I'd suggest Leagues standing is the net result of the quantity & quality of coverage it's given in the media, not the other way around

Correct. The BBC go out of their way to promote union even when they don't have the rights.

100% right. Why the BBC went overboard with their union world cup reports is a mystery to me and many others seeing as the didn't have the TV or Radio broadcasting rights for it.

Someone needs to tell them Briscoes effort was disallowed!

I heard that and a very good piece it was too. Nicky C praising RL in general and saying how thunderous the game he saw in Melbourne was a few years back. It's not wall to wall coverage, but I guess the OP missed it

BBC editorial comment on the ref!

Tbf to the Beeb they have done not too bad with the coverage and hopefully this will get better with their sports section moving up north.

If not it will prove how they are anti RL.

It shows Briscoe's "double movement"

to be fair, the BBC probably thought the try was given.

Slightly off topic from the BBC but still media

I read the free ‘Sport’ mag they hand out in London (maybe elsewhere) a few weeks ago before the 4 Nations started and they had some bit about it feeling a bit like ‘after the Lord Mayors show’ of the RU World Cup etc etc

Today the piece was all about how McNamara’s men had beaten the world champs (and in more style than the soccer lads bored the Spanish into submission at Wembley). The best bit was about the League boys putting the feel good factor into English rugby after the English debacle in the World Cup... made my day

The BBC go out of their way to promote union, because they perceive it to be a part of the mainstream national culture, whereas there is still a perception of RL as being a northern M62 sport.

It isn't - I can happily report on Gloucester Uni's impressive victory in Newcastle against Northumbria in the elite student competition, that Loughborough beat Hull and St mary's (London) beat UCLAN in the same competition, while Exeter are unbeaten at the top of the Premier South Division, and Bristol Sonics are already into their pre-season for the 2012 competition. But it's how it's preceived.

In comparison, the BBC news team has a 'North of England' correspondent. They don't, however, have a south of England correspondent, because they regard the south of England as [ibeing [/i mainstream England. That's why they also report on union as a matter of course, and on league less frequently.

It's coverage, then, is reflective of the depth and experience of the respective codes in southern England, which the BBC regards as 'real' England, and in the background and experience of the editors and journalists, who disproportionately reflect southern English graduates, many from a private educational background - even though, in numerical terms, there's not a huge amount to choose between them. But, as has been pointed out, its relative lack of coverge for league becomes self-perpetuating: the nation doesn't care so it's not reported; the nation deosn't know because it's not reported; the nation doesn't care because it doesn't know; the nation doesn't care so it's not reported; and so it goes, round and round.

Another reason why union gets coverage... it pays for it. Tens of thousands for column space in tabloids and broadsheets. Tens of thousands on all expenses paid trips to the World Cup for journalists, on condition that the game is covered. BBC doesn't take such payments, but it does follow the news agenda. If a story is in every paper, the broadcast media just can't ignore it.

For a start, the RFL hasn't got that kind of money. But, even if it did, how would Leigh Miners or Skirlaugh react if they suddenly started shelling out thousands to southern journalists, instead of supporting community the game at home. £20,000 would just about fly a single journalist around the world and support 6 weeks expenses in four star hotels, or it would pay a community coach for a year to deliver 2,000 hours of coaching. The RFU can afford both. We'd can barely afford the latter.

Complaints to the BBC, calls to national phone-ins, letters and comments to journalists and talkshow hosts, that's the way forward. Make the BBC understand what RL means to hundreds of thousands of people - albeit people they don't know, in communities which they don't know, in towns and cities they don't know, but which all pay licence fees to keep them in post.

Turing up and buying tickets and getting behind our game, getting involved with the local club or refereeing or playing touch or bringing mates along or starting a works' touch league etc etc etc... that's the other thing to do. Be proactive, make the game bigger, tell people how much it means and it matters, and do your bit.

A bit of positivity in the RL community? Maybe it could catch on. Maybe it could be what we're known for? Now, that would be a national news story!

Great coverage in there today. The Editor (Simon Caney) has mentioned RL quite a bit since the Wembley game. In his editorial he says that he gave Tompkins one of his 10 nominations for SPOTY, describing him as a "wonderboy" and "thrilling to watch". And the article you refer to as well, essentially putting tomorrow night's game forward as the highlight of the next 7 days of sport, is very encouraging.

I think this goes to show the importance of events like the Wembley double header in terms of spreading the word. Although they do carry RL in here (previously they have interviewed Roby and Peacock off the top of my head) the coverage during the 4 nations has been very positive and suggests to me that a genuine interest now lies behind it.

Because they are a public funded broadcasting company not a commercial station.

I'm a big fan of the BBC and think it's worth every penny but they do give RL the sh@tty end of the stick IMO.