Nope. To say that because rl isn't covered in most of the press proves there is bias is ridiculous. Darts gets bigger tv ratings than league, but isn't covered in the press......is there a bias against darts too?

So why, when the Super League Grand Final attracts the biggest sporting audience of the weekend anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere, do the Southern based Press completely ignore it or give it a tertiary 40 word report while then offering a double page report on a Union match which attracts less than 10,000?

In a word, yes.

Darts obviously is not seen as sufficiently newsworthy by the press, yet has mass appeal.
I know this is going off on one slightly but, do you seriously think that our views are not controlled and manipulated by the media and press ????

A very good point and one which the RL itself presently seems unable to correct. I'm no expert, but I would have thought the way forward for our PR machine (ha!) would be to outflank the traditional media by more use of social media. The game needs to go viral.

If you believe what you are fed then fine, but i tend to use a multitude of media channels and sources of information before forming an opinion. Claiming 82,000 sheep attend a union game but that 4,000 at Salford are all fans is arrogance deserving of an irb medal.

only Gutters would believe there is no bias from a southern based media towards a traditionally northern game lol.

as for your prof sport comment, prof sport is where a player gets paid to play, given that players in all three leagues get paid they are all prof clubs thus making your comment about the game only being played professionally along the M62 nonsensical. The championship 1 league looks pretty nationally spread out to me?

Jesus Gutters you're as bad as Smokey. You won't even admit basic facts. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me the likes of the Daily Mail, Express, the Telegraph aren't biased toward the right wing? Or the Mirror toward the left?

Yet you say no they're not biased but then say yes they're biased. What you state there, "a decision by management and editorial staff to write what their audience want to read" IS bias. It's picking and choosing what to report, and crucially how to report it, based on something other than national importance, national interest etc
Because if it did then the 18k+ at the Leeds v Wigan game this year would've warranted a bigger report considering it was the largest sporting event in the country that night.

UK newspapers not biased
You do yourself a disservice when you just steadfastly refuse to accept a fact like this because you generally have a point with your posts.

Even if they were indeed sheep, 82000 is worth reporting, it got 2/3 pages in the sports section of the times plus a mention in "the news" section.
Nobody would argue that it was a major sporting event, worthy of report, but it was certainly overkill for a regular season fixture in the RU calendar.

Equally of surprise was that a nothing friendly Leeds vs Wakefield gained more column inches than just about every SL game in the regular season.

Maybe the press got carried away on the back of "Mad Friday", "Black Monday" and whatever else they could come up with to create hysteria amongst the masses

Papers aren't falling over themselves to help union or do us down. The print what helps them sell papers or get views. They think union does this and League doesn't. That isn't a conspiracy or bias, is a simple editorial decision.

If we want more space in papers we need to do more that people want to read about.

In a not unrelated point, 42 pages about union on a league message board, numerous articles in papers and on line. Sam Burgess is already a success in RU.

Almost correct but, Editors often have their own agendas, ie political bias and it is only natural that sports editors have their own preferences.
These tend to be Football and RU.

Football is supposed to be the national sport and will usually trump all others but, Union certainly gets far more column inches than its popularity "deserves", which if portrayed in a positive manner, this will theoretically increase it's exposure and theoretically increase it's popularity amongst the masses.

Newspapers are private commercial entities either owned by individuals or by shareholders. They have no mandate to report anything they don't want to but they do have a mandate to make money for their owners.
As much as you like to repeat That there is a widespread bias or even conspiracy I have yet to hear a decisive argument that proves these money making entities are purposely ignoring a sport for nothing more than some editor or owners personal stance against that sport.
Rugby league at the top level in the British isles is played by 11 teams all from one geographical area. It is not a national sport and neither is it of national interest........if it were of national interest with the public clamouring for news, then the owners of the media would be publishing stories about it.

What I have heard a lot of is unfounded conspiracy theories based around a preloaded prejudice against a sport with a far greater national and European reach that is backed up by a national side playing in regular international tournaments.

How is it that a club like harlequins can attract 82,000 fans to a game.......more than a few sl sides manage for an entire season? Is it down to the nasty editor at the express or is it down to more people wanting to be associated with middle class union rather than Castleford v Wakefield in the grim north of England.

Just because YOU think its not fair doesn't mean that the rest if the country have to agree with you........and they dont

Who are you to dictate how much union deserves in exposure? 15,000,000 watched Wilkinson kick that drop goal and 250,000 attended the street parade.......you may not like it but union is much much bigger than league as far as the public are concerned

Sounds like Sam Burgess helped helped the Bath RU A team get through to a semi final tonight. Every time he's played Union, his side has won so far. Guessing he must have got more than a one or two metre run tonight as they are describing his break as scintillating. But sounds like the bloke he gave a clear run in For a try dropped the pass!

I too can't blame Sam for taking the money and moving sport if his new employers looked at what he could do, what they wanted and gave him a contract that will set him up for life.

I hope Sam gets used to a completely different sport and rips it at club and international level like he did for us.

It's just frustrating that it is such a waste of talent. From what I've seen of what they want Sam to do, it would seem that any of the bog standard, anonymous type forwards they breed for top level Union could do it. They didn't really need such a talented rugby player as Sam Burgess. But, it's their money and they can spend it as they like.

Genuinely hope Sam does really well as we would expect (even though the strange rules of Rugby Union will be a bit of a hindrance to say the least). But it does seem to me that this will really turn out to be a mid career rest in Union for Burgess prolonging his career prior to a return to Rugby League at almost the level he was at when he left.

Find myself unfortunately agreeing with Gutters here. Newspaper will write about what sells.......do you think the editors of red tops really give a sh*t about X Factor or I'm a Celebrity or whoever Katie Price is sleeping with.......no, but they slam that across their headlines because they know it's going to sell/attract better.

Newspaper editors/Journalists have one aim.....sell, sell, sell.

You can cut that out right away