uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

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.

Oh, it has started and is now fully embedded and "legitimised" by the 2016-20 White House administration when the introduced what they called "alternative facts".

Politicians of all colours in many countries now make pronouncements that, usually about their political opponents, that in reality have no basis in truth. Some is by design and others just on the spur of the moment.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

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.

It doesn't have to be extremely overt. No need for to be on a soapbox with placards on your body shouting at a crowd. Isn't what you say they are doing (presenting that information as their "truth") proselytizing? Are they just talking to the void? Are they not presenting positions? I frankly find it naive to think this doesn't meet that definition. They clearly want people to believe as they believe. It is all about "Wake up sheeple and take the blinders off!"

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

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.

I 100% agree with the concepts you talk about. And with free speech. I believe it is a right to my very core. She (or anyone) can believe and say whatever they want. But it doesn't mean it's free of consequences. Consequences does not have to equate to "persecution". I am free to walk around and be a total ass to people. But I am not free to expect there to not be consequences. It might cost me friends, it might even cost me my job. Right or wrong, those in the public eye and who might be directly or indirectly representing a brand (in this case maybe Sky TV), in which Danica is, then the crazy ideas she believes in (even if not mentioned on-air) can reflect upon that brand.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

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,

Don't you think by the time people are talking about Lizard People on "mainstream media" as normal course that it might be too late?

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

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.

Exactly. That is my point above. Why wait until the problem is pervasive. Call it out early.

Richard

[Richard C]

I know we are way off topic here. So I will try to make this my last post on the entire Danica Patrick topic. If anyone is curious, I suggest they watch the YT video linked earlier in this thread. It's over an hour long. If you don't care to watch all of that, scan through the transcripts. For example around the 12 minute mark...

EA: "Justin Bieber was going to shapes shift into a giant reptilian on stage in front of hundreds of thousands who all have their phone on him who capture it you can't they have suppressed a lot of these sightings"

DP: "Really?"

EA: "Oh my God yeah there's been a lot of celebrity Shape Shifter sightings and they've just shut it all down in the news media"

DP: "Wow"

EA: "All that stuff so in a case like they're on stage and that just happens and they kind of slip their true form I mean how do you shut down hundreds of thousands if not millions of live streaming"

DP: "I mean unless you got like a Men In Black situation where someone can come in and (click memory wipe button sound) move back time a little or"

EA: "Yeah that's what they've done before right"

DP: "Yeah?"

EA: "The Men in Black stuff yeah oh yeah they swoop right in that's how they've been able to suppress the truth"

DP: "I mean come on that's what I was going to ask is like you know suppressing information is what is trying to be done so I want to know what that information is from your perspective what is the most critical information that there trying to make sure that we don't know about or we don't embody."

It just goes on and on like this. (Men in black emoji!)

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

It doesn't have to be extremely overt. No need for to be on a soapbox with placards on your body shouting at a crowd. Isn't what you say they are doing (presenting that information as their "truth") proselytizing? Are they just talking to the void? Are they not presenting positions? I frankly find it naive to think this doesn't meet that definition. They clearly want people to believe as they believe. It is all about "Wake up sheeple and take the blinders off!"

That begs the question, can one not present a position, without necessarily attempting to persuade someone to switch to that position?

Originally Posted by Richard C

I 100% agree with the concepts you talk about. And with free speech. I believe it is a right to my very core. She (or anyone) can believe and say whatever they want. But it doesn't mean it's free of consequences. Consequences does not have to equate to "persecution". I am free to walk around and be a total ass to people. But I am not free to expect there to not be consequences. It might cost me friends, it might even cost me my job. Right or wrong, those in the public eye and who might be directly or indirectly representing a brand (in this case maybe Sky TV), in which Danica is, then the crazy ideas she believes in (even if not mentioned on-air) can reflect upon that brand.

Indeed there are consequences but the consequence in this case are that Danica Patrick will largely be scoffed at and she will come across as a crank. This podcast of Danica Patrick's has impinged on her as a motorsports pundit.

Originally Posted by Richard C

Don't you think by the time people are talking about Lizard People on "mainstream media" as normal course that it might be too late?
Richard

I don't think so. Former British footballer and TV presenter David Icke, has been going on about Lizard People since 1999 and though mainstream have reported on what he has said, for the most part he is regarded as a conspiracy theorist and not to be taken seriously. The same thing has happened to Danica Patrick.

Originally Posted by Richard C

Exactly. That is my point above. Why wait until the problem is pervasive. Call it out early. Richard

The problem is already pervasive and it's not the Danica Patricks and David Ickes of this world we should be primarily concerned about but the mainstream media.


Getting back on topic, I'm looking forward to watching qualifying and the race on C4 for a change, rather than watching on Sky.

[Mike Harte]

BJ, the Icke problem is far worse than that, I think I'm right in saying, because he claimed that he was the second coming. He's just a total fruit and nut job!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That begs the question, can one not present a position, without necessarily attempting to persuade someone to switch to that position?

Without putting a great deal of thought into that question, my quick answer is... No.

Richard

[Last2LiftOff]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I'm not sad she's been dropped

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

She's not been dropped.

Excuse me fellas, I've missed something - has she been dropped (from F1 coverage on Sky)? Or no?

Again, my apologies for not keeping-up.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

She's not been dropped.

That.
My understanding is she is primarily in for the American (N&S) races and is scheduled to return (for the 4 races) from Austin through to Vegas GPs.

[Last2LiftOff]

Ah, thanks EB, I'm back up to speed. Cheers,

For what it's worth, like some others in the group, I wouldn't miss her either.

As we were.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I know we are way off topic here. So I will try to make this my last post on the entire Danica Patrick topic. If anyone is curious, I suggest they watch the YT video linked earlier in this thread. It's over an hour long. If you don't care to watch all of that, scan through the transcripts. For example around the 12 minute mark...

EA: "Justin Bieber was going to shapes shift into a giant reptilian on stage in front of hundreds of thousands who all have their phone on him who capture it you can't they have suppressed a lot of these sightings"

DP: "Really?"

EA: "Oh my God yeah there's been a lot of celebrity Shape Shifter sightings and they've just shut it all down in the news media"

DP: "Wow"

EA: "All that stuff so in a case like they're on stage and that just happens and they kind of slip their true form I mean how do you shut down hundreds of thousands if not millions of live streaming"

DP: "I mean unless you got like a Men In Black situation where someone can come in and (click memory wipe button sound) move back time a little or"

EA: "Yeah that's what they've done before right"

DP: "Yeah?"

EA: "The Men in Black stuff yeah oh yeah they swoop right in that's how they've been able to suppress the truth"

DP: "I mean come on that's what I was going to ask is like you know suppressing information is what is trying to be done so I want to know what that information is from your perspective what is the most critical information that there trying to make sure that we don't know about or we don't embody."

It just goes on and on like this. (Men in black emoji!)

Richard

In my reading of this transcript (and admittedly I've not watched any of the video) it reads to me that she is astounded about the revelations, not supportive of them. It could just be a case of reading into things what you want to see (or is that simply what I'm doing?)

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

BJ, the Icke problem is far worse than that, I think I'm right in saying, because he claimed that he was the second coming. He's just a total fruit and nut job!

Agreed Mike, he is. I was trying to be polite when I said he is regarded as a conspiracy theorist and not to be taken seriously.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Without putting a great deal of thought into that question, my quick answer is... No.

Richard

I disagree but I'll leave it there.

[Peter Mallett]

Watching C4 coverage, the transmission keeps dropping out. Must be weather related.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Wrong thread.

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Watching C4 coverage, the transmission keeps dropping out. Must be weather related.

With the amount of cabling around the circuit, it only takes a short somewhere to affect the transmission. Hopefully sorted by tomorrow. Just switched over to BBC1 for the football. Seems that HD keeps dropping out, but SD is okay. Having said that, then the weather could be responsible.

[S griffin]

Good to have live coverage on FTA again. I don't think C4 do it as good as the BBC did, but still the important thing is it is live for us all to watch. Got a big weekend of sport this weekend

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

With the amount of cabling around the circuit, it only takes a short somewhere to affect the transmission. Hopefully sorted by tomorrow. Just switched over to BBC1 for the football. Seems that HD keeps dropping out, but SD is okay. Having said that, then the weather could be responsible.

It might be down to the number of people watching, as C4's coverage is FTA. I was watching online via their website and it would sometimes buffer.

[chavez]

Downunder we got the world feed on Fox Sports for qualifying instead of the Sky feed.

Brundle, Croft and co were talking about replays or Sky Race Control that wasn't appearing on our screens.

Hopefully will be fixed for the race.

[GT6]

Well can watch c4 live race so much better than the sky effort IMHO

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Lazenby at the start and then Croft’s continual England Netherlands references were pathetic.

I don’t often say it, but Croft spoiled the coverage of a race that had everything.

[bjohnsonsmith]

I enjoyed the C4 coverage and it made a change to watching Sky's. I would like to see more C4 coverage, but unfortunately apart from the British GP it's not live.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Lazenby at the start and then Croft’s continual England Netherlands references were pathetic.

I don’t often say it, but Croft spoiled the coverage of a race that had everything.

I've come to realise that Croft's presence as a commentator is actually a unifying force for us as fans.

[chillibowl]

My specialty sports channel, which simulcasts the Sky coverage, chose to go to commercial break right after Norris got past Ham for the first time, again when the rain started back up again, and then during the ham and norris final stop laps so I missed a bunch of Crofty!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I enjoyed the C4 coverage and it made a change to watching Sky's. I would like to see more C4 coverage, but unfortunately apart from the British GP it's not live.

Enjoyed the C4 coverage tremendously, even Jones didn't seem as bad as usual.

[GT6]

Yes the C4 coverage was good and they seem to have presenters that people like, pity Sky can not sack the bunch they have and take Mark, David and Billy as a team