The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Commentators need to drop the word 'we' from broadcasts

Roar Guru
16th June, 2014
Advertisement
Roar Guru
16th June, 2014
54
1551 Reads

Like most sports fans, my weekend was one that had most of its time swallowed up by watching sport.

My itinerary included the Socceroos versus Chile, 5AA’s call of Port Adelaide versus Sydney, All Black and Wallabies Test matches, NRL and AFL premiership matches and some of the Hockey World Cup finals.

It was interesting to note the cross section of voices heard across TV and radio, as I believe we are in a transition phase.

It’s becoming apparent that some of the great voices of sports broadcasting are heading into their twilight years with the next generation beginning to acquire prominent positions.

On one hand we had Les Murray, Gordon Bray, Martin Tyler, Bruce McAvaney and Craig Foster continuing as usual.

Meanwhile, the likes of Scott Mackinnon, David Zdrilic, Lucy Zelic, Nick McArdle, Brett Finch and others are starting to become regular faces of sports broadcasting.

I loathe being critical but some commentators still have plenty of work to do to get anywhere near close to being elite.

While most commentators are well researched and presented, members of their panels that frequently refer to our national teams or local football teams as ‘we’ reduce the quality of the broadcasts tenfold.

Advertisement

I don’t care whether it is a directive of broadcasting companies or it’s just the current direction of broadcasting, someone needs to stop it.

It’s cringe-worthy to think that broadcasters imagine fans are so insular that we need to hear the pundits using inclusive terms during their broadcasts.

While it’s ok to be somewhat supportive, there’s a greater need to be professional and remember that contests involving Australia (Port Adelaide or Adelaide on 5AA) have an opponent.

The use of ‘we’ also stinks of condescendence as most sporting audiences aren’t dumb and can generally tell the difference between and good and poor performance without pundit intervention.

If you try to deceive fans by talking up something that isn’t there, you will lose their trust.

SBS commentators should especially heed my advice considering that Australia’s opponents in the group stage of the World Cup all have sizeable populations that immigrated to Australia.

Some of these people still support their homeland and a lack of objectivity from the pundits will see SBS lose an audience to the internet and other forms of broadcasting.

Advertisement

Take Craig Foster for example. Hyperbole aside, his punditry in the Australia versus Chile game was one of the worst pieces of commentary I have ever heard.

For a man who has been critical of Ange Postecoglou and his methods in the past, he was kissing the posterior of the head coach at a ferocious rate. His sins include on-air coaching, calling players by nicknames, talking over his co-commentator and most damningly, a general lack of respect for Chile.

The performance was so bad, even passionate Australian football fans I knew were uncomfortable with the level of bias in SBS’ commentary.

Foster and his mates at SBS need to sit and listen to a tape of stablemate Martin Tyler, whose performance 24 hours later made the SBS team look embarrassing.

Tyler, an Englishman, was the lone voice at the microphone for the England versus Italy match, yet he still gave an impartial and passionate account of the game.

While I’ve got no doubt he must have been anxious for an English win, he left his patriotism in his hotel room and brought his professional character to the Manaus microphone.

It’s the little things like that that gives him the reputation of being one of the best sportscasters in the English speaking world and makes broadcasters like Foster look amateurish.

Advertisement

The message of my article is simple – your attendance in the studio or broadcast box means that you cease to exist as a member of the team you cover.

You may have been a Wallaby, Socceroos or Power footballer in the past, but this sentence is written in the past tense which means it’s no longer the case.

Passionate analysis is one thing, but blatant bias in commentary just looks embarrassing and is reflected on poorly by the audience.

‘We’ are not Americans. Australians appreciate genuine sporting contests and don’t need the continued insular reminder of who ‘we’ are.

close