- This topic has 60 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
I was out for most of Tuesday and was most grateful that, when we got back to the car we were able to turn on Radio Five Live and listen to a couple of races on our way home; we didn’t expect to have half an hours coverage for each race.As for Friday afternoon, I would imagine that most radio listeners are creatures of habit and, if interested in the cinema tune in at that time; we quite often listen and value Mark Kermodes views on the latest films. I’m beginning to feel that, for all that racing folk want more people to attend meetings and take an interest, they also want it to be ‘their’ sport and perhaps ‘outsiders’ aren’t welcome. I got quite interested in cricket when we did well a couple of years ago, but still don’t really follow it because I don’t understand it. What is wrong with ‘dumbing down’ racing a bit so that people may look on it as a sport that can be fun and entertaining. I depend on terrestrial television and radio when it comes to watching or listening to sport, and, yes, I would like more racing on the BBC and Radio, but is that likely when all I’ve heard this week is critiscism of the BBC’s coverage.
Why is it that we (racing) EXPECT professional racing coverage. We need to EARN it & do something to accomodate it. Just because we love racing it doesn’t mean that everyone else does!
I expect professional coverage on all/any sport and/or current affairs program that I watch or listen to. I don’t think it’s too much to expect either. Quite frankly that broadcast was extremely disrepectful to the sport. There is a difference between "dumbing down" something to suit the casual viewer/listener and laughing at something.
If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well IMO
What would Peter Bromley have thought of it all?
Five Live is the best radio station around imo but the way they deal with horse racing is lamentable. Not that long ago they still read out all the results which took up a lot of time. In the future I can see them dipping into the Derby as the leader approaches the 1 furlong marker.
I think it is unfair to highlight John Hunt as the culprit, and although I think his response here was polite, it was not really neccesary in light of some of the unkind comments.
As I see it, Cornelius Lysaght is the Racing Correspondent of BBC Radio. He grabbed the position with both hands when Peter Bromley retired and was soon keen to make his mark in the role. Ignoring his somewhat indifferent attempts at racecalling on occasion, Lysaght appears to be a good broadcaster and suitable for the position.
But, as anyone will tell you who has worked for the BBC, half the job is to promote your posiition/department to the utmost. And that means lobbying for live racing as much as possible. Racing, behind Football, should be at the very least in a tie for second spot if not outright second.
There are ways and means Lysaght could have used if he was unhappy with this. Their is an established hierarchy and ultimately you take a stand for the sport and get the air time or do you not. Regardless of the excuses or if its Mayo, Kermode et al.
Now, for all I know Lysaght may have found it very distasteful. But I only hope he defended his corner. On the other hand, if he went along with it without a fight or going up the hierarchy, one has to wonder what the heck is going on with the editorializing of racing on Five Live.
Peter Bromley raised BBC Radio’s racing coverage from virtually nil to over 250 live broadcasts a year at one time. In Bromley’s latter years, Lee McKenzie did an excellent job commentating. Let’s not forget Bromley set standards in radio broadcasting and "how to do the job" as a commentator. John Hunt is also an excellent commentator and more than a fitting successor but there is no way Bromley would have stood for that and as for saying "who he pays the piper calls the tune" it may be a get out clause, but there is also an argument for standing up to the piper to change the tune…My bet would be Bromley would have done just that…
I only hope John gets to cover more races on Five Live without such outside interference and from other people cutting into his commentary so he one day can have as good a sound archive as Peter Bromley. Though to be ultimately considered in the same class, one may have to go and fight a bigger foe, which is exactly what Bromley did for racing.
Also, to address another point. Peter Bromley was a great man and not really at all a stuffy patrician. Anyone who saw him lose his temper can readily agree to that!
Craig.
What would Peter Bromley have thought of it all?
My strong suspicion is the idea would not even have been considered.
I heard a good Bromley story this week, from the early Five Live years.
As most of you will know commentators get "talk back" through their headphones from the production team.
On this occasion it was decided that Peter Bromley would hand back to a different studio presenter than originally planned, so this was relayed to him by the producer.
Unfortunately the producer decided to convey said information to him whilst he was in the middle of calling the Royal Hunt Cup – possibly not the best time to be given such information.
By all accounts it took the remainder of the Royal meeting and some very senior people within the BBC just to calm him down and restore something resembling working relations
Fair play to John Hunt for coming on here and answering a few points. I used to love listening to Peter Bromley’s commentaries, he was certainly the equal of Sir Peter O’Sullevan in my view.
But the real puzzle for me is why TalkSport don’t get involved in racing a bit more. Why don’t they do off-tube commentaries on big races which would cost them nothing and add live sport to their programmes? I know football rules but it would surely not be too difficult to bring back their racing coverage with the sponsorship of one of the main bookies?
Just a thought.Fair play to John Hunt for coming on here and answering a few points. I used to love listening to Peter Bromley’s commentaries, he was certainly the equal of Sir Peter O’Sullevan in my view.
But the real puzzle for me is why TalkSport don’t get involved in racing a bit more. Why don’t they do off-tube commentaries on big races which would cost them nothing and add live sport to their programmes? I know football rules but it would surely not be too difficult to bring back their racing coverage with the sponsorship of one of the main bookies?
Just a thought.Agree about Talksport – but it seems as though there isn’t a market for it. We’re in the middle of the summer, yet they’re still talking about Football – Please!! Other sports get very little of a look in – the shame is it never used to be like this.
Talksport have a very narrow brief and it is Premier League Football.
A couple of years ago they had an evening programme devoted to the Football League but that has gone. International rugby and cricket get some time but that’s about it.
Paul
Cinema is also a minority activity. So are most things….
Firstkly, i think the point Venusian is making is that it was the trivialising and perhaps even slightly sneering coverage that gets backs up
Would they treat the "sport" of Formula One in the same way?
No. Because they have shlled out a huge sum of tax payers money to cover that "sport", they treat it with reverence. And that is a minority "sport" that only appeals to slack jawed acne ridden nerds who laughably think cars spewing filth and creating a racket is "glamorous"
You (and indeed I) may consider F1 a complete and utter waste of space however the viewing figures are interesting.
If you look at the official viewing figures for the first week in June the Turkish Grand Prix appears in the BBC Top thirty with 4.27 million viewers whereas The Derby, the same weekend, does not even get a mention.
It will be interesting to see how the Royal Ascot viewing figures compare with Wimbledon.
I think we all know the answer to your last question.
Interestingly, as a racing fan I would not be counted as a BBC viewer cos I watched it all on satellite. What point does that make?
To be quite honest, I think that most of this thread is a disgrace. Gratuitous and very offensive personal comments are being handed out left, right and centre and to add insult to injury one poster found it offensive that John Hunt was upset to have it alleged that he needs a carer, since said poster found that funny. I found the remark grossly offensive and well out of order and I’m sure said poster might not be quite so vocal were he not to be posting under an anonymous pseudonym.
On top of that, John Hunt (for reasons known only to himself; I wouldn’t have bothered addressing such tripe so fair play to him) has the grace to come on here and post in his real name to reply to these crass [again anonymous] posters who probably didn’t think for a minute that the subject of their ire would either read their vitriol or be brave enough to respond to it. That he replied with such restraint and politeness does him a lot of credit.
John, you’re one of the best commentators around and, as the saying goes, "don’t let the bastards get you down".
To be quite honest, I think that most of this thread is a disgrace. Gratuitous and very offensive personal comments are being handed out left, right and centre and to add insult to injury one poster found it offensive that John Hunt was upset to have it alleged that he needs a carer, since said poster found that funny. I found the remark grossly offensive and well out of order and I’m sure said poster might not be quite so vocal were he not to be posting under an anonymous pseudonym.
On top of that, John Hunt (for reasons known only to himself; I wouldn’t have bothered addressing such tripe so fair play to him) has the grace to come on here and post in his real name to reply to these crass [again anonymous] posters who probably didn’t think for a minute that the subject of their ire would either read their vitriol or be brave enough to respond to it. That he replied with such restraint and politeness does him a lot of credit.
John, you’re one of the best commentators around and, as the saying goes, "don’t let the [expletive] get you down".
There have been very very few personal comments in this thread, certainly not enough to warrant "most of this thread is a disgrace" comment
You seem to present John Hunt as "royalty" graciously lowering himself to speak to the masses. If he is not interested in the reaction to the broadcast from members of this forum then who might he listen to or want to engage in dialogue?
It is interesting that his comments have departed not one jot from the BBC party line (invertebrate!) and he has dimissed his critics as just being unwilling to accept change – well if these are the best changes the BBC can come up with then he’s correct.
Regardless of whether or not you liked the brodcast Venusian, there was no need to be so offensive and I was personally surprised and disappointed as I would always expect better of you.
No, Seepigeon, I do not see John Hunt as royalty addressing the masses at all, but then again I didn’t expect you to see the point anyway. I wouldn’t even bother to address a lot of the ignorance and insults that have been bandied about on this thread and I think it does John Hunt a lot of credit that not only has he replied, he did so politely and civilly in the face of such animosity.
Like it or not, he is one of the best commentators we have and is streets ahead of some of the others. We want him to stick around, not become disillusioned by a lot of rather ignorant Betfair forum style comments.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.