Discussion
Seb's interview hit the nail on the head. He is a very astute chap. It does indeed say far more about the people directing the vitriol than the subject.
Still waiting to hear what the mysterious 'political' agenda is btw. If someone has so much conviction in something they should be able to articulate what the f**k it actually is!
Still waiting to hear what the mysterious 'political' agenda is btw. If someone has so much conviction in something they should be able to articulate what the f**k it actually is!
Edited by cgt2 on Friday 17th June 18:55
cgt2 said:
Seb's interview hit the nail on the head. He is a very astute chap. It does indeed say far more about the people directing the vitriol than the subject.
Still waiting to hear what the mysterious 'political' agenda is btw. If someone has so much conviction in something they should be able to articulate what the f**k it actually is!
Political agenda Anti Stevenage slum dwellers?!Still waiting to hear what the mysterious 'political' agenda is btw. If someone has so much conviction in something they should be able to articulate what the f**k it actually is!
Edited by cgt2 on Friday 17th June 18:55
Siao said:
F1GTRUeno said:
I'm well aware that sometimes it will genuinely be a box ticking thing. Some companies will go about it the wrong way to, as you say, 'appear' to be diverse.
And yeah, I know there are laws against it, but the way people operate show that laws are guidelines that often people don't adhere to.
The idea remains however: How do you boost historically oppressed people into a level playing field without some discrimination taking place?
As said, it's not like we're all on a level playing field so even if you did just hire on merit then you're currently naturally going to get more white males than anyone else because they've already been upskilled and placed in positions to gain the experience. No other demographic stands a chance without 'help'.
I think the idea is that if you boost the historically oppressed people (lets call them HO for short), then you are discriminating against the rest, two wrongs don't make a right. If you are championing fairness, how can you promote selection of a certain group (HO) of people over another? This is discrimination itself.And yeah, I know there are laws against it, but the way people operate show that laws are guidelines that often people don't adhere to.
The idea remains however: How do you boost historically oppressed people into a level playing field without some discrimination taking place?
As said, it's not like we're all on a level playing field so even if you did just hire on merit then you're currently naturally going to get more white males than anyone else because they've already been upskilled and placed in positions to gain the experience. No other demographic stands a chance without 'help'.
Hence, you just get the best person for the job, no matter where they are from, colour, sex, shoe size or which is their favourite Spice Girl. It is true that there is the systemic racism in existence, but this is slowly changing and it will take time in order to be truly fair.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, so I don't think I can add more. I just merely wanted to voice my experience on this.
When we're all level, absolutely.
We're not all level though so it falls apart.
How do you think it's slowly changing without discrimination taking place? Aside from the absolute 0.0001% of us that are so supremely talented at what we do that it really, genuinely doesn't matter where we're from, what we are, etc, discrimination to someone at some point is needed to allow some others to level up. It helps that most people don't mind one way or another as it barely affects them (unless they're going for the same job and not getting it I guess) but for others it appears like a slap in the face box tick.
I'm quite content to be technically discriminated against (in the sense that it doesn't really affect me) for others to get the opportunities and even up the standards because I know it needs to happen. Blindly saying 'just get the best person' is ignoring the central issue of hierarchy thanks to historic oppression.
Wills2 said:
There is nothing wrong with Naomi Schiff, she's been really good right from the start, comfortable in front of the camera and and slipped right into the role, what is wrong with people?
Good luck to her I say.
I suspect, while they'd never ever admit it, and in fact say very loudly that's not the reasons, there's two reasons why they don't like her being on the TV.Good luck to her I say.
Sandpit Steve said:
Would rather have Naomi than a much more successful American driver - one who gives the impression of having spent yesterday watching F1 highlights videos to catch up on the season, because she hasn’t really been paying attention to the series.
It was somewhat unkind of Lazenby to put Danica on the spot about porpoising. The sheer bewilderment and deflection in her answer was painful. Jenson's expression at some of her comments was also quite noticeable.MissChief said:
I suspect, while they'd never ever admit it, and in fact say very loudly that's not the reasons, there's two reasons why they don't like her being on the TV.
I find it highly amusing that a political agenda is quoted but no one seems to know what that agenda actually is. Comedy.cgt2 said:
Sandpit Steve said:
Would rather have Naomi than a much more successful American driver - one who gives the impression of having spent yesterday watching F1 highlights videos to catch up on the season, because she hasn’t really been paying attention to the series.
It was somewhat unkind of Lazenby to put Danica on the spot about porpoising. The sheer bewilderment and deflection in her answer was painful. Jenson's expression at some of her comments was also quite noticeable.cgt2 said:
MissChief said:
I suspect, while they'd never ever admit it, and in fact say very loudly that's not the reasons, there's two reasons why they don't like her being on the TV.
I find it highly amusing that a political agenda is quoted but no one seems to know what that agenda actually is. Comedy.MissChief said:
Do I really need to spell it out? If you insist. Some don't like that she's a woman. Some don't like that she's not white. Some are upset that she's both. I rarely saw or read any of this 'not qualified to commentate' pushed towards Billy monger on Channel 4's coverage.
Of course we can make the obvious conclusion exactly as you stated. But the people who made the hyperbolic statement that there is a secret political agenda by Sky and other broadcasters have then steadfastly refused to state what that agenda is, why not say it? Does it hold such little credibility they apparently know how stupid it sounds themselves?Billy is an admirable young man who has overcome far greater odds than many people ever experience in life. Sadly in today's environment I'm sure there are those who have their issues with him too.
So it seems the flip side to all the debate is if you don’t think Danica is any good it’s maybe because she is a woman and white? Or maybe none of this thread has anything to do with gender or race and we live in a world where people can no longer express opinions because some people will always try to take the debate onto other issues ?
Knowledge alone is not enough for a presenter. Her job is to make the programme more enjoyable, to encourage viewers, to interview interesting people, to let us have information we might have missed. Jake on Ch4 a few years ago was excellent as a presenter, although he knew little about the sport initially.
It's fair to say she's made a few mistakes, but fewer than one might expect given how new she is in the job. Di Resta knows a lot about the sport, as do Hill and others, but that doesn't make them good presenters.
We'll know if Naomi will make a good/great/inept presenter (I seriously doubt the last) in due course, but she's not boring, a criticism aimed at some of the more experienced pundits.
I quite like her take on things, but I doubt that will last. As she gets more experience, she'll settle into a norm for her.
She's a bit different I grant you, but that's a good thing. A number of the Sky team are a bit bland.
It's fair to say she's made a few mistakes, but fewer than one might expect given how new she is in the job. Di Resta knows a lot about the sport, as do Hill and others, but that doesn't make them good presenters.
We'll know if Naomi will make a good/great/inept presenter (I seriously doubt the last) in due course, but she's not boring, a criticism aimed at some of the more experienced pundits.
I quite like her take on things, but I doubt that will last. As she gets more experience, she'll settle into a norm for her.
She's a bit different I grant you, but that's a good thing. A number of the Sky team are a bit bland.
cc3 said:
So it seems the flip side to all the debate is if you don’t think Danica is any good it’s maybe because she is a woman and white? Or maybe none of this thread has anything to do with gender or race and we live in a world where people can no longer express opinions because some people will always try to take the debate onto other issues ?
Sad thing about Danica is when caught on a subject she does know something about, such as technicalities of the track itself, and she's dead on, it's just clear she knows the square root of f
k all about the formula 1 racing series. Probably like the majority of North American racing drivers... regardless of how good they look in a frock. Danica was just the specific one they wanted on the coverage, so for whatever reason that was, she's the one that gets to exhibit America's inward looking and ignorance seeming culture.Anyways that's enough woman hating misogyny from me for now, I'm off to think of something racist to contribute.
Danica again illustrated her lack of F1 knowledge. She's an accomplished racer and knows Indycar and Stock Car but is clearly winging it in F1. All of her comments basically repeated what Jenson said and his face suggested he wasn't impressed. He also directly corrected her twice on air, once quite sharply when he talked about driving an F1 car in the wet.
Some moments from yesterday;
1. Comparing F1 downforce to stock cars in their ability to go flat.
2. Comparing Stroll's aggression to Alonso.
3. Being unaware that Charles starts at the back, saying ten places, despite it being repeatedly mentioned in the broadcast after he took the second engine penalty. Lack of attention to detail.
Her lack of F1 knowledge would manifest itself if she were black, white, purple or blue.
Some moments from yesterday;
1. Comparing F1 downforce to stock cars in their ability to go flat.
2. Comparing Stroll's aggression to Alonso.
3. Being unaware that Charles starts at the back, saying ten places, despite it being repeatedly mentioned in the broadcast after he took the second engine penalty. Lack of attention to detail.
Her lack of F1 knowledge would manifest itself if she were black, white, purple or blue.
TDK-C60 said:
Thread proving why we still have a problem.
The lack of a Billy monger thread populated by the same vitriol says it all.
Vettel pigeon-holed the perps well.
Good luck to her. I hope the outpouring of support is helping.
I remember some criticism of appropriateness of Billy giving pundrity about F1 at some point. It simply wasn't latched onto and exploited by people subscribing to a world view that permits them the indulgence of bullying others justified by attaching false motives to anywhere near the same degree.The lack of a Billy monger thread populated by the same vitriol says it all.
Vettel pigeon-holed the perps well.
Good luck to her. I hope the outpouring of support is helping.
Teddy Lop said:
TDK-C60 said:
Thread proving why we still have a problem.
The lack of a Billy monger thread populated by the same vitriol says it all.
Vettel pigeon-holed the perps well.
Good luck to her. I hope the outpouring of support is helping.
I remember some criticism of appropriateness of Billy giving pundrity about F1 at some point. It simply wasn't latched onto and exploited by people subscribing to a world view that permits them the indulgence of bullying others justified by attaching false motives to anywhere near the same degree.The lack of a Billy monger thread populated by the same vitriol says it all.
Vettel pigeon-holed the perps well.
Good luck to her. I hope the outpouring of support is helping.
In terms of what it's really like to drive an F1 car he has as much personal experience as Danicia Patrick but at least he does his research, because this is his world & it isn't hers.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff