BBC golf

Now, don't get me wrong here, McIlroy played great at the US Open and I was pleased to see him win, but.......

Have you seen the BBC golf site lately? Is it me or have they turned into a load of sychophants? Every single piece they have on there at present is about Rory. Even down to their twitter feeds. It's almost cringeworthy how bad it is.

If you took away the BBC banner you could almost mistake it for the Rory McIlroy fan club website! (some articles are written as such)

having missed days 3 and 4, i'm delighted to be able to catch up on some of it!

Tempted to agree. Never ones to miss a bandwagon rolling by. Obviously, the World of Golf stopped rotating when McIlroy won the U.S. Open and there's not a single thing, additional to his win, that's worth writing about.

Nothing wrong with their coverage graeme, just the qty of articles on it. At one point yesterday there were 32 separate articles on McIlroy's win, 7 of which were duplicates placed in a different position:

McIlroy planning three week break
McIlroy to take break before the Open
Majestic McIlroy secures US Open
Blog - The Making of McIlroy
McIlroy parties after triumph
Rory best golfer I've seen - McDowell
McIlroy secures 'dream' US Open
McIlroy's golf club celebrate win
Alliss applauds gracious McIlroy
Young McIlroy dreams of glory
The Making of McIlroy (duplicate of above)
McIlroy's career in photos
McIlroy fulfills major destiny
Can Rory steal Tigers Roar?
McIlroy can be number 1
Majestic McIlroy secures US Open (duplicate)
Nicklaus tips McIlroy for glory
Local hero turned superstar
Career in photos (duplicate)
Media reaction to win
McIlroy tipped for top spot
McIlroy secures US Open (duplicate)
McIlroy aims to be greatest (duplicate)
McIlroy targets more major titles
mcIlroy delighted after best golf of his life
McIlroy parties after triumph (duplicate)
McIlroy planning three week break (duplicate)
McIlroy arrives back in Ireland

Twitter feeds from BBC journos
"My thoughts on Rory's win" Carter
"Have just spoken to Rory walking through a barrage of tv cameras and flash guns. Charm personified - could not be happier for him" Carter
"Rory goes to world number four if he wins tonight - outside chance of three but by my calcs Kaymer has to finish top 57 to stay at 3" Carter

Woosnam's win managed to get a line right at the bottom though!

To be fair, who cares about the seniors?

I accept not many super, but the point is it's their lazyness - where's the depth of their reporting?

Where there really no other stories to come out of the US Open?

I'm sure they were, and while I agree the coverage was overkill, I don't think events like Woosnams senior win really deserved more coverage than they got.
McIlroy's manner of winning was truly remarkable and I'm not sure there were that many noteable performances by anyone else with the exeption of perhaps Day (cheers Jason, got me my money back on my bets).
At the very least, it's good to read something positive about British golf for a change rather than turn out cliches and lament the fact that our players haven't won enough majors to justify their rankings.

Unfortunately the way the media works is that they get obsessed and sycophantic with whoever is the player of the moment, more so if that player happens to be British. I'm sure the moment he turns in a bad round the doom-monger hacks will be out with their pious criticism.

Super, see we do agree. I wouldn't expect to find the results of the veterans 5 a side on the BBC site or even anything about the tennis pros oldies tour. Just a part off golfs sentimentality that it attaches way more importance to senior results than other sports do.

I don't have a big problem with the McIlroy overkill after the event but what annoys me with the BBC is that their journalism during the actual tournament was very limited and very poor. I expected at least a couple of articles a day about the play and some pre-tournament build up would have been nice. I'm sure that us licence payers are funding a huge team from the BBC to be at the US Open all week but as usual it looks like they were there to watch some golf, probably play the course on Monday and then write umpteen articles about the winner. As expected, not good enough from the BBC as a balanced media service in my opinion...

Guys, I think sharrison has it spot on, it seems their reporting is all about having a bit of a jolly then, from what I can see, 3 or 4 different journo's have all written about McIrloy saying exactly the same thing over and over again.

I used the Seniors thing as an example, I wouldn't expect that to be one of the big headlines, but it was the only thing on there that wasn't McIlroy themed.

This isn't just on the website either. Has anyone seen the sports journalist on the BBC breakfast show? Normally he does a bit of a review of the previous days sport, then we get a nice long review of some extreme sport nobody's ever heard of, that he's been trying all week! If that's not a waste of our license fees I don't know what is.

I feel a letter to that points of view type part of the programme coming on,

JPX, I actually think it's a good thing when that chap tries out all the different sports. It's better than reporting completely on mainstream sports all the time.

super_realist wrote:JPX, I actually think it's a good thing when that chap tries out all the different sports. It's better than reporting completely on mainstream sports all the time.

I agree that it's fun to see him throwing himself into minor sports but I think that is more to do with him as a reporter, at which I think he is very good. However, the BBC teams at big sporting events do just seem like they are on a jolly up at the expense of us licence payers. I point back to the last winter olympics in Vancouver - there were more BBC staff than GB had competitors and I can guarantee you that most of them are into their skiing/snowboarding. Even that horse presenter was there - hardly related sports!

Fair point, The World Cup coverage was a case in point, far too many reporters to cover an event.

I'd personally like to see a dedicated BBC Sports channel(s), either via a subscription or an increase in the license fee for those that wish to receive it (easy these days to provide to only those that pay) but with the crown jewels remaining free to air which is run commercially and so BBC can bid for sports properly again and become efficient. How many sports could they cover if they weren't so over saturated paying 10 times the number of staff on an OB as is actually required.

The problem with the BBC is it is public and doesn't have as much incentive as a private business to run efficiently so it will always be overstaffed.

super_realist wrote:
The problem with the BBC is it is public and doesn't have as much incentive as a private business to run efficiently so it will always be overstaffed.

Sadly applies to most government bodies - just look at our councils...

super_realist wrote:JPX, I actually think it's a good thing when that chap tries out all the different sports. It's better than reporting completely on mainstream sports all the time.

I know what you mean, but the point I'm making is that he will have been doing said activity for a few days, in some cases most of the week incl. travel etc, then we get a short review of it. Money not well spent IMO.

Yes JPX, but he's only one man and it's not that much of an expense when you consider the hundreds employed to cover the World Cup.
Most of what he does is withing the UK. The BBC has a duty to provide variety.
If you want to talk about wasting money then there are many elements of the BBC which could sae considerably more money than this. For a start they could get rid of my local news. Completely superfluous and uneccessary. I don't really care that someone with a tenuous link to my area has hit his thumb with a hammer. 90% of the time there is nothing worth reporting.

Super, you are bang on with local news. I get both London and Kent local news and they are so predictable in their content - teenager gets stabbed in South London/ cat stuck in a tree in Kent. And obviously I need to know my local weather just in case I won't pay attention to the national weather straight after it...

Harrison, I don't know about you, but in addition to getting two carbon copy weather reports as you do they are by and large completely wrong.
If I want to know the weather then I'll look out of the window thank you very much.

In addition to local news we also get local programmes which is just an excuse to make all programming as Scottish as possible, so while you get to enjoy what precious little decent programming is made, we have to endure a documentary voiced by Muriel Gray about Crofting in Shetland, or sheep herding in the Western Isles, I live in Scotland, I'm Scottish, I don't need it rammed down my throat and reinforced every time I turn on the TV. There's a big world out there and it would be better if BBC Scotland didn't try to Scottishify everything they produce, no wonder we sweaties are an inward looking bunch.

Great points those. You are right about the weater, why show a national report showing a big black rain cloud over the whole of the UK, then have a local one showing, yep you guessed it. They should just open with the line "It's the same as what you've just seen!"

Those regional BBC channels are just the most ridiculous waste of money. I even think that they promote the idea that we should all keep to our little sections of the UK and not integrate with one another - almost feels very American in that outside of the cities they are only exposed to their local media with one paper (redneck times?), a handful of radio stations and a local TV channel all telling them that the Jews/Blacks/Christians/Muslims/aliens re out to get them.

Regarding media coverage of the US Open:
yahoosports timed the amount of golf shown in the first hour and a half of NBC TV's Saturday US Open coverage: Exactly 15 minutes!

kwinigolfer wrote:Regarding media coverage of the US Open:
yahoosports timed the amount of golf shown in the first hour and a half of NBC TV's Saturday US Open coverage: Exactly 15 minutes!

I take it back - the BBC are fantastic!

On a selfish note, the BBC do a great job of covering The Open.

The BBC is fantastic. I certainly believe I get brilliant value for money from my license fee. I couldnt watch much of the US Open last week, there was so little golf shown it was tedious, like being in the States and watching TV.
I use the BBC website for most of my sport and news updates, I watch a lot of TV on their chanels and I listen to BBC radio every day. Fantastic service as far as Im concerned. Could it be better...clearly.....it it still the best in the world.......by a country mile.

Yes, Diggers, we seem to have just highlighted what we don't like about the BBC, there's a lot I don't like about sky etc, but I choose whether to pay for that or not.

As I said above, the BBC do great at a lot of things such as The Open and F1 (not that I'm a fan of F1 but I'm sure F1 fans love listening to Eddie Jordon drone on and on) and this thread was mainly because I think they go far to sycophantic at times.

Maybe but they seem to be damned for doing or not doing to me. Because we all make a contribution everyone quite rightly feels they have a right to knock them, I just happen to feel they dont get the credit they deserve and I do feel that TV broadcasting around the world is almost painful to watch and the BBC sets a benchmark for UK TV which in general keeps the bar pretty high.
Its amazing how much stick the BBC website get yet so many people still use it despite the plethora of alternatives out there. If I want a general overview of whats going on in the world I still feel itst he best site out there.

Diggers, I think that you make a good point there. The BBC is great for general interest which is what it is designed for - their website gives a good overview but if you want the specifics of a topic then there are better places and the BBC cannot be expected to keep up with those. I really enjoy watching Wimbledon, as I am right now, and a few years back tried to watch a regular tour event on Sky - it was awful with just too much technicalities and basically a tennis overload. I'm sure that if you were that into your tennis then that would be what you want but the BBC were far better for the people like me, the occasional viewer. TBH I find the same with golf and despite Alliss' critics I quite enjoy that he rambles on about non-golf related topics...

Fair points Diggers and I agree on the whole.

As you say there are alternative websites covering each topic in detail, but then that kind of backs up what I've highlighted, they haven't given a general overview of the US Open, more of a intense overview of Rory McIlroy since he was born, each from 3 or 4 different journos all sayng basically the same thing.

Still though I do feel a bit of a hypocrite here as when I watch that Newswatch where viewers write in to complain, I find myself saying "just turn the telly over if you don't like it!"

Yeah some of it was OTT it has been in a lot of the papers as well. Funny how McDowell got so little media coverage and McIlroy so much, amazing what being a wonderkid does for your media image.

It also gives the journalists the opportunity to say that they called it if he goes on to win a boat load of majors...

Brilliant

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/13876538.stm

super_realist wrote:I'd personally like to see a dedicated BBC Sports channel(s), either via a subscription or an increase in the license fee for those that wish to receive it.

You've got one - it's called Sky! Why would someone who refuses to pay a Sky sub pay more into the black hole that is the BBC?

I have Sky but do resent some of the cost. A full Sky sports package isn't cheap and they still charge £15 for second rate boxing matches that should never be PPV. And the PPV will only grow , I would hate to see Murdoch have a monopoly on UK sports coverage but it appears to be drifting that way. F1 next maybe though for all his faults Ecclestone is desperate to keep it free to air.
I'd say the black hole is BSB's bank account, not the BBC.

Agreed that Sky is a bit expensive...well worth it though to see full coverage of the US Open and Rory's historic win

It might be overkill, but it's positive exposure at least for a really good story (in conjunction with what nearly happened and what actually happened at Augusta). [Perhaps a bit Rocky I / Rocky II, although I'd hope the analogy stops there before Mr T makes an entrance.]

And it might help Rory's chances with winning SPOTY this year... ?

LadyPutt wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'd personally like to see a dedicated BBC Sports channel(s), either via a subscription or an increase in the license fee for those that wish to receive it.

You've got one - it's called Sky! Why would someone who refuses to pay a Sky sub pay more into the black hole that is the BBC?

That would all be very well if I could buy Sky Sports as a stand alone package, however I have to buy it in conjunction with countless channels which I'll never watch specialising in Nazis, Sharks and Airplane disasters.

super_realist wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'd personally like to see a dedicated BBC Sports channel(s), either via a subscription or an increase in the license fee for those that wish to receive it.

You've got one - it's called Sky! Why would someone who refuses to pay a Sky sub pay more into the black hole that is the BBC?

That would all be very well if I could buy Sky Sports as a stand alone package, however I have to buy it in conjunction with countless channels which I'll never watch specialising in Nazis, Sharks and Airplane disasters.

That could almost be one programme on Sky - sharks that are Luftwaffe pilots...

And what about all the great show where you get to follow some idiot's life - Getting under Jordan, getting over Jordan, Kerry's gonna top herself, Kerry's not gonna top herself, My dad's so rich that people will want to watch me spend money doing nothing, I've lost all my money but with no dignity I'll get it back etc etc.

Now there's an idea, combine Celebrities AND Sharks in Celebrity Shark Bait,
12 "celebrities" are lowered into shark infested waters and viewers have to guess "via the red button" which will be eaten first.

super_realist wrote:

LadyPutt wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'd personally like to see a dedicated BBC Sports channel(s), either via a subscription or an increase in the license fee for those that wish to receive it.

You've got one - it's called Sky! Why would someone who refuses to pay a Sky sub pay more into the black hole that is the BBC?

That would all be very well if I could buy Sky Sports as a stand alone package, however I have to buy it in conjunction with countless channels which I'll never watch specialising in Nazis, Sharks and Airplane disasters.

TBH though s_r the same could be said of the BBC - I'm sure there is plenty of your license fee that goes to areas of the BBC that you aren't interested in. In fact, the "base cost" of Sky isn't that bad if you just go for the minimum package and then add purely Sky Sports. On a par with the proportion of your license fee that is wasted on you I'd guess

Just as a small aside about the original topic (and the dominance of Rory stories on the BBC site) - you may or may not have noticed but we have a "latest news" link at the top if the forum page (https://www.606v2.com/h1-latest-news) which gathers together the top RSS feeds from the BBC sports site and organizes into categories. Each sport has the top 4 stories shown. Earlier in the week all 4 golf stories were Rory. Today feastures 2 about Rory plus a Tiger-tale and one about Chris Wood