After a tough season so far for Oxford City, the side has been no stranger to negative media, having most recently been named the “National League basement boys” after their 2-0 loss to Woking.
Such media can have a huge impact not just on the club as a whole in terms of its reputation, but also can affect individual players, having a devastating effect on their confidence which in turn will affect their standard of play.
There are positive stories that can come out of City’s season, such as individual success and the fact that this is their first season in the Vanarama National League. Features highlighting such successes have the potential to develop an individual’s confidence and team cohesion, but the press continues to focus on unfavourable aspects.
In particular, social media can become a breeding ground for hate as the public posts hurtful comments online. Acting out of anger, this intent to hurt players is seen on a larger scale in higher, more widely covered divisions such as the Premier League, but can also be traced back down the pyramid.
Negative media can have two impacts, and this depends on the individual. Some people may thrive under this external pressure, wanting to prove critics wrong and showcase their talent. Other players may see truth in what the media publishes and begin to question their ability, thus decreasing their performance.
So why does the media prefer critical stories? The focus is always on the audience, and perhaps audiences find negative stories more engaging. Alternatively, it could be due to motivation, as negative news stories often compel change, whereas with positive news stories, the situation doesn’t need to be altered. Therefore, in small doses negative media might be beneficial as it inspires change, for example, if a player reads something poor about themselves they will feel compelled to change it. But if this is overused the effects can be detrimental, so is no media at all better than constant negative coverage?
The Women’s First Team at City does not get as much coverage in the media as the men do, but is this positive or not? Limited coverage means limited awareness of the side, including the extensive developments made for women’s football at City over the last year. But it also almost guarantees a by-pass on the unfavourable media such as that that currently haunts Jenkins’ side.
When speaking to First Team defender Georgia Healy, she stated that “it’s hard with no media because you have fewer people backing the team”, which is evident in the comparative difference in matchday attendance between Hanshaw’s and Jenkins’ sides. She went on to say that “even though the men do get a lot of negative media they still have the exposure to give them fans that stick with them”, which Hanshaw’s side is relatively short of.
It cannot be hidden that the lack of women’s coverage at City needs to improve, which will in turn grow the fanbase for the side. But this means being exposed to negative media as well. Healy, however, believes that her side is strong enough to overcome any critics as a team, stating that they will be able to “ignore others opinions as much as we can as we know our will and we will stick to our philosophy”.
So it is clear to see that media is important to increase the visibility of a team, something that Hanshaw’s side doesn’t see enough of. Being public opens up the possibility of abuse which can motivate change, but it can also have negative effects. As stated by Healy, however, negative media can be overcome by the bond of the team, helping each other get through tough periods and focus on the game. Therefore, if a team is strong enough to get over any negative media, then the exposure could still benefit the side through increased visibility.
Commenti