Have we got a RL Joey Barton ?

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, East Hull Robins said:

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.

I remember this forum when Angela Powers was talking about baby changing facilities.

That was quite revealing in terms of opinions at the time.

It is good that we've moved on in many ways.

[Impartial Observer]

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I remember this forum when Angela Powers was talking about baby changing facilities.

 

 

Was to do with coaches spitting their dummies out?

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, East Hull Robins said:

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.

I almost addressed this in my post, but assumed it was understood that we aren't talking about individual criticism of individual pundits. Jeez, look how controversial Eddie and Stevo were over the years. 

What we are talking about is criticism of individuals which then becomes of groups as a whole, which is what has happened in the JB and JD instances. And when people use arguments about box-ticking etc. they are doing the same, assuming certain demographics can only get the role due to political reasons.

I did think about the difference between football and RL too, as this thread has shown, broadly speaking I think as a sport we do ok with the modern viewpoints, in general I think we have fewer extremes than the likes of football which comes with its huge fanbase. I do think many RL fans are a little bit more accepting of this kind of thing, despite our fanbase sometimes being perceived as old fashioned.

[Dunbar]

On 31/01/2024 at 14:25, ELBOWSEYE said:

Surely Clare Balding and Helen Skelton were established presenters and were excellent when covering RL the others I agree, and some of the white middle aged men were poor. 

I don't agree with the views of Barton or Deveraux but it should be not a box ticking exercise.

 

On 31/01/2024 at 17:26, Dave T said:

It's better to be honest, with lines like your last one, you probably are aligned with their views. 

 

23 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Poor comment, always regarded you with fair views. You have never met me and I find that very offensive.

I know that the two of you have exchanged further posts on this and it not my intention to mediate but reading through the comments there is clearly a challenge here in the perception of what people are writing.

This phrase ‘box ticking’ is an emotive one.

This is my view on it.

Have the likes of Sky, TNT, BBC etc deliberately recruited more female presenters and pundits to their sports coverage – particularly those previously male dominated sports such as football?

The answer to that is undoubtably yes.

My business has diversity as one of its stated objectives in recruitment.  This in itself of course is a good thing and diversity objectives are often used to rectify an imbalance in representation or diversity.

The problem comes when an individual is pointed at and described as a box ticking hire as we are seeing in some posts on social media.  The bottom line is that all hires in every role differ in quality and if someone works out then great, but if someone else is not as good then it is not fair to just point at them and say they are a box ticking hire.

There are plenty of RL pundits we have criticised and there are plenty of male football pundits that get stick – many of which were very very good players – and none of them get labelled a token hire.

This is why grouping people is poor.  If a female pundit is (perceived as) poor then that is just the same as a male pundit.  They are just poor, that is all.

And I say perceived because at the heart of this it is all just opinion.  We have enough threads on here discussing RL pundits to know that it is all about taste, one person will say someone is awful and another will say that they are their favourite.

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

 

 

I know that the two of you have exchanged further posts on this and it not my intention to mediate but reading through the comments there is clearly a challenge here in the perception of what people are writing.

This phrase ‘box ticking’ is an emotive one.

This is my view on it.

Have the likes of Sky, TNT, BBC etc deliberately recruited more female presenters and pundits to their sports coverage – particularly those previously male dominated sports such as football?

The answer to that is undoubtably yes.

My business has diversity as one of its stated objectives in recruitment.  This in itself of course is a good thing and diversity objectives are often used to rectify an imbalance in representation or diversity.

The problem comes when an individual is pointed at and described as a box ticking hire as we are seeing in some posts on social media.  The bottom line is that all hires in every role differ in quality and if someone works out then great, but if someone else is not as good then it is not fair to just point at them and say they are a box ticking hire.

There are plenty of RL pundits we have criticised and there are plenty of male football pundits that get stick – many of which were very very good players – and none of them get labelled a token hire.

This is why grouping people is poor.  If a female pundit is (perceived as) poor then that is just the same as a male pundit.  They are just poor, that is all.

And I say perceived because at the heart of this it is all just opinion.  We have enough threads on here discussing RL pundits to know that it is all about taste, one person will say someone is awful and another will say that they are their favourite.

I agree with your post. I posted on one of these threads the issue I have with the box ticking point, it is a modern way of dragging people down in the same way women are dismissed as sleeping their way into positions. 

In this specific instance, the use of. It followed shortly after the use of the word woke too. 

Edited February 1 by Dave T

[Fly-By-TheWire]

59 minutes ago, Dave T said:

the use of the word woke too

Is it not true that the very interpretation of the word 'woke' is subjective though?   I understand the term to originally apply to racial injustice / inequality, with it now referring to general inequality.   However, its use often doesn't make sense to me.   Obviously, I don't want to drift a rugby thread into politics, but let me give a quick example:

A developing nation (Qatar) holds the Soccer World Cup.   Qatar is a society that would be considered relatively 'new' compared to established civilisations.   In fact only two generations ago a good number of its population had a primitive life in tents in the desert, a simple life (like many developing societies) that revolved around strict adherence to a religious text.   In this belief system, homosexuality is considered a no-go, a belief subscribed to almost certainly by most of the population.   Subsequently, during the World Cup, a lot of people in well-developed 'modern' civilisations denounced those beliefs as not aligning with their own.   The Qataris and other fundamentally religious types in developing nations weren't 'woke', so to speak.   

However, the 'modern' societies that us 'woke heroes' hail from had over 2000 years of tweaking their development to get to the point of accepting homosexuality as normal.   You can't expect the Qataris (or any developing, and fundamentally religious society) to suddenly let some self-righteous outsiders who perceive themselves to be superior, challenge what is inscribed on an entire society's life stone?   And isn't that the very point of 'woke' - to prevent persecution of the few by the many and promote acceptance?

I think this is why the word 'woke' has come to be used by so many as a pejorative.   It's not that a bunch of people disagree with diversity, or social justice (yes, I know there are those few extremists - and there always will be), it's just that they are fed up of certain people claiming to be 'woke' and tolerant of others, when in fact they are just picking and choosing which things to be tolerant of.   They are often just as intolerant as their opposing sides.   I suspect this is the angle ElbowsEye  and some others are coming from.

Maybe 'woke' should be re-certified in some official way to mean:   "I have my opinions, but I respect yours are different and will try to empathise with your feelings, because every single person is different".

Anyway, sorry for such a long waffle.   Hope I didn't send anyone to sleep 

Edited February 1 by Fly-By-TheWire

[RigbyLuger]

The people who tend to say stuff is "woke" are doing so in a derogatory way.

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

 

 

I know that the two of you have exchanged further posts on this and it not my intention to mediate but reading through the comments there is clearly a challenge here in the perception of what people are writing.

This phrase ‘box ticking’ is an emotive one.

This is my view on it.

Have the likes of Sky, TNT, BBC etc deliberately recruited more female presenters and pundits to their sports coverage – particularly those previously male dominated sports such as football?

The answer to that is undoubtably yes.

My business has diversity as one of its stated objectives in recruitment.  This in itself of course is a good thing and diversity objectives are often used to rectify an imbalance in representation or diversity.

The problem comes when an individual is pointed at and described as a box ticking hire as we are seeing in some posts on social media.  The bottom line is that all hires in every role differ in quality and if someone works out then great, but if someone else is not as good then it is not fair to just point at them and say they are a box ticking hire.

There are plenty of RL pundits we have criticised and there are plenty of male football pundits that get stick – many of which were very very good players – and none of them get labelled a token hire.

This is why grouping people is poor.  If a female pundit is (perceived as) poor then that is just the same as a male pundit.  They are just poor, that is all.

And I say perceived because at the heart of this it is all just opinion.  We have enough threads on here discussing RL pundits to know that it is all about taste, one person will say someone is awful and another will say that they are their favourite.

If there is a diversity clause to hirings, then minority recruitments are a box-ticking drive.

I am in favour of women being there, but I amn't keen on DEI.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

If there is a diversity clause to hirings, then minority recruitments are a box-ticking drive.

I am in favour of women being there, but I amn't keen on DEI.

The lack of diversity that many industries at all levels has historically seen suggests that they haven't been hiring the best people, there has been bias to hire people that look a certain way, sound a certain way, behave a certain way, think a certain way. 

These drives encourage businesses to actually hire better people by encouraging widening the search area. 

[Fly-By-TheWire]

Just now, Dave T said:

there has been bias to hire people that look a certain way, sound a certain way, behave a certain way, think a certain way

Barry and Terry from Sky are offended by this comment!

[StandOffHalf]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The lack of diversity that many industries at all levels has historically seen suggests that they haven't been hiring the best people, there has been bias to hire people that look a certain way, sound a certain way, behave a certain way, think a certain way. 

These drives encourage businesses to actually hire better people by encouraging widening the search area. 

I have no problem with Equality of Opportunity. 

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I have no problem with Equality of Opportunity. 

And we are giving women the same opportunity as men to be sports pundits.

So everyone is happy.

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I have no problem with Equality of Opportunity. 

 

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

And we are giving women the same opportunity as men to be sports pundits.

So everyone is happy.

Sports punditry is a really good example of how changing thinking can be for the better. Previously a requirement would be that you would have to have had a good career in the men's sport to commentate on RL. Yet now we accept that maybe a pundit doesn't have to be a mens SL player at all. And the view seems to be generally positive. 

So we have a fairer environment women can now get these gigs, and many enjoy their input. 

Without these drives and campaigns, we'd still be having the same old people. 

[StandOffHalf]

19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

And we are giving women the same opportunity as men to be sports pundits.

So everyone is happy.

I am happy that we have good women pundits. I enjoy listening to Cunningham and Forsell.

I am against Equality of Outcome/DEI as it shoe-horns individuals into a bracket according to race, sex, etc.

I (try to) judge the pundits on how they present themselves as individuals. I think they should be employed as individuals, not tokens.

Edited February 1 by StandOffHalf

[Dunbar]

I'm watching the Wolves vs. Man Utd. game tonight.

Good game, good presentation and good commentary.  And literally just noticed the summariser is a woman.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Everyone has got to start somewhere in life.

I’m sure it will all seem normal enough in 10-20 years time.

Theh we’lll reflect that all flapping about females as pundits in sport will look a bit daft.

[JohnM]

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm watching the Wolves vs. Man Utd. game tonight.

Good game, good presentation and good commentary.  And literally just noticed the summariser is a woman.

I have a mind to report that highly offensive post. Watching Manchester United? That's disgraceful

[north yorks trinity]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I almost addressed this in my post, but assumed it was understood that we aren't talking about individual criticism of individual pundits. Jeez, look how controversial Eddie and Stevo were over the years. 

What we are talking about is criticism of individuals which then becomes of groups as a whole, which is what has happened in the JB and JD instances. And when people use arguments about box-ticking etc. they are doing the same, assuming certain demographics can only get the role due to political reasons.

I did think about the difference between football and RL too, as this thread has shown, broadly speaking I think as a sport we do ok with the modern viewpoints, in general I think we have fewer extremes than the likes of football which comes with its huge fanbase. I do think many RL fans are a little bit more accepting of this kind of thing, despite our fanbase sometimes being perceived as old fashioned.

There's nothing wrong with box ticking, as long as the boxes are well considered such as, for example, ensuring that some demographics aren't overlooked just because is was the custom to overlook them in the past. I believe you made a similar point much earlier in the thread. 

I'm happy for people to criticise the inclusion of certain boxes to be ticked but let's not let that become a criticism of the whole genre of box ticking.

[meast]

I actually think the females in RL broadcasting are sometimes far better and more eloquent than the males and make the game more appealing.

I haven't watched much of sky's coverage in the last few years but whenever I see the likes of Skelton, Priim, Arnold, Cunningham, Forsell etc I think they are great, I saw/ heard Emily Rudge and Faye Gaskin and thought they spoke well too.

Some of the male pundits and commentators just come out with the same tired clichéd stuff every week and aren't very insightful at all, or just yap constantly.

However, I find a lot of the females in football off putting, but then again so are the males, maybe it's because football isn't all that exciting anymore and they try too hard to make it sound exciting.

I think we are blessed and extremely lucky to have so many brilliant females in our sport and we should be extremely proud of that.

 

[Futtocks]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

 

Sports punditry is a really good example of how changing thinking can be for the better. Previously a requirement would be that you would have to have had a good career in the men's sport to commentate on RL. Yet now we accept that maybe a pundit doesn't have to be a mens SL player at all. And the view seems to be generally positive. 

So we have a fairer environment women can now get these gigs, and many enjoy their input. 

Without these drives and campaigns, we'd still be having the same old people. 

The restaurant critic Jay Rayner runs regular writing courses and his main message is that you have to be a good writer first and an expert second. If you're an expert who can't articulate what you know in a readable manner, people won't read your work.

This also applies to broadcasting. Baz'n'Tez have decades of experience, but have struggled for years to say anything original, entertaining or thought-provoking. You could make a very strong argument for employing someone articulate, perceptive and witty, but with less  actual RL experience.

[EggFace]

2 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

I am happy that we have good women pundits. I enjoy listening to Cunningham and Forsell.

I am against Equality of Outcome/DEI as it shoe-horns individuals into a bracket according to race, sex, etc.

I (try to) judge the pundits on how they present themselves as individuals. I think they should be employed as individuals, not tokens.

6 Nations start tomorrow on bot BBC and ITV....I prefer the BBC lot both sexes.

So about mentioning the Union.

[StandOffHalf]

34 minutes ago, EggFace said:

6 Nations start tomorrow on bot BBC and ITV....I prefer the BBC lot both sexes.

So about mentioning the Union.

I don't really get the relevance, but I also generally prefer the BBC union panellists over the ITV ones.

Edited February 1 by StandOffHalf

[Hopie]

On 31/01/2024 at 08:19, Dave T said:

Best person is highly subjective. There are a couple of important points here. 

1. If we just went for the 'best' team, then we'd just have the same people presenting every game, a little like we did when Eddie and Stevo were around. It's an outdated approach, and they clearly weren't the best around, they met certain requirements. It's interesting that people weren't trotting out the 'best people for the job' line back then. 

2. Representation is very important. We have under-representational of many demographics, and a really good starting point in improving that is to use these people in entirely fitting environments I. E. women in women's rugby, people with disabilities in wheelchair RL. And absolutely beyond that too into the men's game. 

People do seem to completely miss the point on representation, and that is that these pundits are t about representing the players, they are representing the viewer. They are explaining for our benefit, they are entertaining us, and the sooner people accept that audiences are not solely made of grumpy middle aged white men, the quicker we'll move on. 

And my final point heee is that if we stick to the tried and tested middle aged white man in the name of 'best for the job', then we miss out on some superb talent. The diversity we have seen in recent years has seen some absolute gems uncovered. Having the likes of Balding, Skelton, Priim, Cunningham and Co involved has been a breath of fresh air and should be celebrated. 

Touching on the wheelchair coverage of the World Cup, I thought JJ Chalmers was an outstanding presenter, and I'd love to see him more involved in RL. 

I really liked Chalmers on the BBC coverage, I've seen him report on other sports too and felt he was always on the lower profile coverage slots and deserved better. I think he is good enough to present any sports show, and his style works. I'd have been happy to see him present coverage of any game in the World Cups, not just the Wheelchair and that felt odd. 
In the same way, the BBC usually have the same female commentator on the women's internationals who is really poor, if there were two men's games on the TV on the same day I don't think she would be in the top 2 choices for those, so she shouldn't be picked when there are 2 games and one is men's and one is women's. It doesn't always have to be the same person, but some kind of hierarchy of quality is good. 
Again during the world cup final, England v France, they had several summarisers who were ex-players of the running game and didn't know the rules. They were clearly not the best choice for the job, so not sure why they were there, as the viewing public needed someone who knew the rules to share some insight into referee decisions.

 
There is clearly a balance here, its true that certain demographics have been excluded from opportunities in society as a whole, and in sport and the media specifically, and still are. However to dismiss criticism of individuals as less worthwhile or honest because they lie within certain demographics is also foolish. The comments about "woke" and "box-ticking" don't ring true for me but I can see where they come from. There is a bit from the latter, and there are also those who benefit from suggesting that there is some kind of "agenda" going on, either as a money making scheme, or as a distraction form other things. Before someone listens to that kind of talk, ask why they are saying it, and what they are trying to gain.

[Dave T]

11 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

I am happy that we have good women pundits. I enjoy listening to Cunningham and Forsell.

I am against Equality of Outcome/DEI as it shoe-horns individuals into a bracket according to race, sex, etc.

I (try to) judge the pundits on how they present themselves as individuals. I think they should be employed as individuals, not tokens.

When that argument was the accepted view, it delivered a lack of diversity. 

[Dave T]

9 hours ago, meast said:

 

However, I find a lot of the females in football off putting, but then again so are the males, maybe it's because football isn't all that exciting anymore and they try too hard to make it sound exciting.

I think this is part of the point, there isn't anything that really makes women stand out against male pundits, many are good, many are bad, same as the men, based on people's preferences. Those raising issues specifically with women pundits aren't doing it just because of quality of punditry. 

I agree about the quality of football punditry, I think there are so many matches covered that a lot of pundits really are mediocre at best. I find very few watchable.