Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
Seriously, I'm starting to get tired about the deification of Jessica Ennis. One of the numerous (and seemingly interminable) BBC montages featured all the great athletes that stand out from all the other gold medal winners. Phelps, Bolt, Hoy, Ainslie are true Olympic greats. Farah gets in there. But Ennis? Really? Maybe I'm missing something about her achievement - she didn't set a world record, did she? - but surely she's just one winner who happens to be better looking than most (even then, she isn't Pendleton).
I'm not having a go at her - she's obviously a fine athlete and seems a very nice, as well as very attractive, young woman.
It's not her fault but the media are exploiting her to chase ratings and get click throughs and sell papers.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
Seriously, I'm starting to get tired about the deification of Jessica Ennis. One of the numerous (and seemingly interminable) BBC montages featured all the great athletes that stand out from all the other gold medal winners. Phelps, Bolt, Hoy, Ainslie are true Olympic greats. Farah gets in there. But Ennis? Really? Maybe I'm missing something about her achievement - she didn't set a world record, did she? - but surely she's just one winner who happens to be better looking than most (even then, she isn't Pendleton).
I'm not having a go at her - she's obviously a fine athlete and seems a very nice, as well as very attractive, young woman.
It's not her fault but the media are exploiting her to chase ratings and get click throughs and sell papers.
That's what I was referring at earlier, think it was a couple of weeks ago, but everyone missed the point.
I think two weeks of Olympics has been quite enough, otherwise, there's a risk of oversaturation. They've been a great Games, full of humility and sporting genius.
Seriously, I'm starting to get tired about the deification of Jessica Ennis. One of the numerous (and seemingly interminable) BBC montages featured all the great athletes that stand out from all the other gold medal winners. Phelps, Bolt, Hoy, Ainslie are true Olympic greats. Farah gets in there. But Ennis? Really? Maybe I'm missing something about her achievement - she didn't set a world record, did she? - but surely she's just one winner who happens to be better looking than most (even then, she isn't Pendleton).
I'm not having a go at her - she's obviously a fine athlete and seems a very nice, as well as very attractive, young woman.
It's not her fault but the media are exploiting her to chase ratings and get click throughs and sell papers.
She was the poster girl for the Olympics before hand though and so it's only natural that her success has been a little overplayed. Having said that, surely it is better to promote the likes of Ennis as role models for youngsters rather than the usual Only Way Is Essex types that fill the media space?
She was the poster girl for the Olympics before hand though and so it's only natural that her success has been a little overplayed. Having said that, surely it is better to promote the likes of Ennis as role models for youngsters rather than the usual Only Way Is Essex types that fill the media space?
Of course. But that isn't really the choice here. It was a montage about the individuals whose performances have stood out from the rest. To me, hers didn't.
It's a minor issue of course as the BBC's coverage has, in general, been excellent. I just think they've gone the balance a bit wrong on Ennis on occasion, especially the one I'm referring to.
Now, Simon Barnes' perving over her in The Times it is that pays him to lech and then write about it, that's odious. Maybe that's unfair though since I've only read the odd excerpt. Except it isn't. (And also his style is pretentious and dull.)
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
Comment