This topic contains 42 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by southlondonllad 3 weeks, 4 days ago.
Rather than person or persons at the BBC having an agenda, it is more likely that there are people with the sport of athletics that have an agenda in reporting stories that place the parts of those sport (i.e. the upper echelons) that get seen in the public eye in a poor light. Maybe such individuals may have an ulterior motive?
Nice of you Opinion Not Facts to join Eightlane and make a comment/post. I have a admit I struggled to decipher what your point was …but that’s me being think.
During the last 2 days many other media sites have rightly publish a short article on the good news that Jessica E has had another baby and linked it to her first baby and her Olympic Games comeback. Now you would have thought the dedicate BBC Athletic sports page would have reported it too ? But no…well not yet.. ..take a look at the BBC link :. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics
Is it athletics news? She is well retired. Many would moan if it was included in athletics section.
Take a note about where your Kelly Holmes story is from
Been posting on here for about 7 years, so hardly a newcomer. Btw, BBC posted the happy news of the new arrival at much the same time as other mainstream outlets and before her own website
No it didn’t, not on their dedicated Athletics website, and still haven’t ….What jumps out most to readers of the BBC ATHLETICS site ,I suggest, is not mostly positive Athletic news. Do your own compare to the two links below….one of which is the excellent BBC dedicated WOMENS only CRICKET sports page…And I say that as someone who personally dislikes cricket as a sport.
BBC ATHLETICS site click on http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics
BBC WOMENS CRICKET site click on http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/womens
Using caps to peddle your bullshit. Good work!
A bit rude Facts?
It’s only language. A bit of a PRUDE?
SouthLondon, That is a very good insight to the way the BBC operates. It is clear they are very selective about the news they choose to give prominence to, and the news they prefer to dampen down.
The epidemic of Mental Health disorders (reflected in the Kelly Holmes story) is one that interests me. It does appear that rather than reporting news, they are pushing a narrative which says “don’t worry about having a mental health issue, everyone will have them over a life time, its normal”.
Rather than encouraging people to be resilient, they urge them to seek help and talk about their problems.
Seeking help and talking about personal problems has the effect of magnifying them. That is obvious, yet the BBC are determined to find the victim, introduce them to the support groups and ensure the problem is stretched out and deepened to epidemic proportions.
In times gone by, society had leisure pursuits as an escape from the stresses of life. Since the creation of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, most leisure pursuits have become funded and regulated by government. Athletics is one such example where people with an interest in the sport see their most useful contribution as being the collection of England Athletics registrations fees. Many of these membership Secretaries never meet the athletes they are robbing.
The BBC’s determination to force Women’s Boxing, Rugby, Football or Cricket onto the wider population is just another symptom. It started out as encouraging women and girls to do more sport, by way of normalising sport for women. The outcome is BBC female football commentators sounding like the most stupid men, in order to fit into a male culture.
I think we are witnessing collective stupidity by the media.
But but but.
You realise the reason the BBC don’t pander to your bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic world view is because we live in a society of many different ways of life. I’m sure you are still disappointed the Fox news has been taken off the UK schedules.
How dare they programme women’s elite sport. Both the rugby and cricket world cup finals were fantastic games, easily equivalent to the male product. You realise the license fee doesn’t allow the BBC to spend the same as sky or BT. Covering events that 50% of the population can relate to is not a bad thing.
A few posts ago they were being accused of putting athletics down by not running a puff piece on a retired athlete which has nothing to do with sport, but they did report it in the non sport sections. Not sure I remember Alistair Cook having a story on the cricket section when his family grew as if it mattered to the sport.
In summary your banging on the drum since the time your conspiracy website only looked 10 years out of date when it was created has done nothing for anyone in the sport, just walk away. No room for bigoted scum in the modern world.
1) Please define “bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic world view”.
2) I don’t have a television, and am not aware of “UK Schedules”.
3) My only awareness of “Fox News” is the merger bid with BSkyB, and that the Minister responsible for referring the matter to the competitions authority, Karen Bradley, felt she was being harrassed in her constituency by anti merger protesters.
4) I see no relationship between “Elite Sports” and “Fantastic Games”.
5) I regard the term “Male Product” in this context as signalling a confused mind.
6) I don’t know what restrictions apply to the BBC, I just consider the sheer volume of the output to represent a monopoly, and as being unhealthy for society. The fact that it is funded by public money makes it all the more sinister.
7) SouthLondonLad expressed a view that coverage of athletics appeared to be weighted on the negative side and contrasted it with Women’s Sport which appeared to receive a more positive coverage. It was a comment worthy of consideration, and supported by an example, and presented in a civilised manner.
8) I do not know who Alistair Cook is, nor the growing of his family.
9) You describe my http://www.british-athletics.co.uk as being a conspiracy website. The video showing on the front page is reporting what has been said. Opinion is expressed transparently. No conspiracy is identified. For the record I consider the actions being delivered in athletics by funded agencies as being well meaning, but damaging. I disregard the “well meaning”, and address the “damaging” at every opportunity.
10) I think you are describing me as “Bigoted Scum”. I think you might be in need of a hug from someone who cares about you, whoever you are.
I am unsure whether to feel pity or anger as to your ignorance about mental health issues. When you refer to resilience I suspect (confident?)you are in the ‘pull yourself together’ school of treatment.
Dame Kelly Holmes opened up, she demonstrated to the wider community that even someone who appeared to be doing well, can suffer emotional distress. It is not about sensationalism or “don’t worry about having a mental health issue, everyone will have them over a life time, its normal”.
Mental health is a substantial issue in the community, the percentage who suffer is indeed high (said to be 25% as a minimum), it is not weakness as some may suggest, it is just people are right to be open, silences compounds issues, you do not sweep this under the carpet.
As for your claim about curative elements of leisure being somehow subverted by a government department, it does not deserve dignifying with a logical response, you just keep grinding your axes, it will be down to the stump soon.
How is the no negative stories on Cricket going at the moment??!!!!!!!!!
Hahaha…..nice one Facts?….. I always thought the lunatic fringe of the BBC followed Eightlane posts
Well,well,well……another EA news item, for info only , between Athletics and Cricket ?
“England Athletics are pleased to be sponsoring the Fields in Trust annual Awards again this year. We encourage athletics and running projects and groups to apply – deadline is 22nd October.
On 29th November, Fields in Trust will hold its sixth annual Awards at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London, we hope you will submit a nomination to celebrate our parks and green “spaces.”
Well Done England Athletics…keep spending your money and grants on anything with a tentative and speculative link to support your existence.