Showing posts with label women's football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's football. Show all posts

Saturday, 16 July 2022

Of one mind


As discussed on the Open Thread, the controversial BBC risked rousing racial tensions on BBC Two the other day, during the women's football:
“All starting 11 players and five substitutes who came onto the pitch were white, and that does point towards a lack of diversity in the women’s game in England,” said the BBC's Eilidh Barbour.

In fairness to Eilidh, she was introducing a report from BBC star pundit Alex Scott on the subject - a subject doubtless chosen by someone higher up the BBC food chain. Plus, given that she was seemingly reading from a script, she may not actually have written those words herself. So Julia might have been better saying, “Just extraordinary that someone at the BBC - whether it be the presenter herself or someone else - can write this and still be in his or her job! 

Alex Scott's report, and the discussion that followed, worked from the assumption that all 16 players being white is serious problem. Not one person dissented from that position. It was a very BBC segment, from its introduction, through the report to the closing chat. 

Monday, 4 July 2022

Gender politics and BBC Sport


The Spectator has a piece this afternoon on the BBC's promotion of women's football and how it's gender politics rather than the sport that 'energises' the BBC. 

Its author, Philip Patrick, asks:
But does the BBC know its place anymore? Its purpose is surely to report the news, which means covering sport (a form of news) on the basis of the level of interest in it, not using it as a vehicle to drive societal change.
Well, we're already well into extra time on that one, Patrick. The BBC might as well update its mission statement to “inform, educate, entertain and drive societal change”.

He also argues that the BBC's coverage of women's football harms women's football by “overhyping” it and that it's  “patronising” too, in that its commentators don't do what commentators on men's football do and speak their minds and say someone played badly if they played badly. It's more a case of a continual “upbeat” patting on the head by BBC commentators on women's football matches.

Audiences will watch it, as has been shown previously. So the BBC would be better letting it speak for itself and winning what audience it wins without being so endlessly 'BBC' about it. But they won't, will they?

On which theme, it's time to quote author of The Tribe Ben Cobley again:
Nice that we're going to have some football to watch this summer: the Women's Euros kicks off on Wednesday, it's being played in England and it's all live on the BBC. 

A shame that BBC Sport's fixture list doesn't show the venues where the games are being played. 

In details like this I think you can see the decline of the Beeb: a certain slackness and lack of rigour; not doing the basics. 

They're trying to change the world instead.

Saturday, 19 March 2022

50:50


Here's an interesting Twitter thread from someone called Marwood who identifies on his bio with William Clauston's Social Democratic Party:

Why is it you can’t move for women’s football coverage on the BBC website despite only an avg of 2K fans attending each game, Vs 40K with men’s Premier League?

You see something like Chelsea 10-0 Arsenal and think whaaatt, better check that out and then oh, double hat-trick by Sarah Smythe.

It is the political imposition of the BBC on a mission to ‘correct’ the patriarchy, and that a fair world would be same wages & attendance for men & women’s sport, which will never happen purely bc most ppl prefer the spectacle in seeing the physically best athletes compete.

Man Utd women’s sell tickets starting from £3. Avg attendance 1,891. Men’s tickets start from £98. Avg attendance 75,000. don’t know but I’m pretty sure this isn’t just sexism at play here.

The BBC’s “50:50 The Equality Project” (fwd by Tim Davie) aims to “better reflect the world around us”. They have 670 teams across the BBC using a data monitoring methodology that “monitor the number of men and women in their content to set benchmarks and track their progress”.

“In 2020, 27 Sport programmes began piloting the monitoring of their coverage of sporting events, from Premier League Football to Athletics. They are working towards equal representation of reporters, commentators, athletes and other contributors”. So there you have it.

June Sarpong - Director of Creative Diversity (salary £267,000) - “I raise up my voice - not so that I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard”. We are paying for this garbage.

Sarpong is part-time (3 days/wk, full time salary equiv. £445k) and her job so exhausting it leaves her free to rake in thousands more from book deals, corporate speaking events and her work as a diversity ambassador on the board of fashion firm Burberry.

In 2021 she said “there are benefits even if you come from a low income and you're white. You're never judged on your race” But her stated goal is “equal representation of reporters, commentators, athletes and other contributors”. She is de facto judging people on their race.

The 50:50 project's ambitions don't stop with the BBC. 100 outside orgs have signed up incl "public and private media, academia, public relations, law and corporations". June is "struck by 50:50’s simplicity and how it diversifies voice through something as simple as counting".

Affirmative action is now routine at the BBC, where this manifestation of identity politics is going to upset a lot of people. Kuenssberg and Andrew Marr’s replacement will come from an all-female shortlist.

Sunday, 30 June 2019

BBC news



The BBC has been in the news quite a bit this week. Here's a round-up of some of those stories.

1. Channel 4 has complained to Ofcom about the BBC's plans to expand its iPlayer streaming service to allow programmes to remain available for a year rather than for 30 days. Channel 4 believes it could harm the BBC's rivals (including itself). 

2. Though ending free licence fees for most over-75s, the BBC is spending more on its 'talent' this year than it did last year, with the amount spent rising from £148m to £157m. 

3. There are now three women in Top 10 of the BBC Rich List - Claudia Winkleman, Zoe Ball and Vanessa Feltz. Hurray!

4. Though ending free licence fees for most over-75s, the BBC will be spending £3m on branded mugs, magnets, hoodies and umbrellas - freebies to be given to staff and viewers to promote programmes and “corporate identities”.

5. Around 7 million people watched England’s win over Norway in the Women’s World Cup quarter-final - more than watched the men's FA Cup final. The BBC's promotion of women's football appears to be working.

6. The BBC got accused of caving into the Foreign Office over its apparent censoring of Boris's comments called the French 'turds' from a BBC Two documentary series. Apparently, the French aren't 'turds'.

7. Boris himself based the BBC at a hustings in Carlisle, calling it "the Brexit Bashing Corporation" and adding, “All of their highly expensive presenters mean that they can’t afford to look after over 75-year-olds when it comes to their TV licence.”

8. The SNP's deputy leader criticised the BBC for an infographic which appeared to minimise the scale of the SNP vote share in the European election. The BBC said that the bar chart was merely indicative, but the nationalists complained that the SNP bar was too short. They wrote an angry letter to the BBC. 

9. Emily Maitlis got into bother for letting her dog take up a seat on a busy GWR train from Cornwall to London. She responded with an article in The Times saying "Photos of my whippet in his own seat tell only half the story. The carriage was not full, and humans had dirtier feet on the upholstery". And her poor dog is poorly.

And that's all we have time for I'm afraid. Stay with us. Now for the weather with Tomasz Schafernaker...

Friday, 10 May 2019

Media round-up

On the whole, we source material from other blogs, press and media. I suppose it’s essentially churnalism, in that we regurgitate all sorts of news and views, but with a twist, as they say on The Great British Menu. Deconstructed fish ’n’ chips always goes down well. 

If it weren’t for our sidebar and various other online content, we’d be stuffed. If it weren’t for other blogs I certainly wouldn’t have a lot to say. To stave off dementia I might have to compose entertaining stories about our cat. Craig could seamlessly revert to blogging his favourite music and poetry and illustrate it with amusing videos of cats trying to squeeze themselves into tiny cardboard boxes. 

In the meantime, let’s persevere with the stolen goods. 

The Evening Standard has found yet another piece of the jigsaw that depicts Jeremy’s Corbyn’s antisemitism.   and yesterday Guido ‘had a little list’ of similar findings.

Melanie Phillips sums up recent ‘unsurprising’ examples of the media DOING WHAT COMES NATURALLY 
“A number of British media outlets led their reports with the false accusation that a pregnant Gazan woman and her 14-month-old baby had been killed by the Israeli strikes. In fact, as PIJ eventually admitted, they were killed by a malfunctioning rocket fired from Gaza. 
Some outlets corrected this error; others did not. None, though, pointed out that these particular casualties furnished graphic evidence that the Gazan warmongers weren’t only targeting Israeli innocents but using their own Gazan people as human shields by putting missiles in and around civilian homes – thus committing war crimes twice over. 

On Harry’s Place, we are treated to some nasty tweets by Mohammed T Akunjee whom the BBC apparently see as a credible guest. Here’s a nice one.

The Gatestone Institute has been featuring articles about Iran. Here, the author Majid Rafizadeh writes that Trump’s sanctions seem to be working.
“Feeling the pressure of sanctions on Iran, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, has also called on his group's fundraising arm "to provide the opportunity for jihad with money and also to help with this ongoing battle.”
Another piece addresses Iran’s persecution of Christians. Iran's 'Terror Factory' Targeting Christians by Uzay Bulut, and yet another tackles Iran’s expansionist aspirations.
“One of the primary revolutionary ideals to which the ruling clerics of the Islamic Republic of Iran are dedicated to upholding is not to limit the implementation of its version of Islamic laws to just Iran. The ruling clerics are also committed to exporting Iran's revolutionary principle and expanding the fundamentalist mission to other nations. 
How do they carry this out? By effectively taking over other countries. Lebanon, through Iran's proxy Hizballah, was the first. Then came Syria, and finally, Iraq -- with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip waiting in the wings. 
With each victory, the ruling mullahs of Iran have grown increasingly lethal and increasingly bold. At present, and for several years, Iran has set its sights on Yemen. 
This is not a random or new philosophy. This mission is part of Iran's constitution. Its preamble states that it "provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad.”

Why am I mentioning all this Iran stuff on a blog about BBC bias? Well, one reason is the way the BBC seems to carry out its deadpan impartiality to the nth degree. As if its policy is ‘über alles, avoid making value judgements’.

Last night I heard an item about an American-Iranian female football coach (Iranian-American coach Katayoun Khosrowyar) on BBC WS. She sounded jolly enlightened and liberated. 

However, the rules state that even in professional footy, the hijab is compulsory because the female body must be fully covered at all times, including during matches. It was duly acknowledged that this does restrict one’s ‘freedom of movement’, literally, but there wasn’t even a flicker, or a raised eyebrow to indicate doubt, dissent or curiosity about this, either from the lady herself or from the BBC anchor. Does the BBC demand impassive non-judgemental impartiality on all topics at all costs and above all else? 

It’s possible that a general atmosphere of stoic resignation to extreme religious dogma prevails in Iran amongst even the most liberal-minded citizens. But why do we have to ‘go along with it’ as if it’s a perfectly acceptable phenomenon? 

I know that’s a tiny, perhaps insignificant example of the kind of normalisation of Islam that one has come to expect from the BBC, but still, doesn’t the mind boggle at the idea of playing sport covered head-to-toe for ‘modesty’?

Mine does.