MAIN » ARTICLESZinedine Zidane and Sensationalization in the Tabloid Press
This editorial was first published on livejournal.com on 10.07.2006.
During the Watergate scandal in the US, the two leading journalists on the case Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were quoted as doubting "the ability of the liberal press to handle such information fairly, to refrain from sensationalizing it", but in the current and previous decades in the UK we can substitute the word liberal with tabloid, and find apt relevance to the way news is reported.
Zinedine Zidane, "Zizou", the best player of this French footballing generation was sent off in the World Cup final yesterday for a deliberate and violent head-butt on Italy's Marco Materazzi. That much is fact, because we all saw it and there is no disputing the deliberateness of his actions thus. After the initial shock and reaction to the incident, Zidane has today been awarded the Golden Ball for best player of the 2006 tournament, so it's time for the press to question why he did it, the time for some to perhaps pin the blame more on the Italian than the Frenchman.
The BBC, as a news source, is generally very fair in its reporting. Especially concerning Sport. The British tabloids utilise sensationalization in their reporting every day. Especially concerning Sport. By its very definition, sensationalization is a way of reporting that captures somebody's interest through exaggeration or by suggesting particularly interesting/extraordinary aspects or foundations to a story, true or not, rumour or fact. The difference in the way newspapers have covered this after-story of the Zidane red-card is another perfect example of this Tabloid-trick, sadly one that many people fall for out of sheer desire to believe the outrageous, to have read the most 'sensational' news.
Currently, nobody can be sure what Materazzi did to provoke Zidane. By watching the replay shown on any television network we can get the most reliable idea. The Italian appears to mutter words to Zidane, moments after some slight wrestling in the box which initially got his attention. We don't know what he said. If you read the Daily Mail however, you do, and he was called "a terrorist" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/worldcup2006.html?in_article_id=394962&in_page_id=1892). The same article then quotes the player's agent and reports that Alain Migliaccio "did not know what Materazzi said". So where did this allegedly quote come from? Sadly we'll never know, and we won't need to know for the Daily Mail to report it, nor for countless numbers of its readers to believe it. The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5164094.stm) reports this same story with the facts, it quotes Zidane's agent, it quotes teammate William Gallas, but it never attempts to put words in Materazzi's mouth or lead its readers into believing something that hasn't yet been proven.
I can't leave out The Sun in a rant like this, so here is one of their reactions. "Materazzi is to blame" - it's a simple as that according to the headline, but perhaps they have some solid insight into the incident? They don't. They have the same quotes that the BBC have from William Gallas who "insists" the Italian provoked Zidane, but of course Gallas is just as clueless as the rest of us at the moment: "I don't know what he said." says the Chelsea defender. Though that won't stop The Sun's headline from hitting as hard as it can, sensationalized so far beyond hollow journalism that people who glance at it will take it onboard. Especially those with a grudge against Italians.
Browsing various publications today, you will find that publications like The Times, The Guardian and The Independent will cover the story the same way as the BBC have. They understand their obligation to report the facts of the story, even whilst questioning the backstory, without jumping to conclusions. The tabloids (Sun, Star, Mail etc) will lead their readers into a judgement based on the furthest they can stretch a possibility. It won't matter in a week whether Matterazi used the word "terrorist" or whether he insulted Zidane's mother, or whatever else is being suggested, because for now some people want to believe it was the most extreme insult or the most provocative comment. But is it more worrying that journalism like this is allowed to be published to a mass-audience, or that there are people who will believe it and take it at face value? I don't know, probably the latter.
Perhaps the most worrying of all is that certain news sources seem desperate for the racial insult story to be true, unfortunately that may simply outweigh assault as a paper-seller these days.
Written by Jay
During the Watergate scandal in the US, the two leading journalists on the case Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were quoted as doubting "the ability of the liberal press to handle such information fairly, to refrain from sensationalizing it", but in the current and previous decades in the UK we can substitute the word liberal with tabloid, and find apt relevance to the way news is reported.
Zinedine Zidane, "Zizou", the best player of this French footballing generation was sent off in the World Cup final yesterday for a deliberate and violent head-butt on Italy's Marco Materazzi. That much is fact, because we all saw it and there is no disputing the deliberateness of his actions thus. After the initial shock and reaction to the incident, Zidane has today been awarded the Golden Ball for best player of the 2006 tournament, so it's time for the press to question why he did it, the time for some to perhaps pin the blame more on the Italian than the Frenchman.
The BBC, as a news source, is generally very fair in its reporting. Especially concerning Sport. The British tabloids utilise sensationalization in their reporting every day. Especially concerning Sport. By its very definition, sensationalization is a way of reporting that captures somebody's interest through exaggeration or by suggesting particularly interesting/extraordinary aspects or foundations to a story, true or not, rumour or fact. The difference in the way newspapers have covered this after-story of the Zidane red-card is another perfect example of this Tabloid-trick, sadly one that many people fall for out of sheer desire to believe the outrageous, to have read the most 'sensational' news.
Currently, nobody can be sure what Materazzi did to provoke Zidane. By watching the replay shown on any television network we can get the most reliable idea. The Italian appears to mutter words to Zidane, moments after some slight wrestling in the box which initially got his attention. We don't know what he said. If you read the Daily Mail however, you do, and he was called "a terrorist" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/worldcup2006.html?in_article_id=394962&in_page_id=1892). The same article then quotes the player's agent and reports that Alain Migliaccio "did not know what Materazzi said". So where did this allegedly quote come from? Sadly we'll never know, and we won't need to know for the Daily Mail to report it, nor for countless numbers of its readers to believe it. The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5164094.stm) reports this same story with the facts, it quotes Zidane's agent, it quotes teammate William Gallas, but it never attempts to put words in Materazzi's mouth or lead its readers into believing something that hasn't yet been proven.
I can't leave out The Sun in a rant like this, so here is one of their reactions. "Materazzi is to blame" - it's a simple as that according to the headline, but perhaps they have some solid insight into the incident? They don't. They have the same quotes that the BBC have from William Gallas who "insists" the Italian provoked Zidane, but of course Gallas is just as clueless as the rest of us at the moment: "I don't know what he said." says the Chelsea defender. Though that won't stop The Sun's headline from hitting as hard as it can, sensationalized so far beyond hollow journalism that people who glance at it will take it onboard. Especially those with a grudge against Italians.
Browsing various publications today, you will find that publications like The Times, The Guardian and The Independent will cover the story the same way as the BBC have. They understand their obligation to report the facts of the story, even whilst questioning the backstory, without jumping to conclusions. The tabloids (Sun, Star, Mail etc) will lead their readers into a judgement based on the furthest they can stretch a possibility. It won't matter in a week whether Matterazi used the word "terrorist" or whether he insulted Zidane's mother, or whatever else is being suggested, because for now some people want to believe it was the most extreme insult or the most provocative comment. But is it more worrying that journalism like this is allowed to be published to a mass-audience, or that there are people who will believe it and take it at face value? I don't know, probably the latter.
Perhaps the most worrying of all is that certain news sources seem desperate for the racial insult story to be true, unfortunately that may simply outweigh assault as a paper-seller these days.
Written by Jay