Article
The Sun v Saints
The Sun has come up with a novel response to Southampton's attitude to photographers
St Mary's as seen by an undercover journalist. Photograph: Chris Ison/PA
As you may have heard, suits at Southampton recently chose to deny photographers press accreditation for the new season, and said that all newspapers and agencies would have to negotiate for images of home games from one outlet, The Digital South. Well, the Sun came up with this brilliant response to Saints' little scheme:
Today we are printing the most one-sided match report in the history of The Sun.
While applauding Plymouth's amazing victory we are deliberately ignoring one of the hottest title favourites in history.
All this is down to Southampton's draconian executive chairman Nicola Cortese. His totally crazy decision to ban national and local newspaper photographers from the game will hurt his club more than he thinks.
This senseless move will not make him extra money but it will turn the fans and, more importantly, sponsors away from the club.
Related Content
User Comments
brucewasinnocent
9 August 2010 2:41PM
... more than a whiff of irony in that article, 'sun prints one-sided story'
SirBevois
9 August 2010 2:59PM
Notice that as soon as anyone dares to question how the media do things in this country, all the papers (who day in and day out slag each other off), all form rank and roll out the "freedom of the press" nonsense.
Well done Saints for showing up the tabloids to be nothing more than hypocrites.
SirBevois
9 August 2010 3:03PM
Just to add, I believe this is the Fifth article in the Guardian about Saints. Thanks, that's more coverage you've given us than anything we've ever achieved by playing football or by being nice to the press.
V33J
9 August 2010 3:08PM
We've wound up the Sun; awesome!
Murdoch's fish and chip paper has never covered us before, we're getting more exposure than we could have hoped for. Brilliant move by Nicola Cortese, not a bad one as many suggested in previous articles.
V33J
9 August 2010 3:18PM
Just to add, the caption to the picture at the top of this article
St Mary's as seen by an undercover journalist. Photograph: Chris Ison/PA
is a blatant lie as the stock photo being used is an old one - we havn't been sponsored by Friends Provident for years.
SirBevois
9 August 2010 3:23PM
V33J,
That's just the Guardian "having a bit of fun". Much like the slanderous and immature reporting in the Sun is "just a bit of fun".
Whereas putting restrictions on a handful of tabloid and local rag photographers is "a fundamental attack on the freedom on the great british press"
V33J
9 August 2010 3:38PM
Vidic15,
to which I reply, great job Nicola Cortese - pishing of Rupert Murdoch's gutter rag is far more than I could have hoped for when I first head this story.
FearOfaJackPlanet
9 August 2010 4:02PM
The Saints have every right to protect their 'brand image' or whatever the club are doing with this new rule.
Papers are allowed to protect what they see as their interests too.
What about the agency/one man band type photographers?
doozler
9 August 2010 4:18PM
To give Cortese credit, he did stop the club going out of business and pay off all the debt. It's not all bad.
I don't like this move, can't be worth that much money and limits exposure. It's all very well if you live in the area and can read local press, watch local news etc.
However, some of us have moved away and now it will be even more difficult to read up on the team without resorting to the official website, half of which is behind a paywall.
V33J
9 August 2010 4:43PM
@doozler
The only part of the Official site behind a pay-wall is "Saints player" which gives access to live audio streams on match days, extended highlights of matches and some other video - i.e. mostly stuff that can't be put on the open web due to rights issues & a little "behind the scenes" stuff added on to get you to subscribe. Everything else on the official site is free as far as I'm aware.
Jesus02
9 August 2010 5:38PM
Even though I was Born in Southampton not Liverpool, I have been raised to boycott the Sun for three main reasons.
1: There incredibly one-sided reporting of the Dockers Strike
2: There incredibly one-sided reporting of the Hillsborough Disaster
3: Page 3 – its 2010 for god sake
The fact that they have taken this action (for a SKY televised match no less) is just a drop in the ocean.
Anyone that buys the Sun, just shouldn’t and anyone who is on their payrole should hang their head in shame.
I probably wont meet Cortese but id like to shake his hand
Jesus02
9 August 2010 5:40PM
will turn the fans and, more importantly, sponsors away from the club.
the Sun's attitude, as described by the Sun
PortmuthianBlue
9 August 2010 6:09PM
Jesus02
What a shame your oh-so-noble boycotting of The Sun didn't lead to you learning the difference between "their" and "there".
Jesus02
9 August 2010 6:21PM
PortmuthianBlue
Yeah its a spelling mistake, Its also a shame that paulsgroves "oh-so-noble" anti-paedophile marches didn't lead them to learn the difference between peodophile an paediatrician.
happygoth
9 August 2010 6:39PM
TypicalSun childishness. Commitment to reportage and responsibilities to its readership are nothing to that tedious, self-important jam-rag.
I hope the Soton chairman keeps up his trifling embargo for the foreseeable future, it would make for a valuable experiment: how long before the Sun gets bored of its own jokes?
JonathanHigginsIII
9 August 2010 7:19PM
How many ways can Murdoch and The S*n's pots call kettles black?
Ludicrous. As if they can call anyone out for cynical money-making plans.
kamala
9 August 2010 8:18PM
isn't it censorship under a soft marketing cover ?
it certainly isn't done for the revenue - miniscule...
any sanits players shown red for swinging a handbag or any idiot in the crowd causing trouble could go unreported except for the thousands of low quality i-phone, droid and blackberry users.
reedc
9 August 2010 8:34PM
Love the photo at the top of the page "St Mary's as seen by undercover Journalist" what year did he/she go under cover and how long does it take to get images back to your picture desk. How old is that picture ? I would contact SFC media department for some up to date pictures if I was you or you could pay PA/Getty for some new ones if they have any.
tompatt
9 August 2010 9:16PM
Some really stupid self justification from SirBeavous there, "Well done Saints for showing up the tabloids to be nothing more than hypocrites."
I doubt it as every paper is going to boycott this stupid, arrogant and greedy ruse. What everyone forgets is that its quite quite OK for the Saints to use pictures of OUR players without permission! All the more reason for savouring the Saints having their pants pulled down. Not only that, they are a bunch of cheats who should have been put out of business along with their chums along the coast.
SchwarzGelbRedWhite
10 August 2010 3:34AM
As we are all (by definition) Grauniad readers we are all in favour of Press Freedom, etc. etc. etc.
But is this about censorship or about money?
News Corp make money from reporting news. Soton appear to have locked up a "master franchise" agreement with a phtotographer, so that the Sun have to actually pay for their content rather than just getting it for the salary (and train fare) of their man - or even paying a stringer, which would amount to pretty much the same thing as the Saints agreement.
Anywho, how many sporting events are only available for (paying) subscribers to Sky - cross-subsidised by the Sun and other NewsCorp titles? Yes I do recall the I-Sky section of the Eye.
Can anyone help me with a variation on pots and kettles? I don't want to bore.
dormant
10 August 2010 4:02AM
Why are you all so hard on The Sun?
They represent the pinnacle of investigative sports journalism: a reconstruction of Peter Crouch on the sofa.
LostTransportation
10 August 2010 9:42AM
Jesus02 - shame that you can't tell the difference between the South coast of England and South Wales...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm
iainl
10 August 2010 11:38AM
Ahh, diddums. Did the nasty football man not let you take pictures? Try screaming louder; you might be sick, Murdoch.
SoccerAMMW
10 August 2010 12:41PM
Didn't Leeds have a period of banning photographers from the ground? Or have I imagined that in one of my bizarrely depressing dreams?
If it is true, how come no-one made a fuss about that?
If it's not true, then I can only apologise for wasting your time and encourage you to carry on with your lives.
http://soccerammw.blogspot.com/
Waraqah
10 August 2010 4:31PM
Plymouth Evening Herald carried a couple of Roy of the Rovers/Billy the Fish type cartoon pictures to accompany the match report.
danjomcbanjo
11 August 2010 12:49PM
Not only that, they are a bunch of cheats who should have been put out of business along with their chums along the coast.
Can you explain how Southampton 'cheated' i.e. how they gained an unfair advantage?
I would say that being relegated twice would indicate no advantage gained. Sure we got lucky with a wealthy owner, but he's no mug, this will be one of the best bits of footy business done this decade, even if the zenith of our achievements is mid table championship team its a steal at 15 million.
johnnysoho
13 August 2010 6:13AM
If I were one of you lot, I'd bring my own camera and then sell the pics to the papers — including The Sun — with the caveat they couldn't use my name.
wearethestripes
9 August 2010 2:40PM
The only good thing that The Sun has ever done, Sants really are turning out to be a nasty little team, whoops that should be nasty 'big' team whose rightful place is the Premiership and the Champions League. My mistake.