uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I had looked at her social media months ago and was shocked. I initially thought she was just courting controversy to gain views, but I really think she is 100% nuts. The "Lizard People" part is the easiest to call out, but there is more. View any of it and your brain will rot. It has been a topic of discussion recently on F1 Reddit.

I use F1TV app here in US, so I don't know how well she does with the Sky broadcast. My impression with the bit I have seen her doing racing broadcasting is that she is not particularly good. I very much get the impression that while she is a good driver (good in the big picture) she is not particularly knowledgeable outside of sitting in the car. I can't imagine she brings much new other than being a pretty face, having an "American" perspective (as if that is a singular perspective) and has history as a driver in a top series. But those don't outweigh the negatives IMHO.

Anyhow, back to the Lizard People. I am a big believer in free speech. You can say or believe whatever you want. But there can be consequences. I am open to people who challenge conventional thinking, but I zero sympathy for supporting people who are live in an alternate reality and spout nonsense. I frankly hope she is dropped by Sky. If not, then I hope the rest of the Sky team starts dressing in lizard outfits and chases her around the paddock.

Richard

She's crap. She regularly spouts nonsense and Jenson Button stands beside her with a confused/shocked/tired face. TikTok/Instagram are filled with memes where it shows Jenson reacting to her nonsense.

She also believes the moon landings were fake the government controls us with chem trails from commercial jets.

[GTRMagic]

#fakenews

You have to wonder where people find the time..

[Tourer]

Lizard people and aliens - yeah, that's just plan weird & nutty; didn't know that about DP prior to this.

My opinion on her F1 punditry is different to Akrapovic - by and large I like what she brings to the telecasts when she's there. Like all of them (other than Martin, Jenson & Damon) not everything she comes out with makes sense but even some of that stuff is at least thought provoking.

Oh & referencing my earlier post, at least she can correctly pronounce "sixth".

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Noticed something interesting at Austria with Harry Benjamin doing a good job of filling in again.

He also seems unable to say “sixth” & instead goes with “sikth” - something both Croft & Brundle do too.

Is this widespread in English commentary or do we have some kind of cluster in the F1 commentary box?

Genuinely interested as it sounds so weird.

Simon Taylor had the best pronunciation for "sixth". I could listen to him all day.

[flatlandsman]

It is the same as the moron Croft incessantly saying Fettel instead of Vettel

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

It is the same as the moron Croft incessantly saying Fettel instead of Vettel

Have you actually checked how it should be pronounced?


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Vettel.ogg.mp3

On this occasion, I would suggest that Croft is using the correct pronunciation in Vettel's native tongue.

[flatlandsman]

If he is it is about the only thing he dies do right!!

I would suggest Seb does not care a jot, and when everybody else does NOT do it, it just makes Croft out to be exactly what he is.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

If he is it is about the only thing he dies do right!!

I would suggest Seb does not care a jot, and when everybody else does NOT do it, it just makes Croft out to be exactly what he is.

Are we really complaining about a commentator pronouncing a name correctly, whilst a coworker believes that lizards in human suits control the flat earth?

I wish this sentence was not an accurate description of the situation.

[chillibowl]

If she was on a podcast saying that angles and demons are walking around, or ghost, or that some invisible entity made it all would anyone blink an eye? Heck this weeks race is being held in a country whose leader was chosen by some invisible god using a magic rock and oil or some such and we are all have to sing a song to him (happy July 4th to everyone ironically lol).

Not that I advocate for these things myself (I hold my own weirdo notions), just saying none of us are normal. We all believe whacked out and down right crazy things.

Should she lose her job over it? That’s a tough one for me…I suppose im not to bothered by it but probably only because I’m so used to it?

Anyways, return to normal discussions of repeating the number six and how some people misspeak in tongues!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Should she lose her job over it? That’s a tough one for me…I suppose im not to bothered by it but probably only because I’m so used to it?

She should lose her job for being so bad that she has made her cohosts into a meme where they can no longer keep a straight face every time she opens her mouth.

[chillibowl]

I suppose for better or worse the days of having to endure commentary one does not like is coming to an end…Can’t wait for A.I. Murray Walker to be deployed.

Sounds far fetched but US Olympic coverage is going to include an A.I. voice over created from one of their long time and celebrated talking heads.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

I suppose for better or worse the days of having to endure commentary one does not like is coming to an end…Can’t wait for A.I. Murray Walker to be deployed.

Sounds far fetched but US Olympic coverage is going to include an A.I. voice over created from one of their long time and celebrated talking heads.

As much as I enjoyed Murray Walker's commentating, I think hearing an AI version would be a bit freaky.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As much as I enjoyed Murray Walker's commentating, I think hearing an AI version would be a bit freaky.

no doubt lol.

further to that, i wonder if SKY can even do that given that the commentary samples that it would have to be based on comes from BBC/ITV historical footage and/or the estate would also have to sign over/sell future voice rights but that seems to be an increasingly common thing for celebrated voices?

through ownership of the archive, i would guess FOM may have some ability to do this but then again, things like the commentary may belong to the original broadcasters' who produced those tracks over the world feed.

i imagine with Al Michaels and NBC, they already have those sorts of deals in place, Michaels already under contract, plus plenty of past commentary samples from t heir own broadcasts with which to base it on/extrapolate from.

and of course, i imagine it will come with a another tier level for subscription so will anyone be willing to pay for it in the end? although they will probably just force it down everyones throats' regardless of what we may actually want.

of the out there things i believe (actually its not really out there at all anymore), i suspect a personalized Max Headroom style talking head is in all of our near futures!

[Mike Harte]

No different to some of the "voices" that have been available on some GPS devices; even though some are genuine and the "owners" have been paid, others are provided by impersonators or possibly AI.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

no doubt lol.

of the out there things i believe (actually its not really out there at all anymore), i suspect a personalized Max Headroom style talking head is in all of our near futures!

I don't doubt it. AI has the ability to one day run our lives if given place by those in authority.
And the more authoritarian some political figures become the more some groups within society will suspect the Orwellian future of 1984 will be upon us.

That is why a public figure like Danica Patrick can talk comfortably on her podcasts about things like chem trails, fake moon landings, and 911, UFO's etc., and have an audience.

Lizard people is not a surprise.
A recent congressional hearing heard evidence from government departments that UFOs had crashed, and the occupants remains found and when asked if they were human or non-human replied 'non-human'.

Therefore, lizard people aren't a big step from there. How many people might think like this?
In the US some estimates I've seen are 10-20% of the population so 35-60 million people.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I watched the Danica Patrick podcast about Lizard people, just to see what all the fuss is about. This podcast is actually called I ''Elizabeth April | Everything You Need To Know About Reptilians | Galactic Federation'', and is part of a series of podcasts titled ''Pretty Intense''.

https://youtu.be/f6AZX92oILg?si=ZpJnrcF078ubxA3z

It's basically a Q&A session on a variety of topics that are listed on the YouTube page under Episode Notes, with Elizabeth April who is a self professed clairvoyant, who has been reincarnated and who is touch with the Galactic Federation.

All I really have to say is, if Danica Patrick does believe in any of this, does it actually cause any harm? The days when witches were drowned for their actions and beliefs have long past, or at least I thought they had.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I watched the Danica Patrick podcast about Lizard people, just to see what all the fuss is about. This podcast is actually called I ''Elizabeth April | Everything You Need To Know About Reptilians | Galactic Federation'', and is part of a series of podcasts titled ''Pretty Intense''.

https://youtu.be/f6AZX92oILg?si=ZpJnrcF078ubxA3z

It's basically a Q&A session on a variety of topics that are listed on the YouTube page under Episode Notes, with Elizabeth April who is a self professed clairvoyant, who has been reincarnated and who is touch with the Galactic Federation.

All I really have to say is, if Danica Patrick does believe in any of this, does it actually cause any harm? The days when witches were drowned for their actions and beliefs have long past, or at least I thought they had.

Id agree with you.
But Sky was getting some angst about Danica so maybe its just an excuse to drop her from the group.
Still hurts her though.

[Skam85]

The biggest issue is she just isn't very good or insightful and adds very little to the Sky coverage, visuals aside.

[S griffin]

Danica isn't helping herself with her beliefs and conspiracies. She's basically stoking up hate for no reason. There is no excuse for this behaviour. I'm not sad she's been dropped

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I'm not sad she's been dropped

She's not been dropped.

[flatlandsman]

I would guess she ticks a lot of boxes, she is probably the most recognisable and successful female racer, she is American, and I don't mind if she is outspoken. I don't watch F1 enough to know if she is, but her personal beliefs are not really a concern of anyone at SKY unless they come into her punditry. It might restrict her in some ways in the future however.

This is exactly the same as Lineker and the like having strong political views personally. She is there to talk about racing and F1, maybe she has little experience in F1, but in other ways in SKY's terms she ticks more boxes than most, and that is all they care about.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

She's not been dropped.

I’m sure there’s a place for her on a Murdoch news channel.She’d fit right in.

[ChrisA]

Getting fed up with Ch4 coverage. Supposed to be live this weekend, but too many commercial breaks. Probably seen about 30 minutes of an hours running. Ridiculous.

[Richard C]

Let me apologize for getting on a soapbox and creating a long post.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

All I really have to say is, if Danica Patrick does believe in any of this, does it actually cause any harm? The days when witches were drowned for their actions and beliefs have long past, or at least I thought they had.

Short answer...
Yes, it does harm. It is less about personal belief than it is about proselytizing those beliefs and bringing those beliefs into the mainstream. Beliefs that are presented as fact but can be verified as not true. It is part of ongoing degeneration into a "post fact" society. Nothing positive can come from this.

Long answer...
I have more than a passing interest in radical belief systems (i.e. Flat earth, Fake Moon Landing, Lizard People) that reject scientific evidence and have at their core some type of conspiracy to hide the truth to explain the belief. We are living in a society in which belief in science is being eroded (incorrectly IMHO). People who exist at the fringe (such as Danica) who not just personally believe in these things but are also proselytizing them are a significant part of the problem. Bringing these people into the mainstream legitimizes these beliefs. And to be clear, I am talking about things that can be overwhelmingly proven to be incorrect by using the simplest of methods (Flat earthers are a prime example of this). Danica probably is personally hampered by the fact that she has the barest of structured or professional education (her leaving High School early has already been mentioned in this thread). She could be the poster child of uneducated adults who have since “enhanced” their education via social media! Stop believing what you see on Tik Tok people! Now she is regurgitating the same garbage to a wider audience.

Once fringe beliefs are mainstream, it makes it harder to have legitimate discussions on real and important topics. Things such as Global warming, Electrification of automobiles, etc. I am not calling those topics out as “fringe” or those who have contrary opinions as being “nuts”, but rather that discussion on those topics now use similar fringe conspiracy style “evidence” to justify positions (on either side). It makes it harder and harder to have real and productive conversations when beliefs are treated as “facts” and that reliance purely upon "personal opinion" is not seen as incorrect.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

If she was on a podcast saying that angles and demons are walking around, or ghost, or that some invisible entity made it all would anyone blink an eye?

This is a tough topic as religion is one of the things you shouldn’t talk about online. I don't really care to get into religious debates here. Especially as it is off topic, but this might apply to this topic of Danica.

I don’t think the strict definition of religion requires worship or belief to require pure faith. For example, if a religion is based upon a belief that the sky is green vs. blue, then I have no problem being critical because that is something that can be proven to be wrong. And continued belief in something that is easily and overwhelmingly provably incorrect deserves criticism IMHO.

If someone believes in something that acts beyond the scope of science and can’t be proven (required faith vs. evidence), and this likely describes many or most common global religions IHMO, then I am open to that. I know that others such as strict Atheists will not have the same level of “acceptance” or “allowance” that I might have and can and will not see any difference between “Lizard People run the world governments” from “Moses splitting the Red Sea” and I can respect that position (I may have a few exceptions... don't get me started on Scientology!) But I am generally more Agnostic than anything else and forgiving on 100% faith-based religions. But my point is that I think you can separate what I would call “faith based” beliefs from those that can be proven to be incorrect and use “conspiracy” to deflect legitimate criticism. But I do understand that there is a fine line between being anti-fringe beliefs and at the same time being accepting of many of the beliefs that are foundational to the big world religions.

(Crossing fingers this doesn't explode over religious content)

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Let me apologize for getting on a soapbox and creating a long post.


Short answer...
Yes, it does harm. It is less about personal belief than it is about proselytizing those beliefs and bringing those beliefs into the mainstream. Beliefs that are presented as fact but can be verified as not true. It is part of ongoing degeneration into a "post fact" society. Nothing positive can come from this.

Long answer...
I have more than a passing interest in radical belief systems (i.e. Flat earth, Fake Moon Landing, Lizard People) that reject scientific evidence and have at their core some type of conspiracy to hide the truth to explain the belief. We are living in a society in which belief in science is being eroded (incorrectly IMHO). People who exist at the fringe (such as Danica) who not just personally believe in these things but are also proselytizing them are a significant part of the problem. Bringing these people into the mainstream legitimizes these beliefs. And to be clear, I am talking about things that can be overwhelmingly proven to be incorrect by using the simplest of methods (Flat earthers are a prime example of this). Danica probably is personally hampered by the fact that she has the barest of structured or professional education (her leaving High School early has already been mentioned in this thread). She could be the poster child of uneducated adults who have since “enhanced” their education via social media! Stop believing what you see on Tik Tok people! Now she is regurgitating the same garbage to a wider audience.

Once fringe beliefs are mainstream, it makes it harder to have legitimate discussions on real and important topics. Things such as Global warming, Electrification of automobiles, etc. I am not calling those topics out as “fringe” or those who have contrary opinions as being “nuts”, but rather that discussion on those topics now use similar fringe conspiracy style “evidence” to justify positions (on either side). It makes it harder and harder to have real and productive conversations when beliefs are treated as “facts” and that reliance purely upon "personal opinion" is not seen as incorrect.

Richard

The definition of proselytizing is the action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another. Having watched the podcast, that didn't seem to be the overlying intent. As I previously said, it was more like a Q&A session, with Elisabeth April doing most of the talking.

As far as belief is concerned, that's all it is, a belief. Danica Patrick has the right to express her belief just like anyone else. Throughout history people have been persecuted for their beliefs, particularly religious beliefs because they were not seen as legitimate, by the religious authority that was in control and it is still happening today in a number of countries. The same thing with politics.

The fact podcasts like this are on YouTube channels and TikTok, etc., and haven't migrated to mainstream broadcasting, demonstrates they remain fringe and not mainstream because they are seen as idiosyncratic. I have yet to see a major broadcaster air content like this and I don't think it will happen, primarily because it is just opinion and can't be substantiated,

Having said that, there are plenty of MSM news outlets who publish content which is just opinion but is presented as fact. If there is a danger of opinion becoming fact, it's already started.