited January 21, 201411 yr by RalphiusMaximus

Saints at the top??!!

So, dwarf burning is a positive then? I guess it depends on one's perspective.

I loved that incident. It was just such an absurd thing to happen (possibly not to the gentleman being immolated) when the AFL is trying so hard to clean up it's image, and in particular to the Saints. I totally understand Demetriou cracking up when they told him about it (whether he thought they were joking or not).

yep,and hes bias

agree on quartermain and blight,better than most

richo=about as sharp as a 2 dollar hooker

dont even ask about channel essend7n

jakovich=not to shabby

Don't insult $2 hookers. I'm sure many of them are capable of insight.

Richo finds it difficult just stating the obvious.

Do you have a test question to determine if an article is positive or negative like "Would this article increase or decrease our odds?"

Also, have you made any interesting obseravtions from what you've seen so far?

I think what you're doing is very interesting but it must be very time consuming?

Yes RTG, he seems to be a protected species within the media because he has got simply put..."One liners"....We dont care Dennis.....just call the game and stop trying to be the next Rex.

My top 5 callers/personalitys

Hudson (Unbiased)

Quartermain (Unbiased when I listen and also a sympathetic caller to the losing sides)

Matty Richardson (Good for special comments ect)

Blight (Unbiased)

Also dont mind Mark Howard channel 10

Just cant have Commetti or BT who is another tool & gets away with murder on air of clubs.

Totally agree. Hudson's the best caller by the length of the straight at Flemington. McAvaney's always solid too.

I can't stand Brian Taylor though. Or that chick who used to (attempt to) call games, I think on Channel 10. I had to mute the coverage each time she called the game. It was bush league.

There's also the subtle form of shilling for a club as we've seen in the reportage of the Essendon drug scandall where News Limited seems almost to be working in the interests of the Bombers.

Agenda based journalism is nothing new but if you believe what lies at the end of this article (Ankle surgery for Tom Bellchambers a huge blow for Essendon coach Mark Thompson) the case is all closed notwithstanding the fact that ASADA has yet to issue its final report.

Essendon had hoped that the post-peptides era might be free from obstacles, but already the setbacks have started.

Get it?

The party's over and the Bomber players are free despite confessions of using banned substances and an off premises systematic injecting programme for which the club apparently has kept no records of what was injected. Not even the Mexican jungle juice prescribed for a complete stranger.

When ASADA finally acts I wonder what spin the Murdoch press will put on the situation? Thankfully, there's been a more balanced approach from Fairfax which has utilised some of its best investigative reporters to get a broader picture of the issues.

The Bombers have certainly used alliances within the media to press their case in an off season period when it's been important in terms of sponsorships and memberships to have friends in the media covering for you. Admittedly, the AFL's bungling and the tortoise-like pace of ASADA's investigation processes have helped the overall effort.

Contrast this with Melbourne's treatment during the tanking inquiry where, by and large, the two media giants were battling to outdo each other to stir the pot against the Dees, often coming up with beat ups to sensationalise evidence that proved nothing and in some cases was misleading, irrelevant or plainly untruthful. I remain ashen faced about some of the goings on in the media from that time, particularly the cover ups of other clubs' tanking activities which made it easier for the AFL to sweep that issue under the carpet.

The pity is that Melbourne needed a powerful friend in the upper management of News Limited at the time which is apparently the case with Essendon but then who would have thought that drug cheating was a lesser offence than what you could only describe on the evidence as poor list management?

Still no charges for the bombers WJ

There's also the subtle form of shilling for a club as we've seen in the reportage of the Essendon drug scandall where News Limited seems almost to be working in the interests of the Bombers.

Agenda based journalism is nothing new but if you believe what lies at the end of this article (Ankle surgery for Tom Bellchambers a huge blow for Essendon coach Mark Thompson) the case is all closed notwithstanding the fact that ASADA has yet to issue its final report.

Get it?

The party's over and the Bomber players are free despite confessions of using banned substances and an off premises systematic injecting programme for which the club apparently has kept no records of what was injected. Not even the Mexican jungle juice prescribed for a complete stranger.

When ASADA finally acts I wonder what spin the Murdoch press will put on the situation? Thankfully, there's been a more balanced approach from Fairfax which has utilised some of its best investigative reporters to get a broader picture of the issues.

The Bombers have certainly used alliances within the media to press their case in an off season period when it's been important in terms of sponsorships and memberships to have friends in the media covering for you. Admittedly, the AFL's bungling and the tortoise-like pace of ASADA's investigation processes have helped the overall effort.

Contrast this with Melbourne's treatment during the tanking inquiry where, by and large, the two media giants were battling to outdo each other to stir the pot against the Dees, often coming up with beat ups to sensationalise evidence that proved nothing and in some cases was misleading, irrelevant or plainly untruthful. I remain ashen faced about some of the goings on in the media from that time, particularly the cover ups of other clubs' tanking activities which made it easier for the AFL to sweep that issue under the carpet.

The pity is that Melbourne needed a powerful friend in the upper management of News Limited at the time which is apparently the case with Essendon but then who would have thought that drug cheating was a lesser offence than what you could only describe on the evidence as poor list management?

Spot on. Over a cleansing ale with a Dees mate of mine last night, we discussed the very same thing. Point about the star chamber - so-called - investigation of the Dees, was that it became personal, particularly with one female journalist targeting our former CEO.

The AFL will of course deny it, but as we know when the potential for litigation rears its head, deals are done with no more than a nod and wink. Certain people just don't want their dirty linen aired in public.