Old school BBC - Photo Loopzilla CCA
It’s not us, sadly - the Sport without Spin merchandise is somewhere on a ferry from China, and you’ll have to buy your cynically-themed stationery and scarves next year instead - but remember how the BBC used to hate plugging anything for fear that they do not appear impartial? You know, things such as Palestine appeals, for instance? Well, worry not - this year they have been able to move on from that, and they’ve been quite happy to plug their own content, such as the arrival of Strictly Come Dancing on the sports pages.
That kind of promotion is tacky, but just about understandable. But there are still, in theory, some limits. Were these not transgressed at the end of last month when an article entitled ‘Your sports book of the year‘ appeared on the blog pages?
At a boozy central London bash on Thursday afternoon, Duncan Hamilton’s fine biography of Bodyline bowler Harold Larwood became the 21st winner of the William Hill Sports Book of the Year award.
[...] It’s been a big year for sports books. Over 150 were entered for this year’s award (a new record) which the judges - broadcasters Danny Kelly and John Inverdale, sportswriters Hugh McIlvanney and Alyson Rudd, and SportsPages bookshop founder John Gaustad - whittled down first to an official long-list of 13, and then a final shortlist of six.
Wise though these sporting sages undoubtedly are, it’s clearly a game of opinions. Gaustad revealed that each of the judges had a different favourite from that shortlist, and that many hours of late-night argument were required for agreement to finally reached.
Which leads us to the public vote. What’s been your favourite sports read of the year? We’ll call it The Bloggie. If it lacks in history or prize money, it’ll make up for it in audience interaction.
All fairly innocuous, until you see the candidates for the sports book of the year, one of which is written by Tom Fordyce and Ben Dirs. Which would be fine, were it not for the fact that Tom Fordyce was the author of the blog.
A conflict of interests? Dealt with in the piece:
Now, in the interests of BBC openness, I have to flag up the fact that two of the authors may be particularly familiar to users to this site. So, as the old phrase goes, let me make it quite clear that other sports books are also available.
Or… write about literally any other sports-related subject on your BBC column, rather than mentioning your book. Why did this seem an acceptable story for Fordyce himself to cover (that’s rhetorical, obviously), and if it was important enough for the BBC to cover, maybe someone else could have been given that particualr task? Still, there’s only 11 more shopping days until Christmas, so what are you going to do?
