That's how localised news works. In much the same way as our coverage has been slanted towards South African athletes. Not only is it expected, but it's okay in my books. If they owned the rights to Olympic reporting this might be a different story, but I don't see the problem. It might grate our collectively larger carrots when they do it, but so did our reporting of annihilating their cricket team the other day...
This isn't an England vs South Africa match; this is the world using Britain as their playing field. Would it be asking too much of them to report on the results of events and on individual performances, without making references to their own athletes? It's such a slap in the face of the winners, and, unfortunately, the whole world has to witness this, especially on live television.
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants"-Albert Camus
Mark Cavendish 'lost' the road race despite being BBC Sports Personality of the Year 2011 and bestowed with an almost unbearable sense of expectation of having a dinner-plate sized gold disc hanging around his neck on The Mall. After the race, the Mail on Sunday bluntly termed Cavendish 'Nowhere Man' having lost out to 'unknown' Alexandre Vinokourov.
When Team GB did not win the men's road cycling race they labelled Vinokourov an 'unknown'. As a TdF stage winner and multiple one-day classics winner he is surely not unknown.
But why are you reading their news outlets exclusively? If you're not, then I don't understand your frustration. They're localising their coverage for their target audience (because you don't pay their salary on a daily basis), as is every other country-specific news outlet on the planet...Originally Posted by VernD
Who is Mark Cavendish...?
I'm was trying to get a view of the Olympics as a whole; not country-specific or specifically South Africa. I didn't only want to know the results, I wanted reports of events. Unfortunately, they seem to be closest source because most other countries could give you just snippets.
As for my frustration, when I'm looking to see who've won, I have to read first on why their team/person didn't win, and the actual winner gets a mere mention. Or that the winner was somehow lucky or fortunate, nevermind the months or years of training.
I'm not even intentionally looking for this; it just bang smacks you in the face.
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants"-Albert Camus
No I get what you're saying, I just don't have an issue with it. We do the same. We did the same during the SWC. They're simply localising the news for their audience - you're not their audience...
Come on Vern, lighten up
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
You got to admit their "rags" beat ours into a cocked hat. Hell even Andy Murray's a darling again and what about those topless Ukranians, good thing they had their nether regions covered
Edit: ... and no mention of Julias thank God
Didn't Andy and his bro get kicked out in the first round ?
Singles it seems.Wills and Kate join in the Wimbledon fun as Andy Murray powers into the Olympic men's singles semi-finals
Ag Mick, I'm so over it; these things can only cause a stir the first time around.Come on Vern, lighten up
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
You got to admit their "rags" beat ours into a cocked hat. Hell even Andy Murray's a darling again and what about those topless Ukranians, good thing they had their nether regions covered
Edit: ... and no mention of Julias thank God
As for The Daily Mail, colourful front-page with equally colourful characters
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants"-Albert Camus
RE the lightweight men's four
"Fair play to the South Africans, they won that fair and square."
-- BBC, quoting Peter Chambers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18911253
Oh cry me a river. . .
What is wrong with the South African press?
The British press is reporting to Brits. The Americans have their coverage, the Australians, theirs, etc.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks