Pathetic BBC

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:37 am

Bleaklow wrote:
Skin_and_Muscle wrote:Well, you're not.
S&M, I did mean whilst I was at the BBC, not in normal life. :smt002

I forgot to include 'male' in my self-description.
It always seems like a strange comment. The primary role of a public broadcaster in a liberal democracy is to offer a platform to a variety of people and views. White, heterosexual males are in a fairly privileged position of being well represented in life, generally, so it would make sense for the BBC to have a different purview.

Whether or not they do is another matter. Given prominent positions going to vocal conservatives, I'm not sure you can say there's a danger of the BBC being beholden to the 'liberal-left' (whatever that means). For instance, it seems far happier to revel in Labour strife because, shock horror, people have different opinions on certain matters, than they are on reporting on the disgraceful showing of the Tories during a debate on a matter of sex equality (at one point, they only had 5 members on the benches).

I don't think you and jonlin have anything to worry about.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

jonlin
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by jonlin » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:42 am

Skin_and_Muscle wrote:
jonlin wrote:The BBC is run for and on the behalf of the Liberal left. You have interest in a sport that they see as elitist, attended by people with constructive opinions. You are not their audience.
Of course it is. Peter Hitchens told you so.

Who's Peter Hitchens? Skin and Muscle.

fleabane
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5170
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: Occitanie

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by fleabane » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:46 am

Time to move this into the chit-chat forum.
Valhalla I am coming!

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:47 am

jonlin wrote:
Skin_and_Muscle wrote:
jonlin wrote:The BBC is run for and on the behalf of the Liberal left. You have interest in a sport that they see as elitist, attended by people with constructive opinions. You are not their audience.
Of course it is. Peter Hitchens told you so.

Who's Peter Hitchens? Skin and Muscle.
No-one, just a paranoid Daily Mailer.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

MrPartridge
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:21 pm

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by MrPartridge » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:04 am

The thing I love about this discussion board is that it allows you to disagree!

Bang on Off Piste Tiger:
At least BBC Radio Leicester give The Tigers good coverage
BBC covered the entire game live on the radio! What more do you want?

As for it not appearing on the BBC sports news… well put yourself in the place of the BBC editor… you have FA Cup highlights, Mo Farah highlights and darts highlights to show or a caption with Tigers 30 Saints 27 on… what makes better telly?

I went to Cheltenham races on New Year's Day and that got virtually no TV news coverage and the attendance was 50,000+. Did it bother me… not a jot!

Oh yes… and people seem to have forgotten… England's home 6 Nations games are on ITV this year, so I'm not clear why people are suggesting some sort of 6 Nations BBC bias?

Iain
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8161
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:39 pm
Location: Market Harborough

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by Iain » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:20 am

MrPartridge wrote:
Oh yes… and people seem to have forgotten… England's home 6 Nations games are on ITV this year, so I'm not clear why people are suggesting some sort of 6 Nations BBC bias?
Oh no.... I'd forgotten about that. :smt037

tigercaspian
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by tigercaspian » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:20 pm

Oh lord, I'd forgotten that too.
But to bring things back to my original point and to answer Mr P, my point was that a national sport that attracts good crowds should get more exposure from the BBC.
I would expect Radio Leicester to give the Club (and the cricket and the soccer) substantial support. If they won't, no one will.

Noddy555
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2823
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:32 pm

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by Noddy555 » Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:55 pm

BBC have been pathetic at sport since the London Olympics of 2012, they are so intent on holding on to star events such as the FA cup final, Wimbledon and the open golf that there has been little enough room for anything else and their coverage of winter sports such as my favourites as Ski jumping and Biathlon is a joke. Thank god I can view both Euro sport channels on my sky platform.

piebaps
Tiger Cub
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:39 pm
Location: Ramsey, Isle of Man

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by piebaps » Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:36 pm

While I don't disagree Nod (esp biathlon :smt023 ) BBC no longer have the Open Golf.
Pieus et bapus

mol2
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3644
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:48 pm
Location: Cosby

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by mol2 » Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:10 pm

Skin_and_Muscle wrote:
Bleaklow wrote:
Skin_and_Muscle wrote:Well, you're not.
S&M, I did mean whilst I was at the BBC, not in normal life. :smt002

I forgot to include 'male' in my self-description.
It always seems like a strange comment. The primary role of a public broadcaster in a liberal democracy is to offer a platform to a variety of people and views. White, heterosexual males are in a fairly privileged position of being well represented in life, generally, so it would make sense for the BBC to have a different purview.

Whether or not they do is another matter. Given prominent positions going to vocal conservatives, I'm not sure you can say there's a danger of the BBC being beholden to the 'liberal-left' (whatever that means). For instance, it seems far happier to revel in Labour strife because, shock horror, people have different opinions on certain matters, than they are on reporting on the disgraceful showing of the Tories during a debate on a matter of sex equality (at one point, they only had 5 members on the benches).

I don't think you and jonlin have anything to worry about.
I would have thought that their remit was (or should be) to reflect the wishes of their licence payers and to deliver a reasonable level of coverage within the finances available to them. To favour one group over another is discriminatory. Rugby may be assumed to be elitist in parts of England but I would argue that there are probably more rugby fans in the East Mids than in Scotland and probably Wales interested in the Tigers:Saints match than any of the club fixtures that got TV mentions in Scotland or Wales news.

Just because the game was watched by predominantly middle aged men and women with no prejudices about whether they sit or stand next to someone of different sex or race, orientation without starting a fight if they support the opposing side doesn't mean that that a major sporting event should be ignored.

Skin_and_Muscle
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: London

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by Skin_and_Muscle » Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:49 pm

mol2 wrote:
Skin_and_Muscle wrote:
It always seems like a strange comment. The primary role of a public broadcaster in a liberal democracy is to offer a platform to a variety of people and views. White, heterosexual males are in a fairly privileged position of being well represented in life, generally, so it would make sense for the BBC to have a different purview.

Whether or not they do is another matter. Given prominent positions going to vocal conservatives, I'm not sure you can say there's a danger of the BBC being beholden to the 'liberal-left' (whatever that means). For instance, it seems far happier to revel in Labour strife because, shock horror, people have different opinions on certain matters, than they are on reporting on the disgraceful showing of the Tories during a debate on a matter of sex equality (at one point, they only had 5 members on the benches).

I don't think you and jonlin have anything to worry about.
I would have thought that their remit was (or should be) to reflect the wishes of their licence payers and to deliver a reasonable level of coverage within the finances available to them. To favour one group over another is discriminatory. Rugby may be assumed to be elitist in parts of England but I would argue that there are probably more rugby fans in the East Mids than in Scotland and probably Wales interested in the Tigers:Saints match than any of the club fixtures that got TV mentions in Scotland or Wales news.

Just because the game was watched by predominantly middle aged men and women with no prejudices about whether they sit or stand next to someone of different sex or race, orientation without starting a fight if they support the opposing side doesn't mean that that a major sporting event should be ignored.
The point bleaklow made had a more general implication that distinguished it from the matter about rugby reporting. For what it's worth, I think it's strange not to have full sports coverage as all sport is, ultimately, equally trivial.
Progress requires that the fears of both sides be more fully aired, not that one side wins.

LittleBigG
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 121
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:00 pm

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by LittleBigG » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:03 pm

I guess people would just prefer the coverage to fall in line with popularity, which I must admit it appears not to in the national news. I'm guessing this would be skewed further still in the local regions such as the West Country and the East Midlands

tigercaspian
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by tigercaspian » Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:47 pm

Thanks LBG, put's my OP nicely in perspective.

biffer
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1568
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:35 pm

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by biffer » Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:52 am

Bleaklow wrote:I didn't see the news but I can understand your frustration. The BBC is going the same mardy way as Sky, i.e. if they're not covering it, they're not interested in it. They almost see it as advertising for the opposition if they report on something they don't have.

I've just watched the Tigers match again and noticed a very short post-match analysis and no chat with Cockers. This was obviously due to BT Sports being desperate to get to the blessed football asap. We could quite easily have kicked off at 3pm yesterday, had a 30 minute build-up on BT Sports as opposed to the 45 minutes we had and then there would have been sufficient time for a decent post mortem.

Rocket science? I don't think so.
However, just to provide a slight counter-argument (although I mostly agree with you) BT's rugby tonight programme at least mentions the scores in the Top14 and Pro12, neither of which they have any rights to. That show is also vastly superior to anything that Sky ever did and to me has a decent rugby 'feel' about it.

wormus
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:23 pm
Location: "The Home of the Game!"

Re: Pathetic BBC

Post by wormus » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:25 am

Iain wrote:
MrPartridge wrote:
Oh yes… and people seem to have forgotten… England's home 6 Nations games are on ITV this year, so I'm not clear why people are suggesting some sort of 6 Nations BBC bias?
Oh no.... I'd forgotten about that. :smt037
Oh no it's not all on ITV it is split with BBC1 please check the TV schedules for matches below and the presenters, at least Stuart Barnes is not there!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... nship.html

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BrightonTiger, Jimmy Skitz, LtPigeon, Not a jock and 2 guests