Spot the difference between these two articles about a football player banned for an unprecedented 10 games. The first was published by the Daily Record, the Trinity Mirror title published in Glasgow under the headline Former Rangers star Kirk Broadfoot handed 10-game ban for verbally abusing Wigan’s James McClean:
“Kirk Broadfoot has been handed a staggering 10-game ban for launching a verbal tirade against James McClean.
The former Scotland and Rangers defender will have to serve what is believed to be the longest ban for verbal abuse in English football history. The abuse is reportedly of a sectarian nature.
Broadfoot launched the tirade against the Wigan and Republic of Ireland winger at the New York Stadium on March 14. He later called the Wigan player a “cheat” for diving during the 2-1 defeat for Rotherham.
It is understood he received the record ban after being called to an FA tribunal with club officials to face charges after fans reported him for an on-field tirade directed at McLean.
Earlier this week, Rotherham and the FA refused to comment on the matter because of a strict confidentiality agreement that prohibits anyone connected to the case from making any comment about it.
The ban beats the eight-game punishment given to Liverpool striker Luis Suarez after he racially abused Manchester United defender Patrice Evra in 2011.”
Now here’s the story as published by the Record’s London-based sister publication, the Daily Mirror, headlined Rotherham defender Kirk Broadfoot handed 10-game ban for sectarian tirade against James McClean:
“Kirk Broadfoot has been handed a staggering 10-game ban for a sectarian tirade against James McClean.
The Rotherham and former Scotland defender will have to serve what is believed to be the longest ban for verbal abuse in English football history.
The ex-Glasgow Rangers player launched the attack against the Wigan and Republic of Ireland winger at the New York Stadium on March 14.
It is understood he received the record ban after being called to an FA tribunal with club officials to face charges relating to sectarianism.
Earlier this week, Rotherham and the FA refused to comment on the matter because of a strict confidentiality agreement that prohibits anyone connected to the case with making any comment about it.
It is believed that was put in place over fears of a risk to the parties involved if details were revealed.
The ban beats the eight-game punishment given to Liverpool striker Luis Suarez after he racially abused Manchester United defender Patrice Evra in 2011.
Broadfoot was born into a Protestant family in Ayrshire and is known to be a staunch supporter of certain cultural traditions relating to his religion.
McClean, a Catholic who signed for West Brom this summer, has been in the news over his refusal to wear a shirt with a poppy symbol in it, turning his back on the Union Flag prior to a game and refusing to sing the British national anthem before kick-off at a game for his new club during their pre-season tour in America.”
First, note how the Record omits sectarian in the headline and intro, noting only down in the copy that the abuse was “reportedly of a sectarian nature.” Second, you need to know that the sentence, “The abuse is reportedly of a sectarian nature”, did not appear in the print edition and was only added to the on-line edition after complaints. Third, note the Record’s omission of clearly relevant religious details - Broadfoot being a Protestant and McLean being a Catholic - plus the historical context.
Now let’s look at the online coverage of the same story by the “impartial” BBC under a studiedly neutral - and uniformative - headline, Kirk Broadfoot: Rotherham United defender banned for 10 games.
“Rotherham United’s Kirk Broadfoot has been banned for 10 matches by the Football Association after he was found guilty of misconduct.
Reports suggest the 30-year-old former Rangers defender received the ban for sectarian abuse of winger James McClean in the game between the Millers and Wigan in March.
McClean, 27, is a Catholic while Broadfoot is a Protestant.
Rotherham are not planning to comment on the suspensionThe FA said in a statement: ‘The charge was that during a league fixture between Rotherham and Wigan Athletic on 14 March 2015 Broadfoot used abusive and/or insulting words towards a member of the opposition, in breach of FA Rule E3(1).
‘It was further alleged that the breach was an ‘aggravated breach’ as defined by Rule E3(2). Broadfoot was also fined £7,500 and ordered to complete an education programme.’
It is the longest ban to have been handed out by the governing body for verbal abuse.”
Neutral, sure, but a clear statement that the abuse was sectarian. As for the Record, it is surely a poor editorial decision to sanitise its report by failing to cover the story as comprehensibly as its English stablemate?
Sectarianism (more precisely, anti-Irish racism) is a huge problem in Glasgow, and expressed most obviously in the footballing sphere. To cover it up is a disgrace. Despite its title, it is clearly not a paper of record.
NB: The Guardian’s report, while noting that Derry-born McClean has “attracted criticism” for his refusal to refusing to wear a poppy and for turning away during the playing of God Save the Queen, also fails to mention that Broadfoot’s “verbal abuse” was of a sectarian nature.
Hat tip: The Clumpany
- Having spoken to the Daily Record, we acknowledge that they took the decision not to include that claim on the basis of lack of corroboration – and not for any other reason. We accept the editor’s word that there was no question of “sanitisation”. Other media outlets, including the Guardian, also cho
se not to include the sectarian claims on the same basis. Neither player, nor the FA, have commented on the nature of the abuse.