It does seem to me that there is no gaping divide that the media tell us there is.

I am a media man myself - though not in NZ and not in sports (anymore, I once was). These days I am finding myself alienated from my profession more and more because of crap like what we're talking about here.

I have been a sports nut all my life. I go straight to the Sports sections of nz herald and stuff every morning once I get to work. And though I don't post here often, my third stop every day without fail is the silver fern. Lately I've started reading the general news more and more because of the declining standard of sports journalism the world over.

The difference between the mainstream media and "new media" like the silver fern, is amazing. On this site we hear what the bloke in the street thinks every day. Here, anyone can let us all know their own point of view. Sometimes it's tedious going through countless posts on the same topics with no difference in opinion. But on this occasion, on this particular topic, I find it fascinating that that 99% of the posts here are in agreement.

In the other corner, the mainstream media seem at total odds to the sentiments of the posters here. This does not compute for me.

Is that because the silver fern has been hijacked by one side of the argument? (for those that studied sociology, you might see parallels here with Noam Chomsky's "Spiral of Silence").

Or is it because the mainstream media has been hijacked by one side of the argument?

I seriously think that it is the latter. Take a look at this article on Fox Sports from Australia: http://msn.foxsports.com/rugby/story/7537838

Here's a couple of paras that are in the story - it's about a survey that was done regarding Henry's popularity:

"The survey, conducted by URM research and released Tuesday, shows 61 percent of New Zealand approved of the New Zealand Rugby Union's decision last week to reappoint Henry for a two-year term."

"The URM survey showed support for Henry declined with age. Henry's reappointment was approved by 74 percent of respondents aged under 30 but only 51 percent of those over 60."

"Opposition to Henry was strongest in Christchurch, Robbie Deans' home town, but 57 per cent of those polled in the South Island city were in favor of Henry's reappointment."

From this, I can only feel that 1. Yes there are people that don't like Henry and would prefer Deans to be coach. But 2. Most of us actually don't mind Henry getting the job.

Therefore, where is this great divide that the media is up in arms about?

I find myself watching less and less sport on TV these days because of crap like this. Like it or not, sport is just part of the entertainment business. And that includes the newspapers. When I was a kid sport meant something. Newspapers also meant something. Both have diminished so much in the last few years that I am feeling less and less attracted to them. I find this especially interesting, because I thought the reason for sensationalist headlines in newspapers and radiosport rants were supposed to attract readers and listeners. Instead, like others on this board, I am turning off more and more frequently.

In this particular topic, the media is especially wrong. They say that the NZRFU is full of itself and is losing touch with New Zealanders. I say that it is the media, not the NZRFU, that is losing this support. They have certainly lost mine.

Like a bad government that forgets it is representing the people, the mainstream media has forgotten that it's supposed to report the news. It is called "interviewing the typewriter" and it is just plain lazy.