Watching this unfurl on Twitter is fascinating. A very simple interaction branches off into many different directions of arguments, counter arguments, insults, and gaslighting. Sport and social media provide great insights into the human psyche. It is said that modern debating is like two people having a game of tennis, from two different courts, constantly smashing serves over the net, that are never returned, with both thinking that they are winning.
We've all seen this, right? People love to share it on their feeds, especially during periods of tense debate in the public discourse, of which we have had much in the last five years. But it's just simply not true. If your only defence of your opinion is that you are allowed to have opinions, then your opinion is pretty flimsy, and will rightly be scrutinised. What I'm hoping, is that more people have seen this one...
In a lot of cases, someone is actually wrong. Even if there is not enough evidence to suggest one way or the other, a correct answer is out there somewhere, despite the absence of proof. Take theology for example. How did the universe start? Plenty of theories, only one correct answer, and those theories may not even touch the correct answer. Some are more backed by evidence, and some are more backed by rhetoric and feeling. In reality, only the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows the answer to that one.
I also wish to avoid any "both sides" comparisons. It's lazy, and done way too often by people looking to absolve themselves of criticism. The idea that "you're both stupid" is one that rampant centrism in the USA is allowing many to back out of having any kind of strong opinion that can be ridiculed, simply allowing them to do all the ridiculing. It may help you win an internet argument, but it does nothing to move society further. Sure, Biden is creepy and old, has a dodgy record on policy, and is likely nowhere near as progressive as is needed, but he's not a genocidal maniac that has killed hundreds of thousands of citizens through his own passive neglect. There is no "both sides." There's terrible and less worse. There's a step forward and a step backwards.
When observing an argument online, try to view it through the lens of one or potentially all parties, not in search of truth, but in search of an abstract moral high ground, from which they can cast aspersions on others. The first one we have seen in this furore is the reaction to a woman being publicly criticised. Media personalities within football are currently a very sensitive topic. Sky binned a handful of old farts, and replaced them with younger, blacker, more feminine pundits. Out went Tommo, Le Tissier, and Charlie Nicholas, and in came Alex Scott, Micah Richards, and many more. Somehow, Paul Merson survived the purge.
This move from Sky was welcome by many, but attacked by others. I agreed with it for two main reasons;
1. They were terrible pundits. Dinosaurs. Absent of analysis, full of matey banter and clichés. The modern game requires modern mindsets. Richards and Scott, having recently finished playing, are more familiar with the demands of the game nowadays, than players who haven't been paid to kick a ball for decades. Look at how much the game has changed from 1999 to 2020. The newcomers to punditry will be more clued up on the practices, tactics, and actions within the dressing room.
2. If you can't see someone that looks like you doing it, how do you know you can do it? I believe representation is important. Football is for everybody, but for so long, it has been run by white male gatekeepers, who served their own agenda of self-preservation. This isn't shoehorning someone into a role so they can tick a box on the diversity checklist, as that would imply that Richards and Scott are not good pundits.
My own opinion is that punditry across the board is terrible. I enjoy some of the MNF show when Carragher and Neville get into it with top players and managers. It can often be undone by the likes of Roy Keane providing soundbites, such as suggesting he would make his goalkeeper walk home. Fans in their armchairs love the pashun, as they are too emotionally involved and far too shortsighted to see how ridiculous such suggestions are. Some defend it as jokes, when it's closer to hubris.
Far too many pundits speak in lazy clichés, and haven't done their research. Too many top players don't understand the game beyond their role in a small corner of the pitch. They lack the ability to think and speak in abstract terms. Compare the insight provided by someone like Klopp compared to Jamie Redknapp, who has been stealing a living as a pundit. This is why I stopped listening to TalkSport and 5Live years ago, as it is just nonsense fan talking points. Should DeGea leave Man Utd? Should Arsenal sack their manager? Should England switch to 442? Who is better; Hazard or Salah? It's not at all interesting or intellectually stimulating, but has the phonelines full of fans barking like crazed dogs. It's why there's a corner online dedicated to more in depth football discussion, such as on Total Football Analysis, Spielverlagerung, Coaches Voice, and all the fantastic podcasts out there. It's lowest common denominator viewing, but as football evolves, the pundits have to evolve too, or the younger audience will not be able to relate to them. Next time you're watching or listening to a game, try to identify who you think is either out of touch (Glen Hoddle), or intellectually incapable of providing anything worth listening to (Joe Cole).
It is hard for us to turn off our fan glasses. Football is game which elicits deep emotional responses. As a Rovers fan, our only real exposure in the media these days is the Rovers legends with punditry jobs. And, disappointingly, most are terrible. Shearer oversimplifies everything, and has little knowledge outside his bubble. Savage goes off on pointless grandstanding campaigns, and deliberately gets the wrong end of the stick to weaken his opponent's points. Souness has it in for Pogba for some reason. Sutton isn't too bad, but can be a bit arrogant. Tim Sherwood, the heroic captain, is now a joke. Honestly, some of the bollocks that Robbie Savage says makes me cringe.Modern discourse has this effect on people where we cannot concede good points if they are against our side. We feel personally attacked. That's why there are whole industries based on how to effectively give criticism, but even with such guidance and training, there's always going to be 10% who will burrow their heads further into the sands of ignorance.
Twitter is full of idle accounts when the user disappeared after providing a terrible opinion in a public forum, and was then given multiple well cited rebuttals. The improvements in technology have made it easier to provide citations, and although many choose not to do so, switching the burden of proof, many are shocked when someone does "bring receipts." It happens to Republican politicians with a large degree of frequency. A brief search on Lindsay Graham will suffice.
It started with this Tweet: https://twitter.com/LUFC/status/1344027568484343814
During the analysis of Leeds' 5-0 win versus West Brom, ex Chelsea and England star Karen Carney (one of my favourite players, btw) made some comments that Leeds took a disliking too, as referenced in their Tweet. Was the tweet malicious? Let's see:
- It did not attack or reference Carney's ability as a pundit.
- It did not infer Carney was stupid or incompetent.
- It did not make any reference to gender.
Karen Carney provided her opinion, and Leeds provided a rebuttal. That seems simple enough. Sadly for Carney, she didn't make her point very well. I think she is typically a good pundit, and everyone is capable of muddling their words a little bit. I do it all the time, which is why I tell people that I'm only funny on Twitter. She was asking the question as to whether Leeds can maintain their intense style of play for an entire season, briefly referencing the past two Championship seasons. The first where Leeds arguably ran out of steam towards the end, and the second where Leeds were resounding champions, following a break in the season due to lockdown. Where she fumbled was saying "I actually think they got promoted because of Covid." Leeds are allowed to take exception to this, and they did by pointing out the large margin by which they won the league. Several Leeds fans have taken to the comments to point out the run Leeds were on before the break, and how it was maintained after the break.
The break may have helped Leeds recharge their batteries. Whether this will be a valid argument to make in the Premier League, with six fewer games per season, an increased transfer budget, and a better equipped backroom staff, that is the debate I would like to be having. Carney may have been onto something, as graphs produced just a few weeks ago showed than Leeds players, on average, ran so much per game, that it was like having a twelfth player. Is that sustainable in the Premier League? Let's discuss. Wait, we can't, because people are terrible.
First come the White Knights.
Each tweet by a White Knight sparks further argument in the replies, and inevitably, the trolls appear, with their tried and tested rebuttal...
The reason why this method is so effective is because there's no easy way to argue back against it.
"Yes she will!" or "I don't care!" are equally stupid.
Also seen here is the defence that it's only her opinion.
Not really a defence of the opinion, though, is it? As a pundit, she is paid to provide opinions, and as viewers, we expect those opinions to be backed up and well informed. The fact that it wasn't isn't a dig about Carney in particular, but more to do with the very low standards of football punditry. If she says what said, and then follows it up with numbers, figures, and even a bar chart, then it's an opinion worth listening to, as it is properly researched and backed up with facts and figures. Any ass from the pub can mouth soundbites into a microphone, such as "Leeds only won due to Covid."
"It's only her opinion!" Right. And Leeds are only giving their opinion. Awful, awful defence.
Here comes the moral high ground. Ironically, this is a guy who works for TalkSport. Owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Piers Morgan is a regular guest.
This White Knight, like many others, then turned it into a debate on sexism.
Comments like Mark's are indescribably unhelpful.
I can understand the caution here from Jess Fishlock, but in the threads I've been diving into, I'm not really seeing any sexist backlash. So far, there have been no comments across my feed about how she is incapable of doing her job due to gender. Having said that, I know those people are prominent on Twitter, and there is no place for them in the game.
Then people go and say stuff like this. By far the least helpful and most wrong reply I have seen in all this. When I see posts like this from people, it often makes me wonder if they are new to football. By new, I mean only started paying attention mere days or weeks ago.
There is currently a legion of Leeds fans patrolling Twitter for this type of comment, armed with such receipts.
And then this happens. She is leaving Twitter for a while, because Leeds fans are attacking her. What are the attacks?
9:42PM Dec 29. That's thirty minutes before her post about not seeing this kind of treatment towards male pundits.
At the time of writing, Hannah's tweet about male pundits has 85 replies: https://twitter.com/cfcwhannah/status/1344043714856050690
None of which attack her, or Carney, for being a woman. Some have called her clueless, but the vast majority have been people providing evidence of her being wrong, and telling her to do her research.
Here's a video of Tim Sherwood suggesting Arsenal don't bring on Danny Welbeck. https://twitter.com/lukeybaby1/status/1344001750756446208
Welbeck left Arsenal eighteen months ago, and has been at two clubs since.
Here's a video of Tim Sherwood as Aston Villa manager spouting clichés like it is what is keeping him alive: https://twitter.com/FootballRemind/status/1343973606095777793
Here's a video of Tim Sherwood predicting that an English team will win the Premier League: https://twitter.com/KingTebz/status/1341719595649011717
Here's the now infamous clip of Tim Sherwood during Liverpool scoring a corner against Spurs: https://twitter.com/betconnect/status/1339506608796217345 This was December 17th. Carney's comment was December 29th. This is why I believe so many people upset are new to football.
Here's a thread dedicated to Michael Owen: https://twitter.com/UtdHaaanz/status/1341041730376744961/photo/1
Type in the name of literally any pundit, and you will find plenty of very recent negative comments. Much of it is laughing at their opinions and predictions. Some of it is talking about how terrible they are as pundits. Carney is being criticised for her opinion, not for being an awful pundit, and not for being a woman. Surely this is the kind of equality that we want?
There are some, in my subjective opinion, terrible female pundits too. A sign of equality is that a woman doesn't have to be better than a man to get a job. In fact, Soccer Saturday has shown that women can be just as incompetent as men, and still keep a job. One of the biggest strides in women's football was when the discussions on TV went from how bad the football is in comparison to the men's game, to discussing the tactics. Teams, players, coaches etc. were criticised on footballing terms, not on gender terms. Which is what happened to Karen Carney.
Some are saying that it is beneath a club to respond via Twitter. That they shouldn't have a go at pundits. Again, I'm lead to believe these people are new to football. here's Jurgen Klopp taking issue with something Roy Keane said live on Sky Sports: https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1310688416674312192
It definitely had nothing to do with Keane's gender.
Football is full of people having a go, and then others having a go back. Lokomotiv fans held up a banner thanking West Brom (the one with the banana in it) for taking their black player. West Brom fans responded by holding up a banner thanking Lokomotiv for selling them a good goal scorer. The West Brom fans rightly called out the Russians for their racism. Remember when West Brom cancelled the season ticket of a racist fan on Twitter?
When you say stuff in public, back it up.
Remember to always follow the Ten Commandments of Logic.
There's a lot of ad hominem taking place against Leeds within these threads on Twitter. And the defence of Carney is post hoc. Because of the rampant sexism that occurs online and within football, and the well documented harassment of female users of any platform, it would be natural for people to be overly sensitive and immediately go on the defensive. Sexism in football is very real, and despite the great strides made, it is still prevalent. It's no wonder many have been conditioned to believe that criticism of a female equates to criticism of someone because they are female, because many have been on the receiving end of baseless criticism simply for their gender. This wasn't it.
Karen Carney was a good player and is an insightful pundit. She's not a "poor woman" and doesn't need Simon the White Knight to come to her rescue. She was tough and tenacious, and will be able to deal with this, no problem.
