Why I won't be supporting Team Sky
Comments
-
wicked wrote:To the OP, I think you look too deeply into things.
yeah you don't want too look too deeply into stuff... take it all at face value"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
mididoctors wrote:Graeme_S wrote:guinea wrote:I fear for a world without the BBC. It has the best factual entertainment on the planet, the best news and probably the best website.
The BBC may have had the best televised news at one time, but these days it's absolutely woeful. Channel 4 News is head and shoulders above any other televised news in the UK.
channel 4 news is crap...largely because of one person..jon snow is a egotistical overbearing alt/leftie who puts his own pathetically childish worldview to the forefront of editorial policy..he is so dominant and manipulating off camera as well as on.
bbc news has declined but really ALL the news programs have declined..
newsnight despite being a circle jerk of oxbridge types slamming there own d1cks in the door is the only half decent news program left on tv by virtue that the staff have collectivilly more than 2 brain cells
sky news!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YHTBFK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think in the context of the internet, all TV and print news is suffering. People can go and check reported "Facts" for themselves from any number of sources, agreeing and disagreeing, and make their own minds up in their own time. I think these days i read, online aone, the Guardian, Telegraph, Times, FT, NYT various other international news organisations and blogs... but never the BBC or Sky. The reason for this is I find their analysis facile and their method of reporting to be almost entirely london-centric and of the political class. Maybe that's due to space/time constraints but for the enquiring mind, they're both poor.
And as people keep pointing out. I pay for Sky, I pay because it has things I want to watch (largely sport) and I choose to pay for it. The BBC, i rarely watch anything on it and I still have to pay full whack."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:
I think in the context of the internet, all TV and print news is suffering. People can go and check reported "Facts" for themselves from any number of sources, agreeing and disagreeing, and make their own minds up in their own time. I think these days i read, online aone, the Guardian, Telegraph, Times, FT, NYT various other international news organisations and blogs... but never the BBC or Sky. The reason for this is I find their analysis facile and their method of reporting to be almost entirely london-centric and of the political class. Maybe that's due to space/time constraints but for the enquiring mind, they're both poor.
And as people keep pointing out. I pay for Sky, I pay because it has things I want to watch (largely sport) and I choose to pay for it. The BBC, i rarely watch anything on it and I still have to pay full whack.
yeah I think thats ok but I don't find volunteering other peoples money a problem. :shock:
most of the newspapers are pretty crap too this days...just turned into propaganda arms of various interest groups
surprisingly the FT is probably the most usefull... I can't see sky providing regional news on par with the Beeb...
what really annoys me is that murdoch's behaviour is essentially
"lets all do what I say"
that attitude lies at the center of a very very dangerous future.... for that reason alone irrespective of the merits of getting to see Lost on sky 1 first etc I think he needs to be checked and told he doesn't have a monopoly on the regulatory environment the media should operate in.
all this stuff about the internet taking over is true and to my mind Murdochs attempt to smash the Beeb is also in part an attempt to curtail that open source future.."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
I think this thread would be better in cakestop"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0
-
mididoctors wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:
I think in the context of the internet, all TV and print news is suffering. People can go and check reported "Facts" for themselves from any number of sources, agreeing and disagreeing, and make their own minds up in their own time. I think these days i read, online aone, the Guardian, Telegraph, Times, FT, NYT various other international news organisations and blogs... but never the BBC or Sky. The reason for this is I find their analysis facile and their method of reporting to be almost entirely london-centric and of the political class. Maybe that's due to space/time constraints but for the enquiring mind, they're both poor.
And as people keep pointing out. I pay for Sky, I pay because it has things I want to watch (largely sport) and I choose to pay for it. The BBC, i rarely watch anything on it and I still have to pay full whack.
most of the newspapers are pretty crap too this days...just turned into propaganda arms of various interest groups
what really annoys me is that murdoch's behaviour is essentially
"lets all do what I say"
that attitude lies at the center of a very very dangerous future.... for that reason alone irrespective of the merits of getting to see Lost on sky 1 first etc I think he needs to be checked and told he doesn't have a monopoly on the regulatory environment the media should operate in.
He doesn't operate in a monopoly or act like it, indeed, the thrust of his argument seems to be that he is opposing hte BBc acting as if it is in a monopoly. To my mind, the BBC either needs to be a public service, not for proift organisation funded as it is currently (and by selling prgorammes to other countries) or it needs to be a commercial organisation which can advertise freely, market it's products as it sees fit and not be treated as a special case. At the moment, it seems to be unable to make up its mind."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:[
He doesn't operate in a monopoly or act like it, indeed, the thrust of his argument seems to be that he is opposing hte BBc acting as if it is in a monopoly. To my mind, the BBC either needs to be a public service, not for proift organisation funded as it is currently (and by selling prgorammes to other countries) or it needs to be a commercial organisation which can advertise freely, market it's products as it sees fit and not be treated as a special case. At the moment, it seems to be unable to make up its mind.
hmmm lets say we agree on all that...
why shouldn't it be a special case?
because it annoys other certain commercial interests?
at the end f the day the Beebs behaviour is deemed bad (for a whole host of stuff?) because we should all have the murdoch empires best interests at heart.
now no doubt there are things the beeb does that are bad for the greater good but not assisting murdochs regime is not one of them.
the issu only exists because the murdochs raised it.... I don't see them going broke anytime soon if we decline this offer to restructure everything as they see fit?
or the inability of sky subscriptions to get pay for view footie ?
pay for view sport... good or bad.... there's a subject???? has the preposterous pay regime of footballers been a product of sky? what impact on society has that had (ticket prices accessibility etc)
the issue of the media is not this cut and dry commercial vs public thing and certainly not sky subscription vs tv license
at the end of the day why are we all going out of our way to implement policy suggested introduced and promoted by a major media organisation which is the beneficary?
doesn't that (alone) strike a tone that should rouse suspicion?
signing off on this
agree to differ etc etc"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
mididoctors wrote:I think this thread would be better in cakestop
Back to cycling then, as others have said, I don't support teams.
However, should Wiggo make it over to Sky then I will support him and the rest of the teams efforts when the aim is a British win.
As for the politics involved, Murdoch being the devil (thought that was Lance??)etc. it will not be anywhere near my thoughts come July and I'm cheering Wiggo up the Tourmalet.0 -
Pokerface wrote:Sky doesn't do original programming - they are merely a re-seller. Which explains why so many people would rather watch it than dull british TV.
Oh I don't know about that.
I really enjoyed the recent Terry Prachtet shows they did, and the footie on Sky is far better than anything else. Soccer AM, Soccer Saturday etc.
Plus they do a fair few documenteries that win awards like the bloke from eastenders in the wars etc...
So not all repeats or American.0 -
I'm with the OP - I wont be supporting Sky because of who the sponsor is - hope Wiggo doesn't sign for them. I freely admit that if I knew much about the other sponsors I might take a bit of a dislike to them too - in fact with Cofidis I already have. Not a massive deal but you naturally have favourites and riders/teams you like a bit less and Sky are the latter for me.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
I don't think Wiggins can join them this year as I read in the comic earlier that UCI Pat won't let him break his contract. Maybe more hype though!0
-
As far as sponsors go I always try to remember that cycling is more mainstream
in Europe than in the States. In any case it's all about brand exposure(buy our stuff).
It doesn't surprise me at all that The Shack, Columbia, and others want their name "out there". What does surprise me is that some people all of a sudden seem to hate The Shack simply because of who's on the team. All the Shack wants to do is raise awareness of their brand, put their name out there, become better known, get you to buy their stuff. Same with all the sponsors. I doubt it's any more "devious" than that. All Columbia wants to do is dominate the ski clothing world. That's their business. The Shack - buy more electronic things. Lotto - buy more tickets. Some of the sponsors sort of make me ask why, but then I realize that it's Europe, not the States, and things are a bit different over there. Anyway, I would think that any sponsor(within limits - whatever that may mean) would be welcome. They are helping themselves - yes, and cycling.0 -
Would it be out of order for me to say that perhaps we should just support the riders who ride for the team rather than the team that the riders ride for?Let's close our eyes and see what happens0
-
Sky do not make costume dramas.
I rest my case.
To return to cycling however, (and the story of the early years of the Tour would make an excellent drama) do you think Mr Darcy aka Cav, will ever sign for them?0 -
nasahapley wrote:I'd be interested to know which natural history programmes they've produced which can top Planet Earth or Blue Planet, or comedies which are better than The Office (a poor man's version of which is, I understand, doing rather well in the States). Not trying to be clever here - I really would like to watch them!
Planet Earth and Blue Planet were both co-produced by Discovery Channel, who as we all know, must be evil because of their connection to the Dark Lord Armstrong.
So which is the most evil? Discovery Channel or Sky? In the words of Harry Hill "There's only one way to find out...."Twitter: @RichN950 -
The Prodigy wrote:mididoctors wrote:I think this thread would be better in cakestop
Back to cycling then, as others have said, I don't support teams.
However, should Wiggo make it over to Sky then I will support him and the rest of the teams efforts when the aim is a British win.
As for the politics involved, Murdoch being the devil (thought that was Lance??)etc. it will not be anywhere near my thoughts come July and I'm cheering Wiggo up the Tourmalet.
+1/2
to be honest I won't be freaking out because our boys are in sky hd livery..."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
all show no go wrote:Would it be out of order for me to say that perhaps we should just support the riders who ride for the team rather than the team that the riders ride for?
I would think that most people would end up supporting the team. Or should I say the Company(i.e. Columbia). You might walk into a store and see a rack of Columbia clothing, the name kind of hits you, you try a pair of pants on, bingo they fit, you buy. That would be supporting the company(what they wanted). I guess my question would be - how would you support a rider other than cheering and words of encouragement to his web site? Don't you need to buy the product to support the rider(in a way)? I'm reminded of World Cup Skiing, in which they hold the skis up to the camera after a run. The Skier is trying to sell the product. The more victories Atomic gets the more skis they sell(in theory I guess). Same with Trek, The Shack, Columbia, and the rest.0 -
-
AndyRubio wrote:It's easiest not to "support" a cycling team at all. It's not football.
+1 bang on0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:The money they are putting in to the team is peanuts for them; Sky are more concerned about their goal of getting 1 million more people riding their bikes by 2013. Believe what you like but they aren't so concerned about results from their pro team, it's the mass participation they really want to work. I was told this by someone close to the Sky management, obviously they won't want the money going to the team to be wasted and will make sure they get value but it is of secondary importance to them.
Read that goal again. It's one million people riding their bikes once a month, not one million people riding their bikes on a daily basis.
This project is ultimately about Socially Responsible Business (SRB) because it's an easy way to make people feel good about a company and, crucially, it nullifies the criticism of Sky as solely being about the bottom line by showing them doing public service outwith their remit.
It's also potentially about them buying into the London Olympics by the side door. They aren't a rights holder but by being a major sponsor of a big medal sport they can get in on the benefits of the 2012 Olympics.0 -
-
Sky's great. Where else can you watch 'Inside Britain's Fattest Man' every day, all for the princely sum of £50 a month. :roll:Det. Sgt. George Carter: Do you know what, Jack? You're full of sh!t.
Det. Insp. Jack Regan: I thought it was about time you made an intellectual contribution to this debate.
Det. Sgt. George Carter: Boll@cks.0 -
The BBC is not independent, it is a propaganda vehicle for the Labour politburo. If you don't agree, compare the BBC homepage with say the Times or Telegraph on days when stories break which are bad news for the tartan Stalin and his filthy band of scrotes. The BBC buries these stories like Tony Montana buries cockaroaches.0
-
Indeed. For example, the Beeb totally buried the "Cash for honours" story, and certainly didn't report every twist and turn with obvious glee.
Oh, wait a minute...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
jaykayem wrote:The BBC is not independent, it is a propaganda vehicle for the Labour politburo. If you don't agree, compare the BBC homepage with say the Times or Telegraph on days when stories break which are bad news for the tartan Stalin and his filthy band of scrotes. The BBC buries these stories like Tony Montana buries cockaroaches.
I am intrigued what is a Tartan Stalin ?Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
By Tartan Stalin I meant Gordon Brown - he was compared with the Soviet megalomaniac by a key member of his own team.
Auntie wears her Labour heart on her sleeve, but you have to open your eyes (and ears) to see it. E.g. Jim Naughtie's gaffe on R4: "When we - err I mean Labour - win the next election..."
Aside from political bias (seriously, check the web home page on odd days), the Beeb is great, but viva Team Sky!0 -
DaveyL wrote:Indeed. For example, the Beeb totally buried the "Cash for honours" story, and certainly didn't report every twist and turn with obvious glee.
Oh, wait a minute...
Similarly, the way the BBC and New Labour had a total love-in during the run-up to the Iraq War. I mean, Andrew Gilligan and Gavin Hewitt were virtually in bed with Alistair Campbell!
I believe the infamous "dodgy dossier" was actually about how much Tony Blair loved watching Bargain Hunt just before PMQs.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:jaykayem wrote:The BBC is not independent, it is a propaganda vehicle for the Labour politburo. If you don't agree, compare the BBC homepage with say the Times or Telegraph on days when stories break which are bad news for the tartan Stalin and his filthy band of scrotes. The BBC buries these stories like Tony Montana buries cockaroaches.
I am intrigued what is a Tartan Stalin ?
And can you also get a Harris Tweed Hitler? JKM, it's ironic that the BBC's Have Your Say site would be the best place for rants like that, although I think the PM is usually referred to as Gordon Clown, and you forgot to mention ZaNu LieBore.0 -
afx237vi wrote:DaveyL wrote:Indeed. For example, the Beeb totally buried the "Cash for honours" story, and certainly didn't report every twist and turn with obvious glee.
Oh, wait a minute...
Similarly, the way the BBC and New Labour had a total love-in during the run-up to the Iraq War. I mean, Andrew Gilligan and Gavin Hewitt were virtually in bed with Alistair Campbell!
I believe the infamous "dodgy dossier" was actually about how much Tony Blair loved watching Bargain Hunt just before PMQs.
And look what happened to Gilligan!
Nasahapley, in what way is my comment ironic because it's on BR? Listen folks, if you think Labour is doing a tip top job, feel free to articulate that via the ballot box next May! Just thought I'd add a little to the mediacentric flavour of this thread!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... dcast.html0
