Have we got a RL Joey Barton ?

[BringbackGB]

Sorry, unable to read the actual thread bombarded with adverts.  I'll try a different browser tomorrow.

[Impartial Observer]

13 hours ago, JohnM said:

"John Devereux reveals in his biography, out in a few weeks, Wales’ top rugby league stars were offered central contracts by WRU to come back to union during clandestine meeting after 15 a side code went Pro in 1996"

No doubt his tweet was him trying to get publicity for his book.

[Dave T]

It does look like some of his original tweets have been deleted now. 

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, Impartial Observer said:

No doubt his tweet was him trying to get publicity for his book.

Spot on.

His idea makes even less sense when you think about the costs involved to placate people!

[East Hull Robins]

I don’t necessarily think it’s a black and white answer. First thing I will say I think Joey Barton is acting as he is for self publicity and self gain, which is much the more immoral act. The age of social media and car crash engagement. 
 

I also think his underlying principle does have some merit, especially in football comms and insight. I think most people believe (and where I think RL has it spot on) is that roles should be given on the basis of meritocracy and not just diversity. Our female comms I think are all excellent and bring real value through both knowledge and experience. I’m not sure the same can get said for the football comms, which is to the detriment of the total offering. What is ghastly though is Barton’s ability to create pile ons and almost bully some of the females trying hard is uneccasary and frankly come to be expected from him, awful person. Barton has made it against females, when he should be making it about quality and highlighting male or female where it could be improved.
 

we should be able to have grown up conversations about some of the points he raised though without accusing people of been woke or knuckledraggers which this thread has, those that are providing that input and no better then him ultimately. 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, East Hull Robins said:

I don’t necessarily think it’s a black and white answer. First thing I will say I think Joey Barton is acting as he is for self publicity and self gain, which is much the more immoral act. The age of social media and car crash engagement. 
 

I also think his underlying principle does have some merit, especially in football comms and insight. I think most people believe (and where I think RL has it spot on) is that roles should be given on the basis of meritocracy and not just diversity. Our female comms I think are all excellent and bring real value through both knowledge and experience. I’m not sure the same can get said for the football comms, which is to the detriment of the total offering. What is ghastly though is Barton’s ability to create pile ons and almost bully some of the females trying hard is uneccasary and frankly come to be expected from him, awful person. Barton has made it against females, when he should be making it about quality and highlighting male or female where it could be improved.
 

we should be able to have grown up conversations about some of the points he raised though without accusing people of been woke or knuckledraggers which this thread has, those that are providing that input and no better then him ultimately. 

His point was that women had no role commenting on men’s sport. Not that some women should. It was, as he repeatedly said, no women.

There’s no debate to be had there.

[Tommygilf]

19 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

His point was that women had no role commenting on men’s sport. Not that some women should. It was, as he repeatedly said, no women.

There’s no debate to be had there.

Clearly though that is an extreme view in a wider debate. 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Clearly though that is an extreme view in a wider debate. 

I don't think he is an outlier among people who wish to continue a debate that ended a long while back.

[daz39]

I agree with most that the Ladies we have involved in broadcasting our sport are generally all excellent, they speak well, are clearly knowledgeable, are passionate about the sport and are in their roles because they are good at what they do.

Without wanting to get jumped on and apologies if this is worded wrong or doesn't sit with everyone but i cannot say the same about Football though, i feel some of them have no idea about the 2 teams they are working on and just read pre written stats or facts or just tend to use soundbytes or catchphrases that are familiar, there are also a couple of female commentators who basically shout theur way through a game, whether they have been told to make it sound exciting i dunno but if that's what they are trying to do they are not succeeding and i have found myself turning the game off as theur screeching is unbearable at times, though i will say when i watch Scottish Football, lower league mainly, the anchor and pundits on those shows are very easy to listen to and watch, unlike some of those at the top of the English game, saying that there are also male presenters/pundits/commentators in the mens game that grind my gears too.

I think, like with any job, they should have roles base on merit though and certainly not on Gender or how high in their sporrt they reached, bad commentators are bad commentators regardless of their sexual organs, and there's plenty about in all sports and walks of life!!.

[Tommygilf]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I don't think he is an outlier among people who wish to continue a debate that ended a long while back.

The debate "should women be involved in mens sport presentation" is over.

The debate over whether some people are being pushed to prominent positions despite not being very good is a very live debate. The Barton's etc are outliers, but there is a debate going on there.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

The debate "should women be involved in mens sport presentation" is over.

The debate over whether some people are being pushed to prominent positions despite not being very good is a very live debate. The Barton's etc are outliers, but there is a debate going on there.

That is also a very short debate: are some people working as co commentators or half time analysts (or whatevs) absolutely hopeless?

The answer is: yes, and that has always been the case and has bog all to do with whatever wittering nonsense about woke is being raised.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

That is also a very short debate: are some people working as co commentators or half time analysts (or whatevs) absolutely hopeless?

The answer is: yes, and that has always been the case and has bog all to do with whatever wittering nonsense about woke is being raised.

Well no it isn't that short, because quite clearly, and indeed it is advertised as a promotional aspect for Sky Sports etc, there has been a push for greater diversity in their TV lineups. There is a clear debate as to whether that has come at a cost of meritocratic quality and it doesn't take too long to see examples of this.

Extremists like Barton will say "this is why x group shouldn't be on x". However focusing on extreme opinions to suit one's own opinion of "the other side" never actually helps on any occasion - see all of social media ever. 

Equally, there is a debate to be had as to whether some other pundits/presenters, take Michael Owen or Sam Matterface for example, get just as much vitriolic and very unkind abuse for being terrible pundits but don't get the sympathy from other parts of the media and society because they don't form part of the recent push for diversity. In some respects, this is society doing what it has always done to public figures who are poor (when generally those figures were white males), but now are finding people are saying that is unacceptable coinciding with an increase in diversity.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

[1]Well no it isn't that short, because quite clearly, and indeed it is advertised as a promotional aspect for Sky Sports etc, there has been a push for greater diversity in their TV lineups. There is a clear debate as to whether that has come at a cost of meritocratic quality and it doesn't take too long to see examples of this.

[2] Extremists like Barton will say "this is why x group shouldn't be on x". However focusing on extreme opinions to suit one's own opinion of "the other side" never actually helps on any occasion - see all of social media ever. 

[3] Equally, there is a debate to be had as to whether some other pundits/presenters, take Michael Owen or Sam Matterface for example, get just as much vitriolic and very unkind abuse for being terrible pundits but don't get the sympathy from other parts of the media and society because they don't form part of the recent push for diversity. In some respects, this is society doing what it has always done to public figures who are poor (when generally those figures were white males), but now are finding people are saying that is unacceptable coinciding with an increase in diversity.

[1] Examples where someone of better quality has been denied a gig as a co commentator because of a need for diversity? Are there any in rugby league - to keep this back to Devereux's post?

[2] Barton is mainstream within the tiny percentage of people for whom such a debate is relevant.

[3] I'm not sure that Matterface or Owen themselves would claim they get remotely the same amount of abuse or specific kind of vitriol. After all, Owen may get comments that his punditry is filled with weird digressions and never goes beyond the superficial, but I'm not sure he gets thousands of comments every time questioning his right to even be there. I would say, in general terms, on the one hand, people like Owen get the kind of banter you can bounce back, whereas many female and/or black pundits get the kind of abuse often dismissed as banter by the people dishing it out.

But, again, there's no real debate here. Sports punditry on the TV and radio is not some meritocratic system and nor has it ever been.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, daz39 said:

Without wanting to get jumped on and apologies if this is worded wrong or doesn't sit with everyone but i cannot say the same about Football though, i feel some of them have no idea about the 2 teams they are working on and just read pre written stats or facts or just tend to use soundbytes or catchphrases that are familiar, there are also a couple of female commentators who basically shout theur way through a game, whether they have been told to make it sound exciting i dunno but if that's what they are trying to do they are not succeeding and i have found myself turning the game off as theur screeching is unbearable at times,

There are so many games in soccer that require co commenators and half time pundits that the pool of actually smart ones who can be smart for every game they cover is exhausted quickly and it's essentially only Pat Nevin anyway.

[Impartial Observer]

2 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

Spot on.

His idea makes even less sense when you think about the costs involved to placate people!

Maybe he was hoping it would be picked up by Radio Wales etc and they ask him to come on to explain, he says it is taken out of context etc and now let us talk about my book 

[JohnM]

Of course there's a debate to be had, unless one subscribes to the shutting down of debate of opinions one disagrees with.  The doctrine of  papal  forum infallibilty?

However, there are many places for such debates, and I don't think the forum is the place to hold it.   Not that censorship is required other than self-censorship on such highly controvertial issues.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Of course there's a debate to be had ...

On everything, all the time?

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Impartial Observer said:

Maybe he was hoping it would be picked up by Radio Wales etc and they ask him to come on to explain, he says it is taken out of context etc and now let us talk about my book 

I mean, I suspect he wrote it because he believes it, thought it was what everyone thinks cos the blokes down the boozer nod when he says it, and then found out that may not be the case.

[Impartial Observer]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I mean, I suspect he wrote it because he believes it, thought it was what everyone thinks cos the blokes down the boozer nod when he says it, and then found out that may not be the case.

Im more cynical, why didnt he jump on the Barton bandwagon? He does it just as his book is out.

[JohnM]

28 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

On everything, all the time?

Yes.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Yes.

That is debatable.

And thus you must debate me now.

Refusal to debate this debatable point will be taken as a sign of shutting down debatable debates.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

[1] Examples where someone of better quality has been denied a gig as a co commentator because of a need for diversity? Are there any in rugby league - to keep this back to Devereux's post?

[2] Barton is mainstream within the tiny percentage of people for whom such a debate is relevant.

[3] I'm not sure that Matterface or Owen themselves would claim they get remotely the same amount of abuse or specific kind of vitriol. After all, Owen may get comments that his punditry is filled with weird digressions and never goes beyond the superficial, but I'm not sure he gets thousands of comments every time questioning his right to even be there. I would say, in general terms, on the one hand, people like Owen get the kind of banter you can bounce back, whereas many female and/or black pundits get the kind of abuse often dismissed as banter by the people dishing it out.

But, again, there's no real debate here. Sports punditry on the TV and radio is not some meritocratic system and nor has it ever been.

1. No, as my first post on this thread points out.

2. He isn't though is he. I appreciate you're not your average sky sports news consumer, but he really isn't. 

3. Nobody ever bothered to ask them.

[JohnM]

42 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That is debatable.

And thus you must debate me now.

Refusal to debate this debatable point will be taken as a sign of shutting down debatable debates.

"However, there are many places for such debates, and I don't think the forum is the place to hold it.   Not that censorship is required other than self-censorship on such highly controvertial issues."

Life in the fast lane
Surely make you lose your mind
Life in the fast lane, yeah
Life in the fast lane
Everything, all the time
Life in the fast lane, uh-huh

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, East Hull Robins said:

I also think his underlying principle does have some merit, especially in football comms and insight. I think most people believe (and where I think RL has it spot on) is that roles should be given on the basis of meritocracy and not just diversity.

I think this is where this whole point falls down somewhat. Nobody has ever championed meritocracy when it was just a panel of white middle-aged men - it is a word being used by some to disguise what they mean. There can be no meritocracy here on this - it is all far too subjective. Let's be honest here, the basic requirement of being a pundit is to be able to sit/stand and talk about football on camera - which everyone employed can do (obviously some will post snide blooper vids to disprove this).

So based on that, everyone in these roles are qualified. Above that, it is all about opinions and preference. In one of my earlier posts I highlighted that imo JJ Chalmers is excellent, a couple of posters felt the opposite - and that's a perfect example of why this argument can't come down to 'meritocracy' because there is no hard and fast definition of what the best pundit/presenter is. 

So what we have is a wide range of pundits that will all have fans and haters. Anybody who starts to go down any kind of route discussing some of these being in role to tick boxes, or because companies are woke etc. deserve to be challenged. 

A lot of this is quite simple - many channels are trying to appeal to wider audiences, people seeing the involvement of people more like them, who represent them can be attractive to them, and tv companies know this. 

Dismissing women in roles as box ticking is highly offensive, and is the modern day "she's slept her way to the position". It shouldn't be left unchallenged.

[East Hull Robins]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think this is where this whole point falls down somewhat. Nobody has ever championed meritocracy when it was just a panel of white middle-aged men - it is a word being used by some to disguise what they mean. There can be no meritocracy here on this - it is all far too subjective. Let's be honest here, the basic requirement of being a pundit is to be able to sit/stand and talk about football on camera - which everyone employed can do (obviously some will post snide blooper vids to disprove this).

So based on that, everyone in these roles are qualified. Above that, it is all about opinions and preference. In one of my earlier posts I highlighted that imo JJ Chalmers is excellent, a couple of posters felt the opposite - and that's a perfect example of why this argument can't come down to 'meritocracy' because there is no hard and fast definition of what the best pundit/presenter is. 

So what we have is a wide range of pundits that will all have fans and haters. Anybody who starts to go down any kind of route discussing some of these being in role to tick boxes, or because companies are woke etc. deserve to be challenged. 

A lot of this is quite simple - many channels are trying to appeal to wider audiences, people seeing the involvement of people more like them, who represent them can be attractive to them, and tv companies know this. 

Dismissing women in roles as box ticking is highly offensive, and is the modern day "she's slept her way to the position". It shouldn't be left unchallenged.

I’m pretty sure people have been calling for change for Barry/terry/Phil Clarke for a number of years, as it’s simply not good enough. In the same way nobody is asking for Jenna Brooks or Jodie Cunningham to be removed, because they are good at it. Both different demographics, which kind of where your argument falls down in my opinion.