Read on Twitter
All these things can be true:
The misogyny is really unhelpful
A crap lazy opinion is still a crap lazy opinion
Fans are deeply embedded in their clubs and hate lazy superficial punditry
So how does this happen? Good punditry is supported by good research...
The misogyny is really unhelpful A crap lazy opinion is still a crap lazy opinion Fans are deeply embedded in their clubs and hate lazy superficial punditrySo how does this happen? Good punditry is supported by good research...
But how many of the pundits are drafted into cover games without being afforded the chance to do adequate research? And how much can one person do on their own?
TV companies have research departments for this reason. Are they supporting their pundits?
TV companies have research departments for this reason. Are they supporting their pundits?
Are producers and editors encouraging their pundits to be knowledgeable? Are they giving them the tools? Or do they shift them from ground to ground, day to day, and just send them out there?
Broadcasting resources are stretched so thinly with blanket coverage of football.
Broadcasting resources are stretched so thinly with blanket coverage of football.
Is it any wonder that pundits are being sent out - perhaps unknowingly - with the task of doing nothing more than superficial analysis and the rehashing of lazy tropes? It annoys fans and should be called out, particularly in the direction of TV companies.
The resulting misogyny is ugly and embarrassing, and some personal responsibility is called for. But what is the purpose of a pundit if not to provoke a reaction among viewers? We quite rightly get called out for the uninformed shite we talk on the pod.
