No, Newspaper editors/journalists have one aim.....keep their owner happy.
Do you think an anti-UKIP story will make its way into the headlines of the Express newspaper, regardless of how much it might or might not sell papers?
Or a pro-Labour/Milliband one in The Sun?

It's more than just what sells papers. It's what agenda the owner wants.
Aside from that the background of the editors and senior people in a newsroom is vital. It's why we get stories of travel chaos/bad weather etc in London but never when there's problems in the rest of the country. The floods in Hull being a prime example of how the "national media" often ignores stories and issues that don't tally with what the London based media decides are important, even for the millions of people who don't think and live the same way as them.

It's not an active "anti-northern" or in this case anti-RL agenda. It's one that forgets about most things North of Watford and West of the Home Counties.

I think comparisons of political allegiances to RU/RL coverage is a bit extreme isn't it?

Editors will have an aim to keep their owners happy.....and one clear way of doing that above anything else is selling papers and making money by filling it with what sells.

I don't think its extreme to back up my point that newspapers aren't solely about selling papers. If they were they'd all make a profit but very few actually do. It's also about pushing the agendas of their owners. Thats why there was so much front page reporting of Big Brother in the Express when Richard Desmond bought Channel 5, for instance.
It's also, as I said, about the background and experiences of those in senior positions at the paper. If they've grown up in a leafy home county where rugby league is never mentioned, that will naturally filter in to his thought process when deciding how much, if any, coverage to give (say) Leeds v Wigan. If, in his world, Leeds v Wigan was never important and barely mentioned, unless it got a crowd where he was unable to ignore it, like football, he probably will ignore it regardless of whether more people are actually interested.

It's not about massive back or front page stories for RL, I don't expect us to be there on the vast majority of occasions. It's about us not getting the attention we deserve. It's RL missing out on regular, decent pieces on games, incidents etc 2 or 3 pages in from the back page. That's what isn't right.

In the same way as the Hull floods being ignored, bad weather etc. It's not solely a newspaper thing. Unfortunately many things in life have become incredibly London-centric in recent times. Media is definitely one, financial institutions another, and obviously government is another huge one.
London receives 24 times the infrastructure spending than the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, along with it being bad for the country as a whole, or certainly for the millions of people who live in the rest of the country, it's also bad for RL because it doesn't and never has had a base of interest in the south and in London.

Whilst there are plenty of faults with both RL and the RFL, many of them frustrating at either the stupidity of the faults or the simplicity of the solution to those faults, it always has to be borne in mind that the sport is continually fighting a battle against this London-centric nature of this country at the moment, and fighting it with very limited resources at its disposal.

Absolute and utter paranoid class war drivel!

)

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?

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.