But the point is Nigel, he didn't bring the status of his relationship into the spotlight, she did, albeit inadvertently. Given that high profile footballers personal lives usually only hit the papers if they're pissed up / brawling / shagging around / nicking stuff from B&Q / crashing their high performance cars, maintaining his silence on this wouldn't have been seen as dignified, it would have been taken as an admission of guilt. Our expectations of footballers are different to our expectations of politicians, and as much as we might wish our celebrity culture was different, if you're stuck in the middle of one of these controversies doing the PR equivalent of sticking your fingers i your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you" just isn't going to be effective.
[cite]Posted By: aliwibble[/cite]But the point is Nigel, he didn't bring the status of his relationship into the spotlight, she did, albeit inadvertently. Given that high profile footballers personal lives usually only hit the papers if they're pissed up / brawling / shagging around / nicking stuff from B&Q / crashing their high performance cars, maintaining his silence on this wouldn't have been seen as dignified, it would have been taken as an admission of guilt. Our expectations of footballers are different to our expectations of politicians, and as much as we might wish our celebrity culture was different, if you're stuck in the middle of one of these controversies doing the PR equivalent of sticking your fingers i your ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you" just isn't going to be effective.
Yes, but the problem is that once you get dragged into the brawl and issue a first denial then you put yourself in a position of having to deny every story that appears because people will say, "Well, he denied that first story but he is not denying this one so it must be true!"
It's frustrating but I think that a dignified silence is best and you can then go out and use a platform of your own choice (ie a friendly chat show or interview, whatever) to make your counter-argument if you choose.
Notice how Paul McCartney won his PR game with that one-legged psycho by staying out of the press and above the fray whilst letting her grab the headlines and destroy herself? That's the way to do it.
I think when Lampard was being accused of being a bad father he had to respond, maybe the radio was the wrong vehicle, but as he said that day as already an emotionally charged day for the Lampards. I know that if he had not then there would be many who would have forever seen him as a scum father, because they read it in the paper.
Lampard has come out of this much better than the other high profile footballer who ranted on the radio - Jamie Carragher, who was trying to defend his retirement from international football because he could not get into the team and subsequent flack.
''I think when Lampard was being accused of being a bad father he had to respond, maybe the radio was the wrong vehicle''
If he was accused of being a bad father, the way to respond is by being showing his kids - the only ones who really matter in all this - that he is a good father to them. Not to get his megaphone out and protest to the world.
If I'd been his media advisor, I'd have told him to take them out for a day at Thorpe Park or something (not sure what age they are?) and tipped off a few Fleet Street photographers. That way his kids would have a good day out with their dad and the world could see him being a good father to them. Much more effective than ranting at some idiot on a radio station, which, of course, only drew attention to the original accusations.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]''I think when Lampard was being accused of being a bad father he had to respond, maybe the radio was the wrong vehicle''
If he was accused of being a bad father, the way to respond is by being showing his kids - the only ones who really matter in all this - that he is a good father to them. Not to get his megaphone out and protest to the world.
If I'd been his media advisor, I'd have told him to take them out for a day at Thorpe Park or something (not sure what age they are?) and tipped off a few Fleet Street photographers. That way his kids would have a good day out with their dad and the world could see him being a good father to them. Much more effective than ranting at some idiot on a radio station, which, of course, only drew attention to the original accusations.
I'm not sure you understand this - by what right does this hack have to rake over Frank Lampard's private life. Lampard is right to call this guy out and it's time that we gave this over-analysing of celebrities in the media a rest.
''I'm not sure you understand this - by what right does this hack have to rake over Frank Lampard's private life...it's time that we gave this over-analysing of celebrities in the media a rest.''
BFR, totally agree with the latter comment and if you read the thread you will see that I said ''Don't you just hate our celebrity culture and the tabloid journalism that feeds it ...in which we know far more about the private lives of public figures than is necessary or desirable.'' So I am not sure what it is I don't understand?
But in response to your question what ''right'' does this idiotic radio presenter have - well, within the constraints of libel and defamation laws, we have a free press and broadcasting. The argument was surely about the effectiveness of Lampard's' rebuttal. What I was suggesting was that if he wanted to tell the world he is a good father there are more effective ways and actions would speak louder than words.
Persoanlly, I have no idea if he is a good father. It's not really my business, although I hope he is. But I'm not going to believe he is just because he says he is on the radio. On the other hand, if I saw a picture of him and his kids laughing and having fun on a day out at , say, Thorpe Park, then I'd be inclined to believe him. That was the point I was making!
I agree with pretty much everything you say on this thread Nigel. I think people like the fact that a public figure stood up to an odious presenter, and that is fair enough. But, I think Lampard got away very lightly. A smarter interviewer could well have turned given him a very hard time. The bloke was obviously good at hammering a target that wasn't answering back and lost his bottle when faced with a real life human being answering back.
I reckon a more Paxmanesque interviewer might have asked (when Frank rambled aboout doing everything for his kids and how when parties split up that living arrangements had to change), why Frank didn't move himself out of the family home until permanent arragements were sorted out, particularly given the split was caused by him getting caught playing not one, but two away fixtures.
I'm also not comfortable with the way he ties his mother's death into all of this either. Other people lose a parent, but manage not to go on a shagathon and evict their children. I'm not saying it's not something that has profoundly affected him, but the public consumption and expression of grief that (seemed to me) to start with Diana is just completely alien to me, and somehow doesn't seem appropriate.
Comments
Yes, but the problem is that once you get dragged into the brawl and issue a first denial then you put yourself in a position of having to deny every story that appears because people will say, "Well, he denied that first story but he is not denying this one so it must be true!"
It's frustrating but I think that a dignified silence is best and you can then go out and use a platform of your own choice (ie a friendly chat show or interview, whatever) to make your counter-argument if you choose.
Notice how Paul McCartney won his PR game with that one-legged psycho by staying out of the press and above the fray whilst letting her grab the headlines and destroy herself? That's the way to do it.
Yeah and he also bought her a plane for Christmas........and a Phillips Lady Shave for the other leg!
Lampard has come out of this much better than the other high profile footballer who ranted on the radio - Jamie Carragher, who was trying to defend his retirement from international football because he could not get into the team and subsequent flack.
If he was accused of being a bad father, the way to respond is by being showing his kids - the only ones who really matter in all this - that he is a good father to them. Not to get his megaphone out and protest to the world.
If I'd been his media advisor, I'd have told him to take them out for a day at Thorpe Park or something (not sure what age they are?) and tipped off a few Fleet Street photographers. That way his kids would have a good day out with their dad and the world could see him being a good father to them. Much more effective than ranting at some idiot on a radio station, which, of course, only drew attention to the original accusations.
I'm not sure you understand this - by what right does this hack have to rake over Frank Lampard's private life. Lampard is right to call this guy out and it's time that we gave this over-analysing of celebrities in the media a rest.
BFR, totally agree with the latter comment and if you read the thread you will see that I said ''Don't you just hate our celebrity culture and the tabloid journalism that feeds it ...in which we know far more about the private lives of public figures than is necessary or desirable.'' So I am not sure what it is I don't understand?
But in response to your question what ''right'' does this idiotic radio presenter have - well, within the constraints of libel and defamation laws, we have a free press and broadcasting. The argument was surely about the effectiveness of Lampard's' rebuttal. What I was suggesting was that if he wanted to tell the world he is a good father there are more effective ways and actions would speak louder than words.
Persoanlly, I have no idea if he is a good father. It's not really my business, although I hope he is. But I'm not going to believe he is just because he says he is on the radio. On the other hand, if I saw a picture of him and his kids laughing and having fun on a day out at , say, Thorpe Park, then I'd be inclined to believe him. That was the point I was making!
I reckon a more Paxmanesque interviewer might have asked (when Frank rambled aboout doing everything for his kids and how when parties split up that living arrangements had to change), why Frank didn't move himself out of the family home until permanent arragements were sorted out, particularly given the split was caused by him getting caught playing not one, but two away fixtures.
I'm also not comfortable with the way he ties his mother's death into all of this either. Other people lose a parent, but manage not to go on a shagathon and evict their children. I'm not saying it's not something that has profoundly affected him, but the public consumption and expression of grief that (seemed to me) to start with Diana is just completely alien to me, and somehow doesn't seem appropriate.