Thursday 12 November 2009
Next: The 100 Metres Arse Buggering Event
The BBC need look no further than noted Biased BBC social commentator Martin next time they need a new Head of Sport.
Martin does not agree with the news that The Ashes are likely to return to free-to-air TV in the future and suggests an alternative:
The BBC should cover minority sports,
I thought minorities got too much attention from the BBC?
millions of girls and women play Netball,
Millions of people go to mosques, but you're not very keen on them.
I appreciate you'd prefer to see the 100 metres arse buggering of 10 year old boys covered by the BBC
Before I reply, a question: How does it take place over 100 metres?
but most of us wouldn't.
It's the last thing you'd want to see, Martin. We all know that. Yes indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Is it me, or is the word "arse" redundant in the name of this enticing new sporting event? Could it be, perhaps, that Martin got an extra thrill just typing those letters out....
ReplyDeleteFar from being a 'beeboid', these days David Davis is most often to be seen pontificating about 'the papers' on Sky news (and insufferable he is, too).
ReplyDeleteIt's a difficult one, this (I speak as someone who subscribes to Sky purely for the sport.)
On the one hand, I would love to save myself the 40 odd quid a month, and I'd love to see cricket on terrestrial telly as it was in the old days to re-awaken the interest of the kids, as if it would.
On the other hand, the BBC on occasion struggled to broadcast Test matches in full (particularly during Wimbledon), and I do think there is something in the assertion that if you want the Ashes you should also take the England v Pakistan/Windies/NZ etc series as well.
Sky revolutionised cricket coverage in all sorts of ways. The coverage is now much deeper and better (Ch 4 played a part in this too, and I speak as the biggest fan I know of Jim Laker and Richie Benaud, and even Peter West) and also loads wider - I remember sitting in my flat in London watching the 1992(3? ish?) West Indies series broadcast from the West Indies, something the BBC had never done. I think I'm right in saying they never covered any overseas tour? OK, Sky may not have done it for the love of the game, but so what? They have done it, that's the point.
Sky also cover one dayers, 20-20s and even the County Championship, for goodness sake. In Rugby, where the BBC used to show the odd cup game, and the Six Nations, you can't drop a rugby ball without it being on telly these days.
That's before we even start on football (which I don't like, but there you go).
I read your response to the, er, odd rant from Martin and I felt you did yourself a disservice in your remarks about minority sports; again, maybe Sky do get the coverage cheap, and yes, they have a lot of airtime to fill. But you need that potential airtime knocking around for those days when you want to show a Test match and a Lions tour game and a Premiership football match all at the same time; as for not much money, no-one else in Britain is going to pay the British Netball Association or the speedway people or whoever the hell runs hockey anything at all.
So, difficult as it is, I come down on the side of Sky.
That place is more fun than I realised. It's just so much more interesting when you join in!
ReplyDeleteYou wait. After a while it just sucks your soul dry.
ReplyDeleteAs for Sky. Yes, point taken. It has done much to improve sports coverage. And the problem remains of just where a terrestrial tv broadcaster will put a 5 day cricket match (altough digital switchover may finally solve that)
But Sky also ruined interior decorating by giving footballers all that money. Charge over £1000 a month to pubs that want to show sport and NI pay little or no tax.
"I appreciate you'd prefer to see the 100 metres arse buggering of 10 year old boys covered by the BBC"
ReplyDeleteMartin has to be either
1 - Mentally ill
2 - Incredibly stupid
3 - A wind up merchant
Anon 12:46
ReplyDeleteWe've discussed this quite a lot. He's been at it so long with such a thoroughly-developed obnoxious character that the betting is against him being a spoof. Anyone with the wit and skill to develop an entity like that would have given up out of exhaustion some time ago or shown their hand and had a good laugh out of it. He pulled back from the turd-spattered edge during the last Vance purge on bad language, so he has enough control to behave himself when required. My betting is a personality disorder with a degree of insight.
I dunno - you call him out for being too OTT and he seems to back off, true he could be mentally ill, but to me he looks like a troll - I don't respond to him (as per DV's advice on you...)
ReplyDelete