Channel 7 - you SUCK

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by Rob Woozle, Aug 26, 2004.

  1. Rob Woozle

    Rob Woozle Guest

    Why Channel 7 felt the need to have their long newsbreak towards the
    end of the cycle leg of the triathlon is beyond me. Surely they could
    have had this at some other time instead of highlights ad infinitum.
    We missed the end of the cycle leg, the transition to the run and
    quite a bit of the run which was quite exciting.

    Sorry to be slightly off-topic, there was cycling in there, but I had
    to vent!

    Rob
     
    Tags:


  2. Walrus

    Walrus New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    1
    They did it yesterday as well...
     
  3. LT

    LT Guest

    "Walrus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Rob Woozle Wrote:
    > > Why Channel 7 felt the need to have their long newsbreak towards the
    > > end of the cycle leg of the triathlon is beyond me. Surely they could
    > > have had this at some other time instead of highlights ad infinitum.
    > > We missed the end of the cycle leg, the transition to the run and
    > > quite a bit of the run which was quite exciting.
    > >
    > > Sorry to be slightly off-topic, there was cycling in there, but I had
    > > to vent!
    > >
    > > Rob

    > They did it yesterday as well...
    >
    >
    > --
    > Walrus
    >

    Their coverage of this olympics in general has been shocking! The hosts are
    idiots (at least the night time guy and annoying blond woman who's cried
    every night), they put commercials in the most annoying places. In general
    very disapointing... I've been watching SBS whenever they've had something
    good on...
     
  4. Marx SS

    Marx SS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love how Channel 7 dramatise all the drama of the Olympics. Like the English marathon runner & the Yana lady with her dodgey ankle. All soft fous & slow motion. Minutes & minutes of weeping athletes over & over. It’s like war footage from Iraq. I feel like we all need to intervien & put a stop to all this misery.
    I actually haven’t caught much live footage (channel flicking back to 7 catches ad breaks), do channel 7 do live footage or just play highlights (with visual effects)?

    SBS do one sport at a time, easy to follow, easy to get into. Almost looks like they’re covering a sporting event, not a mini-series.
     
  5. blah

    blah Guest

    "LT" <luis_the at NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Their coverage of this olympics in general has been shocking! The hosts are
    > idiots (at least the night time guy and annoying blond woman who's cried
    > every night), they put commercials in the most annoying places. In general
    > very disapointing... I've been watching SBS whenever they've had something
    > good on...


    Their coverage of the Madison was pretty awful - cut to breaks and
    updates for two of the three times teams stole a lap on the field. Not
    great to be told after an ad break that you've missed the exciting and
    decisive parts of the race.
     
  6. Rob Woozle

    Rob Woozle Guest

    As I said, Channel 7 SUCKS. About 45 seconds of the Mountain Biking so far
    tonight.

    SBS, however, are doing a great job.

    Rob (home now - hence different address)
    Rob Woozle
    http://www.geocities.com/robwoozle
    "Hello, is there anybody.....out there?"
     
  7. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "LT" <luis_the at NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    [...]

    > Their coverage of this olympics in general has been shocking! The
    > hosts are idiots (at least the night time guy and annoying blond
    > woman who's cried every night),


    Tony Squires and Rebecca Wilson are far from idiots. They've probably
    forgotten more about sport than you'll ever know.

    > they put commercials in the most
    > annoying places.


    That's nothing to do with the hosts.

    > In general very disapointing... I've been watching
    > SBS whenever they've had something good on...


    SBS are getting their feed - including commentators - from Channel Seven.
    The only difference is that they don't show ads during events.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  8. mfhor

    mfhor New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just to piss everyone off, DRS again raises the tone of the debate.

    Do you call the sloughing off of the 'minor' sports to SBS and their cavalier treatment of those they can ill-afford to publicise ("better not show too much mountain biking, or everyone will want to do it, and stop buying shiny new Commodores") professional? Tony Squires' only averagely intelligent questions? The bullshit triumph and tragedy approach they take as good for sport in general? The only things TS and RW are averagely good at is climbing the greasy corporate pole after fattening themselves on the public purse, in Tony Squires case, fattening his head. If they're so good, why did their show bomb when it got away from the ABC? I always thought The Fat had something to do with his fizzog, anyway.

    The greatest benefit the Olympics have is to get people interested in unusual and unfamiliar sports they haven't seen before, IMO. That's why AFL isn't an Olympic sport, because only parochial and backward us play it. Broadening the mind - you see? Or maybe you don't.

    M H
     
  9. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "mfhor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    [...]

    > Do you call the sloughing off of the 'minor' sports to SBS and their
    > cavalier treatment of those they can ill-afford to publicise ("better
    > not show too much mountain biking, or everyone will want to do it, and
    > stop buying shiny new Commodores") professional?


    Of course it is. Channel Seven depends on ratings for its survival. We
    should be grateful they agreed to let SBS show anything at all since every
    viewer watching SBS was a viewer not watching Seven's ads. I know I swapped
    between the two stations a lot, especially in the first week.

    > Tony Squires' only
    > averagely intelligent questions? The bullshit triumph and tragedy
    > approach they take as good for sport in general? The only things TS
    > and RW are averagely good at is climbing the greasy corporate pole
    > after fattening themselves on the public purse, in Tony Squires case,
    > fattening his head. If they're so good, why did their show bomb when
    > it got away from the ABC?


    So did Good News Week in the end. Big deal. Different audience, different
    scheduling. These things make a difference. I quite like Tony Squires. I
    think he's a refreshing change from your run of the mill commentator.

    [...]

    > The greatest benefit the Olympics have is to get people interested in
    > unusual and unfamiliar sports they haven't seen before, IMO. That's
    > why AFL isn't an Olympic sport, because only parochial and backward
    > us play it. Broadening the mind - you see? Or maybe you don't.


    There's nothing the least backward or parochial about having homegrown
    sports. Lots of countries do. Having a sport played widely enough around
    the world that it qualified for the Olympics might mean more if moronic
    non-sports like synchronised swimming weren't included.

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
  10. mfhor

    mfhor New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, he's amusing, in short doses. AFL - No, I was just chucking a line in to see who'd bite ;)

    Live pigeon shooting was an Olympic sport for 12 years. Perhaps we could prove that synchronised swimming actually hurts living things and get it banned. I know it hurts me . . .

    MH
     
  11. Marx SS

    Marx SS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    $1000 to anyone who can get me more than 2 mins of Olympic MTB footage!

    Free to air viewer numbers is plummetting across the board. In this day and age, chucking those amounts of ads during programs wont cut it anymore, Free-to-air ain't the only ride in the fairground now-a-days. Channel 7 will never see ratings like Athens anymore. I would rather pay $35 for a DVD of my desired Olympic event, than sit through 2.5 weeks on the off-chance I might catch a 5min throw to it.
    TV viewers have lives to live & most (viewers up to about 50yrs old) can do without with whats available today.
     
  12. hippy

    hippy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    hehehe.. damn you beat me to it! I was going to claim much unnecessary
    suffering and distress from the other night when I accidentally switched on
    syncro swimming.. ;-)

    Get rid of that rubbish equestrian "sport" too! If you let people sit on horses
    and call it sport.. why don't they make F1 or touring car racing an Olympic
    sport? Faster, Higher, Further (or whatever it is) shouldn't be referring to a
    horse!!
    How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related "sport"???
    Total pile of shite if you ask me (oh wait.. you didn't.. tough! :p).

    hippy
    - fan of 'real' sports in the Olympics
     
  13. hippy

    hippy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey lawyers? Is that a legally binding statement?

    I'll take your $1000.. I just checked my tape and I have at least 7
    minutes of the women's olympic mtb race.. nyer nyer.. I'm rich!!
    Rich I tells ya!! ;)

    hippy
     
  14. In article <[email protected]>,
    hippy <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Get rid of that rubbish equestrian "sport" too! If you let people sit
    > on horses and call it sport..


    Spoken like someone who has never tried. Think about the skill in riding
    a bike, and then consider what it would be like if the bike had a mind
    of its own.

    The horses are important, but the riders are extroardinarily fit and
    talented athletes.

    > How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related "sport"???


    Get out of the city some time and into the country. Go to a pony club
    meeting on a Sunday morning and you'll see a lot less flash gear than
    you'll see hanging around some popular cafes. It's probably one of the
    the most popular participation sport outside metropolitan areas.

    In fact, one of our Olympic mounts probably cost less than your fixie
    ($300).

    --
    Shane Stanley
     
  15. Marx SS

    Marx SS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry Hippy, not legal binding.
    Besides, I was really meaning the men's MTB race, as that was supposed to be on Satuday pm.

    Doesn't matter, SBS will play something MTB one Sunday just before lunchtime as always.....

    (I don't want to bag 7 because they're commercial, I just reckon they make no effort to dress up the Olypmics beyond a filler between the ads they run. C'mon, it's not that hard to make it work, channel 7 gotta realise that we tune in to view the programs, therefore they should present them in a fashion thats easliy digestable. I can't sit down & do it live it's too hard, I tape it & fast forward later to the bits I want to watch.)
     
  16. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    and if your bike breaks down on you in the middle of the outback, the BIKE aint edible LOL :D
    (they eat Mr.Ed in Holland... )
     
  17. [email protected] (Rob Woozle) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Why Channel 7 felt the need to have their long newsbreak towards the
    > end of the cycle leg of the triathlon is beyond me. Surely they could
    > have had this at some other time instead of highlights ad infinitum.
    > We missed the end of the cycle leg, the transition to the run and
    > quite a bit of the run which was quite exciting.


    First Post Here

    FUNNY FUNNY FUNNY
     
  18. hippy

    hippy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Shane Stanley
    >>hippy wrote:
    >> Get rid of that rubbish equestrian "sport" too! If you let people sit
    >> on horses and call it sport..
    >
    >Spoken like someone who has never tried.

    You know this for a fact? I've ridden a horse. I might not have jumped it
    over stuff or sat on it while it dances to music in a pen though..

    >Think about the skill in riding a bike, and then consider what it would be like
    >if the bike had a mind of its own.

    Think about the human energy needed to power the bike, think about the
    lack of human energy to power the horse.

    Jumping motorbikes over stuff takes a lot of physical energy but I don't
    think it really fits in with the Olympics, just like horse riding doesn't. I'm
    talking about the jumping here too.. not that ridiculous dressage(?) event
    where the horses 'shake some booty' for the appreciation of the crowd.

    >The horses are important, but the riders are extroardinarily fit and
    >talented athletes.

    "Extroardinarily fit and talented athletes" that sit on the back of a horse
    while it runs over stuff. Would it not be possible for a fatty to win the sport?
    Something that is highly unlikely in cycling or running or high jump or etc, etc..

    >> How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related "sport"???
    >
    >Get out of the city some time and into the country.

    I spent 17 years in the country.. thanks.. try again.

    >Go to a pony club meeting on a Sunday morning and you'll see a lot
    >less flash gear than you'll see hanging around some popular cafes. It's >probably one of the the most popular participation sport outside
    >metropolitan areas.

    No, that would be football or rugby or cricket or netball or hockey. Most
    of my friends come from country areas and none of them ride horses but
    quite a few of them play squash, netball, ride bikes, play footy, soccer, etc.

    >In fact, one of our Olympic mounts probably cost less than your fixie
    >($300).

    I find that VERY hard to believe! I would imagine most saddles would cost
    quite a bit more than that, let alone the horse, the feeding of the horse,
    the grounds to run the horse on, the trainers, etc, etc. Actually, while
    looking for horse costs I found this:

    http://www.pinfever.com/patti/ashsite/RIDE/ridec1.htm

    hippy
     
  19. In article <[email protected]>,
    hippy <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I've ridden a horse. I might not have jumped it
    > over stuff or sat on it while it dances to music in a pen though.


    Right, and everyone once rode a bike so they know exactly what's
    involved in, say, a team persuit. I mean, they just sit on a bike and
    turn the pedals.
    >
    > >Think about the skill in riding a bike, and then consider what it

    > would be like
    > >if the bike had a mind of its own.

    >
    > Think about the human energy needed to power the bike, think about the
    > lack of human energy to power the horse.


    To control a horse takes quite a lot, actually. Are you also going to
    ban sailing because it's really just wind power? And diving -- that's
    just gravity. And I suppose you'll also then ban skiing from the winter
    games? Perhaps slip-streaming in bike events?
    >
    > Jumping motorbikes over stuff takes a lot of physical energy but I
    > don't
    > think it really fits in with the Olympics, just like horse riding
    > doesn't.


    There's a big difference between the two.

    > I'm
    > talking about the jumping here too.. not that ridiculous dressage(?)
    > event
    > where the horses 'shake some booty' for the appreciation of the crowd.


    One of the great things about the Olympics is that it gives people the
    chance to learn about sports they might never see otherwise. It also
    gives them the chance to parade their ignorance -- I don't understand
    it, so it must be crap.

    I guess you're throwing out the gymnastics here, too, BTW...
    >
    > >The horses are important, but the riders are extroardinarily fit and
    > >talented athletes.

    >
    > "Extroardinarily fit and talented athletes" that sit on the back of a
    > horse
    > while it runs over stuff. Would it not be possible for a fatty to win
    > the sport?
    > Something that is highly unlikely in cycling or running or high jump or
    > etc, etc..


    And as unlikely in equestrian events. But I presume you've also just
    thrown the weigth-lifters out of the games. And the shot-putters,
    probably the discus-throwers...
    >
    > >> How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related

    > "sport"???
    > >
    > >Get out of the city some time and into the country.

    >
    > I spent 17 years in the country.. thanks.. try again.
    >
    > >Go to a pony club meeting on a Sunday morning and you'll see a lot
    > >less flash gear than you'll see hanging around some popular cafes.

    > It's >probably one of the the most popular participation sport outside
    >
    > >metropolitan areas.

    >
    > No, that would be football or rugby or cricket or netball or hockey.


    If you want to hunt up club membership stats, especially among girls,
    you might get a bit of a surprise.

    > Most
    > of my friends come from country areas and none of them ride horses but
    > quite a few of them play squash, netball, ride bikes, play footy,
    > soccer, etc.


    It's a big country.
    >
    > >In fact, one of our Olympic mounts probably cost less than your fixie
    > >($300).

    >
    > I find that VERY hard to believe!


    It's the exception; it's also a fact. It was a failed racehorse,
    destined for the nackers.

    Some of the riders don't actually own the horses -- the horse that
    (briefly) won the eventing gold medal for the German rider, for example,
    is actually owned by a Victorian. It's just another form of sponsorship.

    But you'll find that most of the Australians end up selling their horses
    because they can't afford to bring them home.

    > I would imagine most saddles would cost
    > quite a bit more than that, let alone the horse, the feeding of the
    > horse,
    > the grounds to run the horse on, the trainers, etc, etc.


    No, it's not cheap -- being a full-time athlete in any sport isn't.
    Unless you're rich, to compete at the top level is always going to
    require some form of sponsorship.

    But at the basic level, it's not necessarily that much more expensive
    than a lot of other sports. It's probably a lot cheaper than, say,
    alpine sports. The biggest thing it takes, again like most other sports,
    is enormous amounts of time.

    There are two very good reasons for keeping equestrian events, IMO: the
    historical connection, and the fact that it's the only Olympic sport in
    which men and women compete as equals.

    --
    Shane Stanley
     
  20. hippy

    hippy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Shane Stanley
    >>hippy
    >> I've ridden a horse. I might not have jumped it
    >> over stuff or sat on it while it dances to music in a pen though.
    >
    >Right, and everyone once rode a bike so they know exactly what's
    >involved in, say, a team persuit. I mean, they just sit on a bike and
    >turn the pedals.

    Okay then.. give me the rider input required to make a horse walk around
    the dressage area. I've not competed in dressage but it doesn't look like
    the rider is doing much at all. Please feel free to enlighten me, but when I rode a horse it involved sitting and making small arm and leg movements.
    This is not what I would call an Olympic sport. Maybe if they carried the
    horses onto the field..?

    >To control a horse takes quite a lot, actually.

    Maybe when jumping but I managed to ride one and the only reason my
    heart rate went up was when the one I was on had a go at my mate's.
    Scared the crap outta me and dumped my mate on his backside.

    >Are you also going to ban sailing because it's really just wind power?

    Fine by me.

    >And diving -- that's just gravity.

    Gravity makes them spin around does it?

    >And I suppose you'll also then ban skiing from the winter games?

    Um.. you know unless you push them down a hill skis don't move by
    themselves? Yes, that's right! The skiers actually have to expend energy
    to move along!

    >Perhaps slip-streaming in bike events?

    So, riders conserve 30% of the energy it would take to ride the same
    pace, alone. Big deal! There's still a massive amount of energy needed
    to ride as fast as they do, drafting or not.

    >> Jumping motorbikes over stuff takes a lot of physical energy but I
    >> don't think it really fits in with the Olympics, just like horse riding
    >> doesn't.
    >
    >There's a big difference between the two.

    Really? What is it?

    >One of the great things about the Olympics is that it gives people the
    >chance to learn about sports they might never see otherwise. It also
    >gives them the chance to parade their ignorance -- I don't understand
    >it, so it must be crap.

    You aren't doing a very good job of explaining to me why it should be an
    Olympic sport..

    >I guess you're throwing out the gymnastics here, too, BTW...

    I don't particularly like gymnastics, especially the rythmic variety, but at least it usually requires highly trained "athletes" to perform difficult physical tasks.

    >> >The horses are important, but the riders are extroardinarily fit and
    >> >talented athletes.
    >>
    >> "Extroardinarily fit and talented athletes" that sit on the back of a
    >> horse while it runs over stuff. Would it not be possible for a fatty to win
    >> the sport?
    >> Something that is highly unlikely in cycling or running or high jump or
    >> etc, etc..
    >
    >And as unlikely in equestrian events. But I presume you've also just
    >thrown the weigth-lifters out of the games. And the shot-putters,
    >probably the discus-throwers...

    No, because they are Olympic athletes.. Swifter Higher Stronger
    (higher is this case does NOT refer to how high a horse can jump)

    > >> How many people can even afford to get into a horse-related
    > "sport"???
    > >
    > No, that would be football or rugby or cricket or netball or hockey.

    >If you want to hunt up club membership stats, especially among girls,
    >you might get a bit of a surprise.

    No, you are trying to prove this to me.. hunting stats is your job. I'll stand
    by my assumption until I'm proven otherwise.

    >> >In fact, one of our Olympic mounts probably cost less than your fixie
    >> >($300).
    >>
    >> I find that VERY hard to believe!
    >
    >It's the exception; it's also a fact. It was a failed racehorse, destined for
    >the nackers.

    How much did it cost as a racehorse? How much does it cost to keep alive?
    How much does it cost to retrain as a show horse? How many people can
    keep a horse? You are leaving out the obvious problems associated with
    competing on a horse.

    >Some of the riders don't actually own the horses -- the horse that
    >(briefly) won the eventing gold medal for the German rider, for example,
    >is actually owned by a Victorian. It's just another form of sponsorship.

    .. and I'm sure that that Victorian spends a LOT of money keeping the
    horse in tip top condition. I don't care who owns the horse.. the fact is
    that they are expensive.

    >But you'll find that most of the Australians end up selling their horses
    >because they can't afford to bring them home.

    Gee.. sounds like you've just done a backflip on what you said before...
    You're not doing to well with this are you?

    >> I would imagine most saddles would cost
    >> quite a bit more than that, let alone the horse, the feeding of the
    >> horse, the grounds to run the horse on, the trainers, etc, etc.
    >
    >No, it's not cheap -- being a full-time athlete in any sport isn't.

    What happened to your great value $300 horse?

    >Unless you're rich, to compete at the top level is always going to
    >require some form of sponsorship.

    I could buy the same bike as Ryan Bayley.. I'm pretty sure I could not
    afford a horse nor the funds required to maintain the horse.

    >But at the basic level, it's not necessarily that much more expensive
    >than a lot of other sports. It's probably a lot cheaper than, say,
    >alpine sports. The biggest thing it takes, again like most other sports,
    >is enormous amounts of time.

    Don't change the argument. Simple fact is equestrian sports should not be
    in the Olympics. We want swifter, higher, stronger athletes.. NOT horses.

    >There are two very good reasons for keeping equestrian events, IMO: the
    >historical connection, and the fact that it's

    You wanna see men only run naked too?

    >the only Olympic sport in which men and women compete as equals.

    That's why there's separate divisions!

    Isn't shooting equal? Archery?

    If equestrian sports are so equal.. then you're admitting it's not the rider
    that makes the difference.. but the horse. Case closed.

    hippy
     
Loading...
Loading...