Discussion
cgt2 said:
Let's just be clear, whatever Schiff does and however good she may or may not be there is a segment of older white male viewers who will direct vitriol towards her because of her ethnic background, exactly as with Hamilton.
On social media the overt racism is barely disguised towards LH (a recent IWC advert was one example). I've honestly been surprised by how some of it is allowed, other places it can be camouflaged as a critique of other matters but all of us who were not born yesterday know exactly what is going on.
I remember a conversation I had with a close friend of Senna years ago when he was telling me about the racism Ayrton dealt with when he first moved to the UK. Though he wasn't dark skinned, Senna didn't speak great English and was obviously something 'other'. In early 1980's Norfolk he was definitely an outsider and was made to feel unwelcome in everyday life. This was a factor that led to him initially going back to Brazil when he was about to give up his racing career.
All of us who were not born yesterday know exactly what is going on..... we're against discriminating against job applicants based on their skin colour.On social media the overt racism is barely disguised towards LH (a recent IWC advert was one example). I've honestly been surprised by how some of it is allowed, other places it can be camouflaged as a critique of other matters but all of us who were not born yesterday know exactly what is going on.
I remember a conversation I had with a close friend of Senna years ago when he was telling me about the racism Ayrton dealt with when he first moved to the UK. Though he wasn't dark skinned, Senna didn't speak great English and was obviously something 'other'. In early 1980's Norfolk he was definitely an outsider and was made to feel unwelcome in everyday life. This was a factor that led to him initially going back to Brazil when he was about to give up his racing career.
However, clearly you're fine with racism, supported by your constant references to "white" people.
The racist complaining about racism, the irony!
Edited by faa77 on Monday 13th June 20:46
Drawweight said:
Perhaps the ultimate example of a commentator with no experience is Suzi Perry.
I’m not saying she’s done everything but has commentated on a lot of sports in which she has no experience.
I’ve only ever watched her on Moto GP but she seems to know her stuff. I think she’s an enthusiast but I’m assuming has also done a lot of research.
I’ve no objection to a male or female commentator in any sport if they know their stuff. To simplify it you don’t have to have experienced it to describe oversteer and understeer. Multiply that by a thousand and you can commentate on F1
At the point she was hired she was an experienced presenter, having worked her way through the various ranks of presentation roles to get a high profile role presenting a sporting programme.I’m not saying she’s done everything but has commentated on a lot of sports in which she has no experience.
I’ve only ever watched her on Moto GP but she seems to know her stuff. I think she’s an enthusiast but I’m assuming has also done a lot of research.
I’ve no objection to a male or female commentator in any sport if they know their stuff. To simplify it you don’t have to have experienced it to describe oversteer and understeer. Multiply that by a thousand and you can commentate on F1
Punditry roles are something entirely different, where you expect those occupying it to at least possess some credibility for the role, and not be some nobody from the @r$e end of the motorsport ladder that got hired exclusively for being the preferable skin colour and genetics providing them with the preferable genitalia in todays wacky world. If some male driver had been plucked from the depths and put in a punditry role he would have been slaughtered but of course Naomi enjoys being part of the privileged, being not white, a woman and attractive so she gets opportunities far beyond what is deserved.
Perry, Pinkham, McKenzie, Lazenby, Humphrey & even Vernon Kay would have loved to have enjoyed being given such a high profile role so soon in their infantcy as a presenter that Schiff has enjoyed. At the same point in their careeer they would have been presenting some programme few would ever have heard of let alone hired as a pundit by a broadcaster as large as Sky covering a high profile event such as F1.
How anyone can defend her being hired for the role is beyond me, it just screams that the person defending it harbours sexist and racist views. I can't imagine a white 27 bloke with her exact same stats and experience being greeted with the same response, you only have to look at the attitudes displayed towards the likes of Stroll and Mazepin to see that, and they have proven themselves to be far superior drivers through the results they have achieved.
As I'm watching this I am watching the Mini Challenge from Oulton Park, not one of these drivers would add anything at all to the F1 coverage, so it is no surprise they are not hired. But yet apparently Schiff will, but then none of these drivers were born with the privileges of modern society she was...
Cold said:
Yep, see also Lee Mckenzie.
A time served pundit, vs someone that realistically was sacked from driving in a series that doesn't take driving capability very seriously.To put it in context, if comparing Schiff to McKenzie; Schiff is the teenager just leaving secondary school having a GCSE in Media Studies, McKenzie is the adult that has been working in broadcasting for a number of years.
I would rather listen to Lee McKenzie than Naomi Schiff. one has proven her worth with time-served employment the other got sacked for being useless even in a series feauting exclusively useless drivers, yet is hired due to political reasons that have f*ck all to do with their ability to do the job.
Anyone bending over backwards to try and defend her hiring are not doing so because it is justified, they are doing so to rationalise their own sexist and racist beliefs.
Edited by Peacockantony on Tuesday 14th June 01:23
entropy said:
Did you learn anything new from Schiff based on what you have seen other than just another pretty lady on your screen?
I don't learn anyting new from Sky at all, it has dragged F1 coverage down to the knuckle-dragging level of it's football coverage.Adding an(other) attractive women employed for no other reason because she ticks the correct diversity boxes adds nothing to the coverage. Pinkham is already useless, they lost Thompson who was better.
Challo said:
Did i learn anything from Herbert from the weekend? Not really. Would I prefer to have a younger person on our screen providing a different insight, perhaps with a better ability to engage with the drivers, and be more interesting for younger viewers than a slightly portly ex F1 driver who I suspect most of them have never heard of.
On a separate topic I watched on Sky and does seem that they have way too many presenters / pundits. No wonder the subscription is so much when you have that many people in front of the camera.
Herbert at least had the credentials to know what he is talking about. Meanwhile Schiff was so sh!t she got sacked from a bottom feeder series featuring exclusively drivers not good enough for the decent feeder series even at the low end of the ladder.On a separate topic I watched on Sky and does seem that they have way too many presenters / pundits. No wonder the subscription is so much when you have that many people in front of the camera.
Herbert brings with him actual F1 knowledge, something Schiff does not. She has the same amount of knowledge as a presenter does in reality, yet lacks the presenting knowledge and capability they have from working their way up the presenting roles to be in a position to get such a high profile job on merit. More than should be a basic requirement for a punditry role surely.
Croft, Hill, Herbert, Di Resta, are all derided due to how poor they are, can you all in seriousness claim she is any better? Take off your attractive/woman/black goggles and tell me she is acutally beter.
heebeegeetee said:
Good point, she's been doing it for 5 minutes. Murray Walker did it for 25 years without improving.
Ayrton Senna, I remember that, T shirts were sold bearing Never Let a Daygo By, we laughed about it back then, feel deeply embarrassed thinking about it. To be fair, in Norfolk you were of course something 'other' if you came from the city, aka Norwich.
"she's been doing it for 5 minutes" Which is the exact reason her appointment is being critcised. Those that have been given simiilar roles have been given them due to greater experience and achievement.Ayrton Senna, I remember that, T shirts were sold bearing Never Let a Daygo By, we laughed about it back then, feel deeply embarrassed thinking about it. To be fair, in Norfolk you were of course something 'other' if you came from the city, aka Norwich.
What are effectionately referred to as Murrayisms are a result of his time-served experience and the experience & knowledge he exhibited over a number of years of professional commentary. Would this be accepted of Murray Walker in only his 2nd/3rd year of commentary? Absolutely not!
Challo said:
As a newbie to the sport after years in the wilderness, and someone isn't that knowledgeable from a technical standpoint i have no issue with Schiff providing insight, and to me she covers the same information that I could gain from Herbert or some off the other pundits.
The openng part of your comment discredits the rest of your comment. In admitting you're a newbie, rather becomes discredited. Those of us who are actually informed expect more than the basic b!tch input that David Croft or Simon Lazenby can contribure from a supposed pundit. Herbert and the other pundits as you put it have actually achieved results that are actually worth something, she has not. Challo said:
I doubt younger people are really looking at her Wiki page and thinking her racing CV is not great therefore her opinion means nothing. If she started making up b
ks, or trying to bull st her way through then I think people can make a compliant, but I think she adds to the mix of pundits.
She has professionally raced cars, worked in race teams, tried different formats. While she might not have the talent in terms of driving, doesn't mean she doesn't know what she is talking about in terms of racing. She might lack some of the finer details about F1 but thats about it.
The only people that think this are the same people who can't differentiate oversteer from understeer, their opinion is not exactly valued. The only people that place any credibility on to her are racist and sexist people.ks, or trying to bull st her way through then I think people can make a compliant, but I think she adds to the mix of pundits. She has professionally raced cars, worked in race teams, tried different formats. While she might not have the talent in terms of driving, doesn't mean she doesn't know what she is talking about in terms of racing. She might lack some of the finer details about F1 but thats about it.
We're talking about Sky Sports here, it is a brand that is not eactly associated with high-brow, informed coverage considering it primarily provides coverage of Football, the neanderthal of the sporting world.
Peacockantony said:
The openng part of your comment discredits the rest of your comment. In admitting you're a newbie, rather becomes discredited. Those of us who are actually informed expect more than the basic b!tch input that David Croft or Simon Lazenby can contribure from a supposed pundit. Herbert and the other pundits as you put it have actually achieved results that are actually worth something, she has not.
Worth something to who though?Leaving out Michael, I guess we need Prost, Stewart and Piquet offering their opinions as nobody else is qualified that isn't still racing or dead.
Herbert isn't good enough, he only won three races and the last of those was 23 years ago, hardly relevant to 2022.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Tuesday 14th June 18:14
Everyone talking about Herbert and Hill as people who have vast F1 knowledge. I would guess that very little of the tech and engineering remains in the cars now from the ones that they have so much experience driving.
The argument could be that in the modern racing car Schiff actually has more experience than both of them?
That's why Karun and Nico both give good insights and information, they have competitively driven the more modern cars. That may be why Herbert and Hill bumble around. Brundle seems to be different, he seems to have access to the teams and the tech etc that the others don't, so remains pretty knowledgable.
As I said earlier in the thread, I like her, I think she's very much getting better. If Sky was to change their presenter/ pundit line up, there are quite a few others that should be gone before her.
The argument could be that in the modern racing car Schiff actually has more experience than both of them?
That's why Karun and Nico both give good insights and information, they have competitively driven the more modern cars. That may be why Herbert and Hill bumble around. Brundle seems to be different, he seems to have access to the teams and the tech etc that the others don't, so remains pretty knowledgable.
As I said earlier in the thread, I like her, I think she's very much getting better. If Sky was to change their presenter/ pundit line up, there are quite a few others that should be gone before her.
nordboy said:
Everyone talking about Herbert and Hill as people who have vast F1 knowledge. I would guess that very little of the tech and engineering remains in the cars now from the ones that they have so much experience driving.
The argument could be that in the modern racing car Schiff actually has more experience than both of them?
That's why Karun and Nico both give good insights and information, they have competitively driven the more modern cars. That may be why Herbert and Hill bumble around. Brundle seems to be different, he seems to have access to the teams and the tech etc that the others don't, so remains pretty knowledgable.
As I said earlier in the thread, I like her, I think she's very much getting better. If Sky was to change their presenter/ pundit line up, there are quite a few others that should be gone before her.
This thread it’s such an interesting read… I watch the races and keep up with the team news, what they’re up too etc via YouTube and Google… Schiff appears and I didn’t know who she was so Google clued me up… is she any good or not. I don’t really care to be honest but what presenting I’ve seen her do was ok.The argument could be that in the modern racing car Schiff actually has more experience than both of them?
That's why Karun and Nico both give good insights and information, they have competitively driven the more modern cars. That may be why Herbert and Hill bumble around. Brundle seems to be different, he seems to have access to the teams and the tech etc that the others don't, so remains pretty knowledgable.
As I said earlier in the thread, I like her, I think she's very much getting better. If Sky was to change their presenter/ pundit line up, there are quite a few others that should be gone before her.
When Nico first appeared, even with all his knowledge and insight, he was also slaughter by some on PH… tough crowd.
Peacockantony said:
heebeegeetee said:
Good point, she's been doing it for 5 minutes. Murray Walker did it for 25 years without improving.
Ayrton Senna, I remember that, T shirts were sold bearing Never Let a Daygo By, we laughed about it back then, feel deeply embarrassed thinking about it. To be fair, in Norfolk you were of course something 'other' if you came from the city, aka Norwich.
1. "she's been doing it for 5 minutes" Which is the exact reason her appointment is being critcised. Ayrton Senna, I remember that, T shirts were sold bearing Never Let a Daygo By, we laughed about it back then, feel deeply embarrassed thinking about it. To be fair, in Norfolk you were of course something 'other' if you came from the city, aka Norwich.
2. What are effectionately referred to as Murrayisms are a result of his time-served experience and the experience & knowledge he exhibited over a number of years of professional commentary. Would this be accepted of Murray Walker in only his 2nd/3rd year of commentary? Absolutely not!
Challo said:
As a newbie to the sport after years in the wilderness, and someone isn't that knowledgeable from a technical standpoint i have no issue with Schiff providing insight, and to me she covers the same information that I could gain from Herbert or some off the other pundits.
3. The openng part of your comment discredits the rest of your comment. In admitting you're a newbie, rather becomes discredited. 4. Those of us who are actually informed expect more than the basic b!tch input that David Croft or Simon Lazenby can contribure from a supposed pundit. Herbert and the other pundits as you put it have actually achieved results that are actually worth something, she has not.
2. What were affectionally known by people of the same 'tribe', I might suggest. They weren't Murrayisms, they were mistakes, and he made them a lot, throughout his career. he was a very good example of how you can be not good at your job, but if you're in with the right people it won't matter. There would have been no end of people who could have done better if given a chance, but they were prevented fro doing so for 25 years. Back then, being female would have been a huge impediment, being of colour would have meant absolutely no chance. I am glad that we've rightly moved on.
3. I totally disagree, but having said that, that was the viewer that Murray Walker ALWAYS broadcast to, the viewer who knew very little. There was nobody talking to us knowledgeable fans, until James Hunt came along, and I'll remind you that Murray was very angry that he was brought in. If you recall, Murray was going to give James a 'fourpenny one', but I'd suggest you'd have to be English middle class to know what that is.
Murray used to wind us up, we used to joke that one day he'll say "Now, those black round things at the corners of each car are what's known as tyres"
4. In what way are you informed?
I'll ask again though, how do pundits differ from journalists? I'd suggest pundits discuss on TV what is happening in the race and sport, journalist do the same but in print. Denis Jenkinson, Maurice Hamilton, Nigel Roebuck, Mark Hughes, names amongst many whose every word I've hung on in the past, not just in race reports but in countless columns and discussion in between racing. How much racing had any of them done?
heebeegeetee said:
2. What were affectionally known by people of the same 'tribe', I might suggest. They weren't Murrayisms, they were mistakes, and he made them a lot, throughout his career. he was a very good example of how you can be not good at your job, but if you're in with the right people it won't matter. There would have been no end of people who could have done better if given a chance, but they were prevented fro doing so for 25 years.
IMO he was very good at his job. However, 25+ plus years of live commentary was bound to throw up errors, faux pas and absolute howlers.You have no idea if anyone would have done a better job. You're right to suggest it. But, it's just your opinion.
Blib said:
heebeegeetee said:
2. What were affectionally known by people of the same 'tribe', I might suggest. They weren't Murrayisms, they were mistakes, and he made them a lot, throughout his career. he was a very good example of how you can be not good at your job, but if you're in with the right people it won't matter. There would have been no end of people who could have done better if given a chance, but they were prevented fro doing so for 25 years.
IMO he was very good at his job. However, 25+ plus years of live commentary was bound to throw up errors, faux pas and absolute howlers.You have no idea if anyone would have done a better job. You're right to suggest it. But, it's just your opinion.
Hunt was a bit before my time, but I recall him being witty, sharp and knowledgeable. That seems like the commentator 'x' factor to me.
Edited by Big Nanas on Tuesday 14th June 11:31
Blib said:
IMO he was very good at his job. However, 25+ plus years of live commentary was bound to throw up errors, faux pas and absolute howlers.
You have no idea if anyone would have done a better job. You're right to suggest it. But, it's just your opinion.
No, it was almost every race would throw up errors, faux pas and the odd absolute howler. I didn't hate the guy by any means, but looking back I think he's entirely indicative of how wrong things were back then. I think it's entirely fair to say that a younger person would have brought a fresh perspective, as indeed dear James Hunt very much did. Murray Walker said pretty much exactly the same thing for 25 years. He did very much have 'the voice' for it though.You have no idea if anyone would have done a better job. You're right to suggest it. But, it's just your opinion.
heebeegeetee said:
No, it was almost every race would throw up errors, faux pas and the odd absolute howler. I didn't hate the guy by any means, but looking back I think he's entirely indicative of how wrong things were back then. I think it's entirely fair to say that a younger person would have brought a fresh perspective, as indeed dear James Hunt very much did. Murray Walker said pretty much exactly the same thing for 25 years. He did very much have 'the voice' for it though.
I suppose we differ in what we value in a lead commentator. Walker was able to popularise the sport far beyond the tiny confines of F1 fans of the time. He humanised the essential drama of F1 and did it with honesty, humility and above everything else, unbridled love for the sport.
Maybe others could have described the technicalities better. But, Walker invited you into the sheer glory of the sport and enveloped you with his unbridled enthusiasm for all things F1.
I enjoyed that immensely. But, each to their own.
Sandpit Steve said:
So Sid the Sexist turned up to pollute this thread, after polluting the Jamie Chadwick one a couple of months ago.
I wonder if Schiff's appointment to the Sky team was a deliberate ploy to rid the sport's fanbase of racist, sexist, bigoted, grumpy old men? If so, I hope it works.
Blib said:
heebeegeetee said:
No, it was almost every race would throw up errors, faux pas and the odd absolute howler. I didn't hate the guy by any means, but looking back I think he's entirely indicative of how wrong things were back then. I think it's entirely fair to say that a younger person would have brought a fresh perspective, as indeed dear James Hunt very much did. Murray Walker said pretty much exactly the same thing for 25 years. He did very much have 'the voice' for it though.
I suppose we differ in what we value in a lead commentator. Walker was able to popularise the sport far beyond the tiny confines of F1 fans of the time. He humanised the essential drama of F1 and did it with honesty, humility and above everything else, unbridled love for the sport.
Maybe others could have described the technicalities better. But, Walker invited you into the sheer glory of the sport and enveloped you with his unbridled enthusiasm for all things F1.
I enjoyed that immensely. But, each to their own.
Naomi obviously isn't the finished article in broadcasting terms but few people are in their
first appearances on television.
Anybody who claims not to have anything to learn from her is probably lying, she has been in and around motor racing for many years as a competitor and obviously in her role has access to people in F1 which the viewers don't.
Clearly a number of the more experienced and better compensated individuals who most often present the content didn't fancy going to Azerbaijan. Just the same as any other industry, that is an opportunity for keener and hungrier young people to get a chance.
first appearances on television.
Anybody who claims not to have anything to learn from her is probably lying, she has been in and around motor racing for many years as a competitor and obviously in her role has access to people in F1 which the viewers don't.
Clearly a number of the more experienced and better compensated individuals who most often present the content didn't fancy going to Azerbaijan. Just the same as any other industry, that is an opportunity for keener and hungrier young people to get a chance.
Cold said:
Sandpit Steve said:
So Sid the Sexist turned up to pollute this thread, after polluting the Jamie Chadwick one a couple of months ago.
I wonder if Schiff's appointment to the Sky team was a deliberate ploy to rid the sport's fanbase of racist, sexist, bigoted, grumpy old men? If so, I hope it works.
Cold said:
Sandpit Steve said:
So Sid the Sexist turned up to pollute this thread, after polluting the Jamie Chadwick one a couple of months ago.
I wonder if Schiff's appointment to the Sky team was a deliberate ploy to rid the sport's fanbase of racist, sexist, bigoted, grumpy old men? If so, I hope it works.
Had they hired Sam Collins (he covered for Ted during Winter testing) I would have no problem because he would have been chosen based on merit.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff