Racism in the media – a plea for balance

This Tuesday marks a full month since Manchester United escaped from Anfield, with what in the end, turned out to be a very good point, considering a strong late surge from the home team.

However, the result, strong display from Liverpool and remarkably cautious approach from Ferguson, on the day, was immediately overshadowed by the allegations of racial abuse that emerged post-match.

United defender Patrice Evra alleged that Liverpool’s new talisman, Luis Suarez, had racially abused him throughout the match, stating so in a post-match interview with French TV channel Canal+.

Following such a serious allegation Luis Suarez was quick to categorically deny any such abuse took place, or that he would ever be involved in such disgraceful behavior either on or off the pitch, issuing a brief public statement via his Facebook & Twitter accounts:

“I’m upset by the accusations of racism. I can only say that I have always respected and respect everybody. We are all the same. I go to the field with the maximum illusion of a little child who enjoys what he does, not to create conflicts.”

The FA issued a statement confirming that they were indeed investigating an allegation of racial abuse from the match, however, emphasis was put on the fact that referee Andre Marriner was only made aware of the alleged incident at the end of the fixture.

A Liverpool FC spokesman reported that the club were only made aware of the allegations 20 minutes after the final whistle, with manager Kenny Dalglish being called into the referee’s office and informed of Evra’s claims. Following this Dalglish is said to have immediately confronted Suarez with the information and Liverpool’s No.7 explicitly denied using any language of such offensive nature.

Thus following such a serious and high profile allegation, one would like to assume that the FA, made aware of the incident so soon after it was alleged to have occurred, would have endeavored to bring the contentious matter to a swift and efficient conclusion.

However, in the aftermath of this alleged abuse, the response has been anything but efficient, with the FA only managing to interview Suarez regarding the claims four weeks after the supposed incident occurred.

Furthermore, no statement has been issued clarifying the current state of the enquiry neither has any evidence surfaced or been cited as to display any modicum of proof that the event ever occurred. So far this has simply been a case of one player’s word against the others, though not too surprisingly, the British press have treated this delicate matter with anything but the meticulous, cautious and balanced approach it deserves.

Such lack of haste into investigating the matter and either punishing or exonerating the Uruguayan forward, has had a resoundingly negative effect, allowing the media to seize upon and fuel unbridled speculation and conjecture within the public domain.

{{ image 1706 height=400 }}

The fallout from these (as of yet, entirely unproven) allegations has led to a number of articles across the various national tabloids, allowing numerous sports “journalists” the opportunity to convey their opinion on the matter, rather than sticking to the facts.

Unfortunately from monitoring such coverage over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been thoroughly disappointed (though not surprised)to find a remarkable sense of bias and presumed guilt directed towards Liverpool’s Luis Suarez. By clearly presenting and dissecting some of the coverage this alleged incident has gotten, since October 15th, I will try to attempt to comprehend the sometimes bewildering logic used by many of those who’ve written on the matter.

On the day of the allegations, The Guardian’s Paul Wilson wrote a largely informative piece concerning the matter, however, chose to include within his article, a reference to Suarez’s infamous handball (to prevent Ghana a winning goal in the Quarter final of last year’s world cup,) his subsequent “laughing about it” and his “acts of cannibalism” whilst playing for Ajax.

The implicit theme here appears to be that because Suarez was willing to do anything to help his team progress in the biggest competition in world football (albeit at the expense of a country from the host continent) – bit a player in the heat of the moment during a match in Holland – that he is presumably of such low moral fibre, that it’s perfectly believable that he could be a racist as well.

Such presumption of guilt is a dangerous thing and in the aftermath of the allegations it has been clear to see that the media’s opinion on his character, has affected how his performances on the pitch have been judged. With Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish having to come out in defense of his forward, whom he believes has received unfair treatment from referees, whom seemingly base their opinion of him, on what they’ve read in the week’s tabloids (something that shouldn’t befall any player, from Joey Barton to Titus Bramble).

Suarez is admittedly easy prey for those wishing to demonize the talented young Uruguayan, his style of play, often embarrasses opponents and his strength with his back to defenders, means he often draws a lot of fouls. However, since the match with Manchester United, after which Ferguson stated “the lad dives all over the place”, journalists and rival fans alike have been quick to criticize the player, doubting his integrity both on and off the pitch.

Despite the off-field speculation, one thing has remained consistent however, with Suarez’s performances maintaining a consistently high standard. As a player, he is invaluable for Liverpool, creating chances out of thin air and also putting in an industrious defensive shift in every match he plays.

Following both his outstanding goal and individual performance against Stoke, in Liverpool’s 2-0 win at ‘Fortress Britannia’, those reporting from the match couldn’t help but confirm the bias currently present within British media against the Uruguayan.

Following the Stoke match, Chris Wheeler, writing (admittedly) for the Daily Mail remarked on Suarez’s performance that:

“This is what makes Luis Suarez such a joy to watch. Forget what they say about the diving, the dark arts and possibly a whole lot worse if Patrice Evra is to be believed.”

Firstly we must try and decipher whom ‘they’ are within his sentence, why was language such as “dark arts” was used? What on earth are the “dark arts”? And finally why there was any need to include, the ominous sounding “a whole lot worse”. Surely this is merely an unnecessarily sinister expression designed to imply Suarez’s guilt and in turn sell more papers?

{{ image 1707 height=240 }}

This perception of Suarez ‘the cheat’ also provided West Brom’s Roy Hodgson a welcome point of deflection, after his side’s abysmal performance in their 0-2 home defeat to Liverpool on the 29th October. Hodgson bemoaned the linesman’s decision to award an early penalty, after Suarez was clearly brought down in the box, labeling it “an extremely harsh decision, where there was certainly no intention of fouling the player”.

Days later West Brom’s bargain basement Martin Petrov, Paul Scharner, continued to fuel the false perception of Suarez ‘the cheat’ stating: “It was a nice dive for the penalty… He (Suarez) is very good at winning penalties. He’s one of the best on the planet, in fact. I had a good view of it.”

One of the most bemusing things about such a claim, is that for those who’ve seen the incident in question, Suarez, was indeed upended in the box, yet didn’t at all dive, getting back up on his feet to continue playing. It was only when the linesman awarded a penalty, that Suarez provided any reaction at all. Nevertheless this once again provides more fuel for the steady stream of articles attempting to demonise the player as one who cheats, and is a shady character.

Just when I thought the bias couldn’t become more evident, the Daily Mail’s very own ‘Sports journalist of the Year’ Martin Samuel, published a column on the new race row thats emerged within football, that of John Terry’s alleged racist abuse of QPR’s Anton Ferdinand. Unlike the allegations made from Evra regarding Suarez, no accusations were made from Ferdinand, but unfortunately for Terry, Sky camera’s provided video evidence of him seemingly calling Ferdinand, ‘a black c**t*’.

Following such developments, I eagerly awaited the media’s reports on the incident, simply to study whether the England captain, would be afforded the same treatment that the Uruguayan Suarez had been victim to over the past weeks. Descending to meet my expectations the British press did not let me down, presenting the events in just the manner I’d prepared myself for, a steadfast defense of Terry and pleas for calm, for those directing vitriol towards the ‘En-ger-land’ captain.

{{ quote By the logic of the ‘Sports journalist of the year’ those who’ve seemingly been caught on camera yelling racist abuse couldn’t possibly be guilty because the nature of their crime is simply too obvious}}

In a article of utterly bewildering and perverse logic, Martin Samuel sought to defend Terry , yet continue to vilify Suarez at the same time: “we are still guessing at what John Terry might have said to Anton Ferdinand nobody has put a name, publicly, to a piece of concrete evidence. There are important issues at stake here, but also a man’s life.

The sneering cynics who giggle that Terry has no reputation to lose, even if guilty, are as unthinking as the cavemen who consider racism an extension of football’s notorious banter. The reputation Terry has to lose is that of not being a racist and it is quite an important one […] His mitigation, however, is that they were part of a much longer sentence – ‘Anton, do you think I called you a black ****?’ – and in a comparatively innocent context.

He says he asked Ferdinand if he thought he had been racially abused; he did not engage in racist abuse. It was, he adds, a misunderstanding […] Terry could have, quite simply, got the wrong end of the stick. He could have mistakenly thought he was suspected of racism and responded robustly.

There is no evidence for this, beyond the defensive protests of an accused man; but by any reasonable reckoning it is possibility. Given the lack of detailed evidence and the level of aural confusion in which football matches are played there would, more than likely, have to be at least some small concession that the precise context in which Terry made his remark is unclear. At which point, the prosecution case evaporates.

Modern racism is artful and surreptitious. It is the whisper, the hiss, the little aside. It does not stand on street corners with loud hailers, assaulting random eardrums. It bides its time, waits for the right moment.

Evra says he was racially abused 10 times by Suarez during Manchester United’s match with Liverpool, but nothing conclusive is believed to have surfaced on television footage.

Without presuming Suarez’s guilt in any way, that makes sense. Those players who are getting away with racial provocation – and they surely exist, even if Suarez and Terry are not among them – will be doing so in a way that is sly and subtle, so when the explosion comes it appears unprovoked.

Strangely, if Ferdinand said Terry abused him 10 times in a way that was utterly undetectable, it would make more logical sense than the thought that he shouted a single insult from the other side of a football pitch for all to hear.”

Therefore, by the logic of the ‘Sports journalist of the year’, those who’ve seemingly been caught on camera yelling racist abuse couldn’t possibly be guilty because the nature of their crime is simply too obvious.

Yet confusingly, those whom have literally no evidence to stand at all against them are far more likely to be the true racist. From Samuel’s words on modern racism, being both ‘artful and surreptitious’, one does wonder when the last time he graced a football match actually was, for although many would not like to admit it, racism is still an unpleasantly vocal part of the modern game, from both supporters and players.

When looking at ‘the facts’ as a former media victim of the British sports press once stated, we see that not a shred of evidence has arisen, that supports Evra’s claim, nor even hints towards any sort of racial abuse whatsoever.

This all despite the presence of 20 Sky HD cameras, 22 players, 45,000 fans and numerous groundstaff/officials being present on the day. No one from either team has come forward to support the French international’s claims, nor has any footage been found, indicating even the slightest glimpse of a racist word leaving Suarez’s mouth.

Despite these ‘facts’ and there seemingly being a great deal more evidence implicating John Terry for racial abuse, the media continues to report both incidents in a starkly different manner.

Martin Samuel’s commentary on both allegations is incredibly frustrating and yet fascinatingly ironic at the same time, for his coverage appears to be both pro-England and starkly anti- foreign. This sort of unbalanced, media coverage, when what he rightly states are people’s lives at stake, is simply unacceptable within a respectable press.

Then again, it is the Daily Mail.