I didn't see Geoff Shreeves now infamous question to Branislav Ivanovic as I don't have Sky, but I soon knew that a fuss had been caused by the reaction on various websites I use. It was on youtube within minutes, of course, so I was able to rush to view the offending moment shortly afterwards.
Most people condemned it, seeing Shreeves as the malevolent children's party goer who pricks the birthday boy's balloon. There was only one dissenting voice in my timeline, from BBC journalist David Law (@Davidlawtennis) who said Shreeves was being castigated for "crime of crimes - doing his job and asking relevant questions".
The next day, Law's point of view was backed up by Paul Hayward, Sam Wallace and Oliver Kay, all football journalists of some note, and I too had gone to bed thinking Law might have a point. But having slept on it I now disagree.
A journalist does have to ask relevant questions...but those are the questions that the audience wants to see. In his priviledged position, Shreeves is the mouthpiece of the viewers, articulating to the players what he thinks the audience want to ask them. I would think, and the reaction would appear to agree, that the public did not want to see him twist the knife in what was potentially already a painful wound. It was a moment of great joy for the Chelsea players and the majority of those watching had admired the rear-guard action and would want to pat them on the back, allowing them to enjoy the moment.
As such, Shreeves' question was for another day or at least another hour - probably for the likes of Hayward, Wallace and Kay after they and Ivanovic had had time to consider the implications. It was not for Shreeves to rain on the poor lad's parade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment