- This topic has 14 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
This is the BBC’s report on the Melbourne Cup:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/horse-racing/67340900.amp
Note the last sentence:
But in recent years it has attracted demonstrations over the welfare of animals and its links to gambling.
Aside from ending on a negative note which is intended to stick in the mind, note how the BBC clearly believes that gambling is A Very Bad Thing on the same level as what it believes is animal abuse and expects its readers to agree.
A horse race which people have a bet on! Whoever would have thought it?!
The BBC have been atit ever since they down broadcasting it and the Grand National
VF x
Actually the big protest at the course this year was a Palestinian supporting demonstration which was widely reported in the Aussie press.
So no actual journalism done for that BBC piece which I suppose was probably supplied in its entirety by an outside news source, or at best a student who can copy and paste job a few quotes.Has the race attracted actual anti-gambling demonstrations? I don’t think many people would give enough of a stuff about that to go protesting.
Well the headline wasn’t that bad compared to that of the Irish Times:-
“Good outcome for Melbourne Cup with no fatality in race for third year in a row”
I’m under little doubt that racing has been looked on with disdain by the BBC for many years. It seems to have long been compulsory for them to mention equine welfare concerns in every single article covering the National.
This approach also seems to be creeping into much of the rest of the media.
Welfare is hugely important, but this is hardly the only journalistic angle that could be taken. I suspect it is partly laziness and that this is the easiest topic for any journalist who doesn’t know much about the race to hone in on.
😆 very apt Cork.
What next, are the Beeb going to have Albert Square’s Queen Vic razed to the ground because of “links with alcohol consumption” and replace it with a wheatgrass+ chia seed juice bar?The gambling reference is laughable but I guess they would argue that mentioning welfare concerns provides ‘balance’.
This is, or rather should be, a factual report of the race however. Do their other sports reports always mention the various concerns that people have? Many people are, for example, concerned about the influence of Saudi Arabia in sport. Do we hear about this in Newcastle United match reports every week?
There is a time and a place for these debates of course. I would suggest the section known as ‘news’.
Why anyone is surprised by the BBC reporting is what amazes me as the liberal dogooders (not even sure if that’s a word) which staff so many of our media outlets are all caught up in ‘groupthink’ with anyone daring to question their moral superiority shouted down with all the usual woke attack methods.Thus the argument becomes entirely bias in favour of those in control of the reporting and any idea of a balanced view is seen as pandering to the ‘great unnwashed’ who are not allowed to hold such opinions.
good luck to allIf you don’t have an issue with the woke lefties then you’re going to find yourself in a world without racing and gambling very soon!
To me being woke is groupthink to be intolerant and or dismissive of the views of all others regardless of reasoning/motives or facts surrounding any particular subject.
good luck to allThat might be your definition BCK;’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
But according to wikipedia (which I accept is not always precise);’Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination”. Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial justice, sexism and LGBT rights.’
While I believe the Wikipedia definition accurately describes the word’s origin, I think nowadays a considerable number of people believe it means following such an ideology to a blinkered and obsessive degree, or in an insincere manner to obtain social capital or commercial advantage etc.
But that’s just my interpretation of the status quo, and I appreciate it’s a tricky word given the lack of consensus around it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.