- This topic has 43 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
That is true Maxilon, and that’s why the more thoughtful nature of TRF makes it so much more enjoyable and relevant than the other place you mention. When I see venomous criticism of people, whether it be broadcasters or jockeys, or whoever, I often wonder if the poster has a particular grudge against them, or could even be a colleague or acquaintance who wants to discredit them for some reason. That’s the trouble with anonymous posting – you have no idea about the identity of the person behind the username.
I may be doing her an injustice, but on the few occasions I’ve seen Plunkett on the television she’s come across as a bit of an airhead.
How did she get to be a presenter? Is she a trained journalist with some sort of media background, or does she have some other relevant qualifications?
Toddy, can we only praise presenters, then? If we have something negative to say about them, must we keep it to ourselves? This is a forum. If anyone wants to defend Alice Plunkett they’re free to do so.
Take the examples I gave in the first posting on this thread. My view is that Ned Ludd had shown himself to be a useful hurdler but his limitations had been exposed. If you think her comment was justified – rather than an attempt to ingratiate herself with or at least not give offence to the trainer – then feel at liberty to say so. Similarly, if you think her reference to Doumen by his christian name adds to rather than detracts from the programme then, again, say so. I’ll disagree with you, that’s all.
Criticism should attack the outer skin of the person, the behaviour, the skills, the style…………and should be acceptable. <br>Abuse attacks the personality, the inner core of the person and shouldn’t be acceptable.
<br>
Gus, I think there’s too much moaning in general, we’re supposed to be having fun, but I suppose commenting critically about someone is fair enough as long as the post stays within the house rules:
Please be polite. There’s nothing wrong with a mature discussion involving opposing views, but please stick to the subject and don’t personally attack or berate others.
I assume this means be polite in general, and not just to other posters! After all, it’s the way the post is phrased that determines whether it’s a reasonable observation, or a vitriolic attack. So, for example, a well-argued post saying that a presenter is weak in certain subjects may be okay, but to call them an "idiot" would be just plain rude. And remember that the so-called idiot is not present to defend himself or herself.
‘it gives you the moral right to insult and humiliate them in front of other people.’
<br>Toddy, can you give some examples of where this particular topic has been abusive and insulting, because I have looked through and I find it quite moderate in comment?
Venusian’s ‘Air Head’ seems the worst character assault.
If people have a job in the public domain, then yes, they are there for criticism if it’s warranted and the general feeling on here is that it is. As has been pointed out, she does have a part to play in the production of a balanced racing programme, but perhaps not at the forefront for a variety of reasons mentioned in the content of this topic.
If I was the lady in question, I would look at this topic and gather my honest friends together with some video footage of myself and try and improve in any areas that I can.
Surely that is what a professional would do.
<br>
I’m sure nearly all TV presenters are critical of their own performance, Griff, but undermining their confidence isn’t a good way of helping them.<br>In his opening post, Gus described Alice’s mere appearance as "depressing" (really? No, 600,000 people dead in Iraq is depressing) and then implied, in his last line, that he’d like to see her trampled by the horses as they pull up (a joke, I know, but not a pleasant one).<br>Then, in post 2, Clivex accused her of "projecting herself rather than the racing" and being a "bit cocky". On what grounds does he make that aggressive assertion? A couple of my friends who have spoken to Alice said she was absolutely charming and not at all stuck up.<br>Anyway, I don’t want to go on and on – I’ve made my point and by now some of you will be getting bored with me. All I was trying to say is that we should be a little more understanding of people’s weaknesses and not leap to have a go at them all the time.<br>Or am I just hankering for the innocent days, on first becoming interested in our sport, when I so looked forward to watching the TV racing on a Saturday afternoon, when it was all about who was going to win the ITV 7, and not whether John Rickman was better than Ken Butler, and if either of them could remember the entire contents of the form book and the grandsires of every runner? Thanks for reading this thread guys and, by the way, I’m not a vicar despite this lengthy sermon!
<br>Just got back from two days away from my PC and utterly bemused by the direction this thread has taken.
Some completely OTT comments by an anonymous total stranger who seems to have elected himself (or herself) as the forum’s moral guardian.
Perhaps you’d like to lay out the ground rules Toddy as to what we can and can’t say about individuals. Do these new rules apply to jockeys, trainers, journalists, owners – or just to your friends?
And by the way, I’ve been there, done that, including working alongside Ms Plunkett, and been roundly abused as a result. It’s water off a duck’s back – if you appear on a racing channel, you go into the job knowing full well what it might involve. Reading the content of internet forums isn’t compulsory you know.
Your ridiculous remarks about suicide are frankly laughable when applied to anyone I know that appears on ATR or RUK and I know the majority.
If criticism and abuse was so potentially lethal, there wouldn’t be a referee left in the Premiership or an umpire for the test series.
AP
:old:
Your on the button again as usual AP<br> and you seeemed to have stopped this thread dead<br> as if you’d over-injected the womens institute with narcotics<br> after a two day drug run.
But, how well did you really know<br> the individauls of ATR and RUK<br> and did they confide in you the hidden secrets of <br> their medicine cabinet and <br> all the uppers they might need just to<br> get on camera
I was a passenger in a car today <br> could have been Paris<br> could have been London<br> The volume went up and Christina Aguilera<br> changed the lights to red with
Somedays I feel broke inside but wont admit<br> <br> Ooh ooh
it was then I thought of AP<br> no not you Potts<br> Alice P<br> and as the lights went amber<br> and we drove off<br> the law
PLUNKETTS LAW…
<br>
<br>
:old:
A proper application of Plunkett’s law would<br> having mne writing Alan rather than Potts ;)
In relation to abuse between members on boards<br> this has certainly reduced dramatically since the early days,<br> and is really down to policing and sanction.<br> The trend in abuse then diverted to third parties<br> which again has been vigorously policed<br> and brought out the lamb.<br> I found Alan Pott’s barnstorming post quite refreshing !
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.