Discussion
F1GTRUeno said:
I'm no expert either so probably a moot point but the idea of 'just get the best person for the job' doesn't work right now does it?
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.
Ah come on, you are seriously saying that if you were jobless and you lost a position you were going for to someone that is less suited for the job but is of the correct "background", you would be ok with it? Satisfied, even happy?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.
I'm saying things change because there are more "historically oppressed" people attending universities and given more opportunities in general. We are not level at the moment, but it is getting there, it will get there.
And yes, getting the right person for the job is what it is all about. I would imagine that if you were a business owner you would need the best people for your business, not seeing the employees as "tick box" exercises, but as people with skills, no mater how they look. There will be times that you would get two candidates with similar qualities and this would afford you to chose based on other traits, otherwise I'd expect the right person to get the role.
We can agree to disagree though and not derail this further, it's not going anywhere.
Derek Smith said:
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.
I agree fully, I see a presenter as an entertainer as well, that's why some people can't stand di Resta's robotic voice or why people loved Murray's excitement. F1 is an entertainment business after all.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.
Di Resta, Davidson, Hill, Coulthard, Button, Brundle, Herbert, Schiff, Patrick, Rosberg, Chandhok. Who's the odd one out from that list? All raced at a very high level except Naomi Schiff, despite how hard she tries to project that image.
It's not because she's black, I have no problem with Lewis Hamilton or Karun Chandhok. It's not because she's a woman, I have no problem with Rachael Brookes or Natalie Pinkham. She adds nothing to the show apart from token blackness.
It's not because she's black, I have no problem with Lewis Hamilton or Karun Chandhok. It's not because she's a woman, I have no problem with Rachael Brookes or Natalie Pinkham. She adds nothing to the show apart from token blackness.
Tricuspid said:
It's not because she's black, I have no problem with Lewis Hamilton or Karun Chandhok. It's not because she's a woman, I have no problem with Rachael Brookes or Natalie Pinkham. She adds nothing to the show apart from token blackness.
And Rachel and Natalie were top-line drivers, were they?Tricuspid said:
Nope, but they don't pretend to be either. They're good at what they do, and leave the analysis to the actual experts.
And neither does Naomi. She's is more presenter/interviewer than technical analysis, and she is very good at that.I expect Sky wanted a more inclusive and diverse presenting team, and Naomi gave them that opportunity.
Well just seen her discussing yesterday with Nico Rosberg and she is definitely gaining in confidence and knowledge. She correctly identified Sainz' oversteer moments as not giving him enough momentum out of corners thereby negating his top speed advantage.
Quite a bit of technical and in depth driver discussion with Rosberg including Alonso's mindset. Nico not holding back as usual!
Most of the Sky team have a look of sheer bewilderment when discussing such things with Rosberg as their cognitive understanding of things only extends to banal irrelevance and their intellectual ability extends to "Loose Women"
Quite a bit of technical and in depth driver discussion with Rosberg including Alonso's mindset. Nico not holding back as usual!
Most of the Sky team have a look of sheer bewilderment when discussing such things with Rosberg as their cognitive understanding of things only extends to banal irrelevance and their intellectual ability extends to "Loose Women"
Edited by cgt2 on Monday 20th June 18:46
cgt2 said:
Well just seen her discussing yesterday with Nico Rosberg and she is definitely gaining in confidence and knowledge. She correctly identified Sainz' oversteer moments as not giving him enough momentum out of corners thereby negating his top speed advantage.
I know that, and I haven't driven an F1 car either. Neither has Crofty, and he knows it too. My dog probably knows that, and she's a halfwit!cgt2 said:
Quite a bit of technical and in depth driver discussion with Rosberg including Alonso's mindset. Nico not holding back as usual!
Another one I can't abide (despite his undeniable F1 experience), mostly because he can't talk about anything without mentioning when he was Lewis's team-mate / when he beat Lewis / etc.cgt2 said:
Most of the Sky team have a look of sheer bewilderment when discussing such things with Rosberg as their cognitive understanding of things only extends to banal irrelevance and their intellectual ability extends to "Loose Women"
At least Loose Women is vaguely amusing ... Rosberg and Schiff are more suited to The One Show!Still, it'd be boring if we all liked the same things.
cgt2 said:
Thanks for the link, I enjoyed that. I was surprised at earlier criticism of Nico, I think he's an excellent pundit, possibly the best of them, and I enjoy his other YouTube stuff too.And I thought Naomi was excellent too, and yes, I think it's great to have someone young, fresh, and who can appeal to a wider audience.
Having a stream of older white males isn't going to do that imo.
heebeegeetee said:
Thanks for the link, I enjoyed that. I was surprised at earlier criticism of Nico, I think he's an excellent pundit, possibly the best of them, and I enjoy his other YouTube stuff too.
And I thought Naomi was excellent too, and yes, I think it's great to have someone young, fresh, and who can appeal to a wider audience.
Having a stream of older white males isn't going to do that imo.
Why? What's skin colour got to do with it? Some might say that's... Racist.And I thought Naomi was excellent too, and yes, I think it's great to have someone young, fresh, and who can appeal to a wider audience.
Having a stream of older white males isn't going to do that imo.
I'll just add my 2p, I don't really care what sex or colour Naomi Schifff is. She makes some reasoned points, some of which are probably piped into her ear just like the other presenters. I much prefer listening to her than listening to some of the other presenters gut wrenching cringe jokes/interview questions and frequent mistakes.
People talk about her racing credentials, but it's OK for Ted Kravitz to have no racing credentials whatsoever and still do his "notebook" section. You don't have to be an ex F1 driver to talk about F1. Diversity amongst the presenters is a good thing.
For me, having to listen to Croft's terrible commentary and curling up into a ball of cringe on my sofa watching Brundle trying to talk to celebrities is enough for me to cancel my subscription the next time round. Couple that with the pretty boring racing, I'd rather keep my money in my pocket and watch the highlights on youtube while taking a number 2.
People talk about her racing credentials, but it's OK for Ted Kravitz to have no racing credentials whatsoever and still do his "notebook" section. You don't have to be an ex F1 driver to talk about F1. Diversity amongst the presenters is a good thing.
For me, having to listen to Croft's terrible commentary and curling up into a ball of cringe on my sofa watching Brundle trying to talk to celebrities is enough for me to cancel my subscription the next time round. Couple that with the pretty boring racing, I'd rather keep my money in my pocket and watch the highlights on youtube while taking a number 2.
Tricuspid said:
Di Resta, Davidson, Hill, Coulthard, Button, Brundle, Herbert, Schiff, Patrick, Rosberg, Chandhok. Who's the odd one out from that list? All raced at a very high level except Naomi Schiff, despite how hard she tries to project that image.
It's not because she's black, I have no problem with Lewis Hamilton or Karun Chandhok. It's not because she's a woman, I have no problem with Rachael Brookes or Natalie Pinkham. She adds nothing to the show apart from token blackness.
proper mask off momentIt's not because she's black, I have no problem with Lewis Hamilton or Karun Chandhok. It's not because she's a woman, I have no problem with Rachael Brookes or Natalie Pinkham. She adds nothing to the show apart from token blackness.
dont worry just 924 more posts and you can join your buddies in the latest NP&E anti-woke thread
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff