F1 goes to Sky sports

[bella]

Originally Posted by EvilPumpkin

Sky creates a lot of employment - not just for presenters - and while the ethics of the empire may be cloudy, that doesn't mean that the people who work for them are somehow bad or that the people who purchase the service are mugs. They don't deserve to be insulted.

quite. my cousin does a great job for sky (she actually broke a fairly massive story recently), she's definitely not a mug, they look after her as an employee very well and she has a good shift patterns. though her old man doesn't give them his business for televisual services, that goes to virgin

[Paradise City]

The 'Sky scandal' isn't about production. It's about the bosses and Eccelstone in particular. Live F1 doesn't need to be behind a paywall or if a paywall than let it be a paywall at an itunes price or something.

Once though the Sky bosses handed down their instruction to the production team; they did a good job with it.

I don't like all that punditry but that's a view that won't be shared by most and is also something most broadcasters do with their headline sports and Sky has brought to the max - giving a whole channel over to it.

However that's only a personal preference and I don't really assign blame to the Sky F1 team for dong that.

In short the Sky production is fine and they should be proud of their achievement.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by EvilPumpkin

As for people being mugs, you could say that about pretty much everything, including and probably especially Formula 1 - since I suspect Bernie is certainly on a par with Mr. Murdoch in terms of personal fortune. If you didn't buy anything or watch anything because of a moral objection to those who own or run them, then you had better get off the grid because behind just about everything (except Ten-Tenths sadly...! ) is owned and run by a hyper wealthy man or woman or group of faceless investors that you probably wouldn't want to trust with your kid's pocket money.

IMHO of course.

I don't think people are necessarily mugs for paying for Sky coverage, that's their choice. I personally wouldn't pay for Sky as I object to Murdoch and all that he stands for. The alternative is the BBC, which although isn't a perfect institution, at least isn't owned by a hyper wealthy man or woman or group of faceless investors.

[EvilPumpkin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The alternative is the BBC, which although isn't a perfect institution, at least isn't owned by a hyper wealthy man or woman or group of faceless investors.

Faceless civil servants then?

Surely you're not holding the BBC up as being a paragon of virtue after everything that's come to light in the last 6 months?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by EvilPumpkin

Faceless civil servants then?

Surely you're not holding the BBC up as being a paragon of virtue after everything that's come to light in the last 6 months?

Certainly not, if I'd launched into a diatribe of the BBC I'd be going seriously off topic.

Agreed on faceless civil servants but in this case I prefer them to Murdoch.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Hurrah, I'm a mug in your opinion. It's what I've always wanted.



Rennen, you're a mug. isenho.

I would like to say I do not think Rennen, despite his subscription to sky, is a mug. I was merely highlighting the absurdity of calling Rennen a mug.
The jury is out on me though.

BTW isenho is in someone else's not humble opinion. I know, weaktastic.

[Born Racer]

Maybe Sky could give away a gift with every new subscription with it printed across it: "A mug for subscribing to Sky?".

[bella]

time to split this discussion two ways - one, discussing the uk f1 coverage. two, discussing the whys and hows of joining sky for the coverage and if you haven't signed up, why you haven't.

also the poll is getting on my nerves, it hasn't been relevant for 2 years

thanks for the contributions so far folks, it's been... interesting