Or it could just be the fact that Union is more popular in the UK and worldwide which gets it more attention. Just a thought.

The question is, would the sport be more, or less, popular without the "support" of the press and the media in general do you really believe that the press and media can not and do not affect the way that people think and behave ?

This whole thread {and countless others} is basically built on a few RL fans unable to accept the fact that most people UK and worldwide prefer Union to League, so they come out with various conspiracy theories as to why this is, rather than just face the fact that that's what the people prefer. The people who've run RL {sic} in the last 5-10 years are the ones that have held it back. If you want to blame anyone, blame them.

Today 30th December, the RL news on the BEEB website, new techonolgy etc is STILL from 24th December.

Has nothing really happened in RL since then? Was the loan of a saints player to Whitehaven really worth a page for a week? ( How did they get that message on?

)

Do the clubs actually have media managers? Does the RFL have a media manager? Did anyone inform the Beeb etc that a certain Mr Johnson won the BEST player in the world award?

We cannot get space in the METRO which is a FREE paper and would love copy, I would suggest, without cost.

Are the CLUBS, never mind the RFL actually doing something?

Don't use the "holidays" as a excuse, with the rip off friendlies being played, and no one available.

In the last few pages at least, no one has said there's a conspiracy to keep League out of the papers. That's just a straw man raised by GF and Galliant so they can repeat their mantra, ad nauseam, about how big Union is, how insignificant League is and how anyone who disagrees with them has a chip on their shoulder the size of Yorkshire.
The question is, is the press biased in its coverage of League? There's probably a media studies thesis there but, on the face of it, the answer is yes! I know Union is a bigger game but it's not so much bigger, proportionately, to warrant the additional coverage compared to a League. There's an inbuilt media bias towards London and the south east anyway and when you add to that the backgrounds and political agendas of editors and owners it's easy to see why League gets overlooked. Conspiracy? Probably not. Biase? Almost certainly.

People should read "Building the family game" a book by Maurice Oldroyd (BARLA) 12.95 London League publications Ltd

Battles with the RFL

and for the anti union brigade, find out just how low they can be

People should read "Building the family game" a book by Maurice Oldroyd (BARLA) 12.95 London League publications Ltd

Battles with the RFL

and for the anti union brigade, find out just how low they can be

Who mentioned class? I certainly didn't. Typical Gutterfax, invent a different argument to the one actually being discussed.

So, since you've ignored it several times I'll try it again... Do you think the Daily Mail is biased in what it prints?

Worldwide popularity is irrelevant. It's about stories in the printed newspapers.
No-one has denied Union is more popular. I haven't complained about the amount of Union coverage. If anything I think Aviva Premiership deserves more coverage in general.

Try re-reading my and other peoples posts and then actually talk about what's being discussed rather than doing a Gutterfax.

A recurring theme in this and other threads is 'bias' against RL in the media. Football gets tons more media coverage than RU but you never hear anyone in RU say its bias, they just accept that they aren't as popular as soccer and strive to make themselves bigger, instead of blaming everyone else for their own inadequacies. A fact of the sporting life is that the bigger the sport is, the bigger the coverage is.

Do you actually read people's posts?

He's too busy switching between accounts to actualy read other people's posts properly!

Hiya Him,

A southern journo said the reason that the Hull floods didn't get much attention was due to it being at same the time as N Mandela dying. I haven't checked the dates, but did they occur at the same time?

J Inverdale once said that he's surprised with how much rugby league coverage there is in the southern papers. RL coverage is strange in the papers, things take me by surprise then there's nothing, the problem is, is that they only have a set amount for sports coverage, it shouldn't be as strict as what it is; the amount of space for sport should vary from day to day depending what has happened or going to happen.

Thinking about the first half of the 2012 NRL GF helps me though

A couple of stunning tries there, in a final to boot. And the first Origin this year. Go Manly! Go New South Wales! De Cymru Newydd, De Cymru Newydd!

Cracking opinion that......just a shame its not backed up with any facts.
union is played by more, watched by more live and watched by more on tv than any other team sport in the uk save for soccer........this is why it gets more coverage.
Media around the world generally concentrates on domestic centres with less heed paid to rural or minor-urban issues......that is nothing to do with bias, more demographic breakdown and interest
to answer the question about the daily mail being bias.......the daily mail print what its readers want to read.....its called commercial sense, not bias. If you dont lkke the mail then stop reading it.

Well, as I said, there's probably a thesis to be done to actually uncover the facts of the matter. Yes it is a cracking opinion thank you. And, if you think that the Daily Mail isn't biased then your opinions are worth jack.

To suggest a conspiratorial bias against any sport in 2014/5 is laughable, especially against one that is now professionally a regional one in the UK. In regard of the UK sporting landscape, Rugby League is just not relevant enough to warrant a conspiracy against it and is only a smokescreen to cover the inadequacies of the people who run the game. To make out RL has editors giving out edicts against it is living in a fantasy land, this may hurt a few moonies but Rugby League just isn't that important in the real world.

The argument that union gets more coverage because it's bigger and more popularly played and watched is absolutely true overall and where internationals are concerned but completely falls apart when it comes to the domestic game. Club union vs club league get near as dammit identical crowds and league tv figures dwarf unions, so you really do have to question the massively disproportionate level of newspaper coverage the domestic union game gets as it is clearly and demonstrably no more popular than its league counterpart and quite feasibly actually less so.

This. He's not even doing a good job of changing the writing style.

Oops

Well gallant/gutterfax

Rugby Union is at domestic level is also regionalised with the majority being M4 based and all being southern based.

Please don't throw Sale and Newcastle at me because they're irrelevences and can be dismissed in the same way you dismiss the 2 professional London clubs and the professional Cumbrian clubs.

Its alright Jim, the British press don't show any bias, it's all down to what the readers of the relevant papers and tv viewers expect.
The day when there is any kind of balanced reporting in the press will be it's first, on what ever subject you wish to read about, not just sport and not just RL.

The North (outside the M25) is the forgotten part of the UK in all aspects, until the next general election and then we can expect the usual visits form condescending Westminster MP's pleading for our "Northern" votes.

I believe that after the facts being ignored repeatedly, i sank that particular battleship with a nice graphic that even the most fanatical of you blind devotees of the x files couldnt ignore......I'll fish it out again just for you.......but whilst im doing that, please point out northampton and leicester on the m4 or south of the watford gap.....

here you go purdie.....top flight rugby teams in the british isles, where the BBCis received free of charge and the papers are all available.......i also have a very nice one of top flight french rugby too.......

Like I said, you ignore all the other professional clubs in Rugby League in order to propagate your fabrication.

The aviva averages......12.5k and the heineken 13.5k whilst super leagues average last season was 8,365. I make that 50% more fans for the aviva and 61% more fans for the Heineken. Then there's the TV issue.......which is currently helped from a RL point of view by the infancy of BT sport, where by the game that delivers the smaller audience has a TV deal that is bigger. Of course, the TV ratings for the European Super League are for the UK only whilst the French TV viewing figures for their H Cup games often exceeed 1,000,000.
As for the press coverage...........the games in the UK get pretty much what they deserve in coverage. Here's a map of the GB & I reach of the two sports