The Marketing of Sky

calvjones

Moray Gub wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Well, it will in my case as I wouldn't go near buying any Sky-branded clothing/merchandise for this exact reason.

When you go to the cinema or watch a DVD, do you you check which company made the film?

When you watch a TV program, do you check who the production company is, what their personal politics are?

When you buy a book, do you research the publishers and find out which political parties their shareholders have donated to?

No? Why not?

The whole 'everything to do with Murdoch is bad' is pretty puerile to me. They seem to be a pretty company on the whole and have done a lot for British sport. (And News intyernational only owns 40% anyway).

I agree with you i think this whole i wont have anything to do with Sky branding etc is a kind of look at me posturing.

As is often the case, you think wrong.

BikingBernie

This sort of seems appropriate...

ATTILA THE STOCKBROKER
6 May 2002

Recently that friend of intelligent journalism and editorial freedom, Rupert Murdoch, took over William Collins - a publishing house which, among other things, produces the Bible. I can now reveal the planned New Revised Version...

The Bible according to Rupert Murdoch

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Gotcha! And
the Lord Rupert said let there be a Royal Family, and let enormous
quantities of trivia and drivel be written about them, yea even unto
the point where a mentally subnormal yak couldn't possibly find it
interesting any more, and let babies be born unto this Royal Family,
and let the huge swathes of nauseating sludge written about them
surpass even that written about their parents, even though these
babies and their parents are about as interesting as a wet afternoon
on the terraces at Selhurst Park.

And the Lord Rupert said let there be soap operas, and let each
of these soap operas be so mind-numbingly moronic as to make a
wet afternoon at Selhurst Park seem a truly uplifting experience,
and let entire forests and the ecological balance of several continents
be destroyed in the endless vistas of retarded outpourings about
these unspeakable transmissions.

And let there be enormous breasts, and endless bonking, and
hours and days and weeks and months and years of chauvinistic
right-wing propaganda so that the brain-dead prats who like the
bonking and the soap operas and the breasts and the royal stories
get the politics as well.

And let any journalist who tries to stand up to the proprietor and
editor in the name of truth, and intelligence, and integrity, and
journalistic standards, be summarily dismissed, and cast forever
into a bottomless pit of decomposing chimpanzee smegma, and let
those journalists who suffer this fate rejoice at the great career move
they have just made.

And the Lord Rupert looked at his work, and even he saw that
it was a load of crap, but this was the enterprise culture and it sold
millions so it was good. And on the same basis he decided to take
over the television too, and the earth itself wept, and little robins
vomited, and cuddly furry animals threw themselves under trains,
and the whole thing was filmed by Sky Channel for a horror nature
programme, and the most awful thing of all was that this was just
the beginning...

moray_gub

calvjones wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Well, it will in my case as I wouldn't go near buying any Sky-branded clothing/merchandise for this exact reason.

When you go to the cinema or watch a DVD, do you you check which company made the film?

When you watch a TV program, do you check who the production company is, what their personal politics are?

When you buy a book, do you research the publishers and find out which political parties their shareholders have donated to?

No? Why not?

The whole 'everything to do with Murdoch is bad' is pretty puerile to me. They seem to be a pretty company on the whole and have done a lot for British sport. (And News intyernational only owns 40% anyway).

I agree with you i think this whole i wont have anything to do with Sky branding etc is a kind of look at me posturing.

As is often the case, you think wrong.

I dont often think wrong and certainly not in this case..........forum posturing how pathetic.

passout

The Simpsons and the like, gently mocking the system, is actually a way to strengthen it as said earlier. It allows steam to be let off in a harmless way - a momentary inversion of the norm. Then again it is just a family TV show, good but of little consequence really. Fox news is truly awful though. Does anyone else like John Stewarts moment of zen? Now he is the real antithesis of Fox news, not Homer and co.

Tusher

What possible reason could there be for this article being removed?

I shudder to think there's a lawyer wearing a blue tie behind this.

calvjones

Moray Gub wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Well, it will in my case as I wouldn't go near buying any Sky-branded clothing/merchandise for this exact reason.

When you go to the cinema or watch a DVD, do you you check which company made the film?

When you watch a TV program, do you check who the production company is, what their personal politics are?

When you buy a book, do you research the publishers and find out which political parties their shareholders have donated to?

No? Why not?

The whole 'everything to do with Murdoch is bad' is pretty puerile to me. They seem to be a pretty company on the whole and have done a lot for British sport. (And News intyernational only owns 40% anyway).

I agree with you i think this whole i wont have anything to do with Sky branding etc is a kind of look at me posturing.

As is often the case, you think wrong.

I dont often think wrong and certainly not in this case..........forum posturing how pathetic.

Once again Moray, I have to bow to your psychic knowledge of my innermost desires and motivations and will take a long, hard look at my posting behaviour.






Oh, no, wait you're just an argumentative blowhard after all.

Dodger747

Sounds like an interesting article, shame it's been removed for whatever reason...

moray_gub

calvjones wrote:

Once again Moray, I have to bow to your psychic knowledge of my innermost desires and motivations and will take a long, hard look at my posting behaviour.


Oh, no, wait you're just an argumentative blowhard after all.

Tell us about your PHD again we didnt catch it the first 20 times ?

hockinsk

Don't suppose anyone has the article saved/cached as it's been removed from http://www.thewashingmachinepost.net

I too got halfway through reading at work, then this morning it's gone!

The Prodigy

You guys sure do get yourselves wound up about things. If you look hard enough you can find reasons not to like anything in this world. Lets enjoy the cycling.

I will, through my sky dish, in full HD glory.

Chip \'oyler

Fook me you lot don't know your born

For the first time ever a UK based massive Pro team is born and you lot whinge about who the sponsor is.

I don't care - It could be Osama Bin Laden pumping the money in for all I care - the main thing is we have a big UK team to support

micron

I suppose it all comes down to whether you support a team/rider purely because of nationality/language spoken.

I'm interested to see how EBH goes but there are other teams/riders that I'm more excited about - not least Gibo's last stand alongside the Little Prince at the Giro.

calvjones

Moray Gub wrote:

calvjones wrote:

Once again Moray, I have to bow to your psychic knowledge of my innermost desires and motivations and will take a long, hard look at my posting behaviour.


Oh, no, wait you're just an argumentative blowhard after all.

Tell us about your PHD again we didnt catch it the first 20 times ?

Yep, touche and have apologised for that already.

I just cannot believe I waste time on this crap. I am a fking idiot :roll: I need to do something more constructive until there's actual racing to talk about!

DaveyL

BikingBernie wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

How come Fox news is so right wing, but so many of the animated comedies on Fox are well, a bit liberal. Example, on Family Guy, Peter finds Jesus, they then find GW Bush and tell him he was wrong! Thats pretty far away from Fox New's viewpoint!

Perhaps because such programs provide a 'safe' outlet for mildly dissenting voices? Only regimes that feel insecure and not in full control of what people think need to impose oppressive controls on 'free speech' and to silence dissenting voices. (China might be put forward as a good example of this). When the propaganda system is so well developed that most people can hardly formulate a 'heretical' idea, and anyone that does is marginalised and effectively powerless, there is no need to silence 'free speech'. (The USA probably offers the best example of this).

An illusion of 'freedom' can also be maintained by allowing people to speak out on issues that do not challenge the core ideologies a society is based on. As Bill Hicks put it:

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" "Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons."

You mean like, when someone has a pop at Armstrong on an internet forum, they get a warm glow from having stuck it to "the man" but in reality they haven't made any difference to things?

disgruntledgoat

DaveyL wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

How come Fox news is so right wing, but so many of the animated comedies on Fox are well, a bit liberal. Example, on Family Guy, Peter finds Jesus, they then find GW Bush and tell him he was wrong! Thats pretty far away from Fox New's viewpoint!

Perhaps because such programs provide a 'safe' outlet for mildly dissenting voices? Only regimes that feel insecure and not in full control of what people think need to impose oppressive controls on 'free speech' and to silence dissenting voices. (China might be put forward as a good example of this). When the propaganda system is so well developed that most people can hardly formulate a 'heretical' idea, and anyone that does is marginalised and effectively powerless, there is no need to silence 'free speech'. (The USA probably offers the best example of this).

An illusion of 'freedom' can also be maintained by allowing people to speak out on issues that do not challenge the core ideologies a society is based on. As Bill Hicks put it:

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" "Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons."

You mean like, when someone has a pop at Armstrong on an internet forum, they get a warm glow from having stuck it to "the man" but in reality they haven't made any difference to things?

I'm sorry Davey but have you not been paying attention ot debating for the last twenty years? If you quote Bill Hicks, the other person has lost due to his complete unimpeachable rightness about everything.

DaveyL

Sackcloth and ashes, you're right. There can be no better source of searing political comment than BH.

Love his comment about certain drugs being harmless cos they come from nature. Yeah, like deadly nightshade, anatoxin, etc...

BikingBernie

disgruntledgoat wrote:

If you quote Bill Hicks, the other person has lost due to his complete unimpeachable rightness about everything.

No one is right all of the time, not even Hicks. On the other had it is fallacious to argue that one error somehow means that everything someone says is false...

disgruntledgoat

BikingBernie wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

If you quote Bill Hicks, the other person has lost due to his complete unimpeachable rightness about everything.

No one is right all of the time, not even Hicks. On the other had it is fallacious to argue that one error somehow means that everything someone says is false...

Sorry Bernie that's what we call a "joke", it exaggerates the tendancies of one person or a set of people in order to elicit a humerous response through recognition.

As another example, a Wiganer goes on the Antiques Roadshow and after queuing for hours gets to the front of the line with his item.

"I've had it in the loft for 20 years" he says.

"Tell me" replies the presenter "is it insured?"

"Why? Is it worth something" Asks our Wiganer

"No, it's your hot water tank!"

Now, I'm nearly certain the above incident never happened, but due to it being inkeeping with the format of the Antiques Roadshow and the fact that most of the Northwest harbours a strange dislike of Wiganers, people find it funny.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Love his comment about certain drugs being harmless cos they come from nature. Yeah, like deadly nightshade, anatoxin, etc...

Is this the quote you are referring to?

“Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit . . . unnatural?”

Or perhaps this one?

“I believe that God left certain drugs growing naturally upon our planet to help speed up and facilitate our evolution. OK, not the most popular idea ever expressed.

If so, neither seems to support the claim you are making. I also recall him arguing that marijuana should be thought of as being a 'herb' and not a drug, but I don't recall him ever arguing that this means that every substance derived from nature is harmless, as you claim. Perhaps you can link to the quote you are thinking of? On the other hand perhaps you are just making a logical error, arising from your failure to recognise the significance of the word 'certain'?

DaveyL

Shame you're not as rigorous in your quoting of McQuaid, eh?

“Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit . . . unnatural?"

Some 'natural' compounds can be harmful to humans, so that would seem to be one reason to make such substances illegal. That doesn't sound like the most 'unnatural' thing to me.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Some 'natural' compounds can be harmful to humans, so that would seem to be one reason to make such substances illegal. That doesn't sound like the most 'unnatural' thing to me.

A nice attempt at distancing yourself from your (discredited) original statement, but your 'logic' is still sadly wanting. Have you any idea how many 'natural compounds' can be harmful to humans? Following your 'logic' is would be 'natural' to ban the growing or possession of everything from Rhubarb to Castor 'beans'!

DaveyL

I have a fair idea how many are harmful, yes. However, I was responding to the quote "Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit . . . unnatural?" - which is rather a generalisation in itself.

I don't see anything wrong with my logic. Hicks is claiming that making nature illegal is unnatural (and in any case it is not *all* of nature that is illegal). I am pointing out that *some* things from nature can be harmful, so making them illegal does not seem "unnatural" to me. I shall boil it down to make it simpler - whether it comes from nature or not is irrelevant - it's whether it's dangerous or not that is the real issue - of course that is open to another debate. Wouldn't you say that the great man is constructing a straw man here?

I am afraid I cannot link to the quote as not all of Hicks's live recordings are transcripted on the net - or maybe you have them all stored away somewhere?

I'll have a look back over all your posts (all discredited now, of course) and see if I can find something.

Hey, see how easy it is to do that?

mroli

If any F*&ker tries to ban rhubarb, there will be big trouble....

mmm. Crumble....

Chip \'oyler

WTF has Bill Hicks got to do with marketing Team Sky?