THE distinguished American theatre critic James Agee was once told by
playwright Tennessee Williams that he was a disgrace to the theatre
itself. ''All you can do is close a show,'' said Williams, ''but you
could never open one.''
American playwrights have ever been castigating the critics for it is
certainly true that they have suffered somewhat at the hands of these
influential boys, and girls, from the blatts. British theatre critics
once had a bit of clout themselves. Harold Hobson was certainly an
important figure, as was the late Kenneth Tynan. Yet Britain has never
quite possessed the critic journalist who could make or break a show, a
book, a musical performance. Or a sport.
There have been, over the years, major figures in sports journalism.
Until recently, however, many leading sports writers, especially those
involved in football, have been somewhat supine in their attitude to the
sports they cover. Newspapers have naturally been a touch extra
analytical than those involved in broadcasting and television.
The recent spate of stories and articles concerning the state of play
at Celtic Football Club has shown that footy writers are prepared to be
less reverential than they were reputed to be. Indeed, our own James
Traynor has been much vilified in the Celtic-orientated pubs and clubs
in the West of Scotland, though, when I have remonstrated with the
Paradise bhoys, they have eventually agreed that Traynor has been right.
But newspapers are different from the other areas of journalism. For a
start newspapers can distance themselves, indeed they must, from
whatever area in which they operate, whether it be politics, health,
education, or sport, and especially football. Broadcasting cannot and
there is a reason for that. For the truth is that radio and TV have a
relationship damn near incestuous with whatever they cover. We in the
blatts can stand aside. The other area of the media does not and they
are under no illusions that at the end of the day they are there to
provide, more than anything else, entertainment.
Thus it is that while our Mr Traynor is well respected by sports,
football, and, yes, Celtic supporters, Mr Gerry McNee is regarded as a
turncoat, a pariah. One can quite easily suspect that McNee is perhaps a
former Celtic fan himself, from the West of Scotland Irish community,
and his highly controversial reports concerning this football club, so
much, ludicrously if you think about it, a focus for
Glasgow-Irish-Catholic aspirations, have hardly endeared him to that
group. Few if any readers of The Herald know, or care, what -- let us
put it coarsely -- religion Traynor is. For the telly is different from
the newspapers.
Name any major sports presenter on television who can command the
level of profile which, say, Raymond Glendinning had. Or Kenneth
Wolstenholme. Those two used to have sports books out using their names
as imprimaturs. Dicky Davies, Desmond Lynam, the more recent Jonathan
Watson, are not seen in such exaltation at all. Instead we have sports
''personalities.'' Some are very good at it. (Some took to it: Cliff
Morgan in rugby, the late James Hunt in motorsport, Richie Benaud in
cricket come to mind immediately as major stars in their respective
sports who became superb commentators).
Today, however, we have, instead of journalists on the telly, sports
persons. Perhaps the sheer dreadfulness of a number of sports journos
who confused their role as presenters with that of sycophants has led to
the present situation, but sports fans now note the major figures in
television sports coverage are ex-sporting figures to boot.
Andy Gray and Gordon McQueen are regulars and seen as authoritative.
Derek Johnstone is seen by many as a bit of a joke but not by anybody
who knows about football, because he is very perceptive indeed and
really does know what he is talking about. More: we have Ray Wilkins on
Italian football. Trevor Brooking is sharp and articulate, too.
But am I alone in thinking that this is not necessarily good for any
sport? Those who have spent their lives, from the age of 15 or 16, in
what is after all just games, should be those who represent the critical
faculty in their own field? Surely not. Of all the ex-sportsmen I can
think of who had exactly that faculty, two were oft reviled by those in
their sport. Both were football players. Danny Blanchflower and Eamonn
Dunphy, both Irish, both internationalists, both (Danny even more than
Eamonn) world-class players. But they were often criticised because they
took no part in the cosy little world of telly-sports where bums are
licked and hotel bills are paid. They were bright, clever, highly
educated, and regarded sport as only a part of life, an enjoyable part,
but only a bit of it.
Both were -- and Dunphy remains -- astringent, difficult, socialistic,
challenging, and worrying for the Establishment. Neither of them was or
has been employed significantly in television. They might not have been
entertaining enough. Perhaps they might have said harsh things about the
sport which they criticised.
Nobody in television seems to have said anything about the disgraceful
hypocrisy of professionalism in the Olympics and in athletics, for
instance. Or the fearful nature of increasing shamateurism in Rugby
Union. Or the lack of coverage in minority sports. Or the lack of money
for women's sport unless it is tennis, in which hypocrisy, social class,
snobbery, and sheer bloody-minded false consciousness has made lots of
spondulicks for the sport, but we still don't have enough kids out there
playing a lovely game and the tennis clubs are strapped for cash. What
we need are TV sportspersons who can close a show. As well as open it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article