shannonsays.com

Biased TV Sports Commentry

Should TV sports commentators show their bias during a call?

Like countless other Australians, I spent last night flicking between the Australia-West Indies one day cricket match on Nine and the Lleyton Hewitt- David Nalbandian tennis quarter-final on Seven.  Both had the the right result- if you are an Aussie.  (Seven finished with a national share of 48.1% from Nine with 23.5% of the audience).

But, switching in between the two games, I couldn't help but notice just how obvious the tennis commentators' barracking for  Hewitt was, compared with the- in the most part- impartiality of the cricket commentry team.

There is no doubt the Australian cricket commentators see things from Australia's point of view. But they don't openly barrack for one side, and they discuss both team's prospects.

But the tennis commentators led by Bruce McAvaney were very obvious and up-front in their support for Hewitt. They wanted Hewitt to win, they said so, and they interpreted the match from that point of view.

I would have thought that the reverse would occur, given the team nature of cricket (it is "Australia" playing, after all), as opposed to the individual focus that exists in tennis.  But not last night.

So are sports commentators that barrack good or bad? 

I don't mind either way, but I would be pissed off listening to biased comm entry if I was supporting the other player, much like if I was David Nalbandian listening to Lleytons "C'mon's" and other shenanigans.  If you are supporting the same player as biased commentators, their frenzied calls can add to the excitement in your lounge room.  But the balance an impartiality that usually exists in the cricket commentary is equally as enjoyable.  The ex-players that call the action offer unique insights into how the games are progressing and what outcomes are likely.  They also surge with excitement whenever some great action occurs, irrespective of the team.

So I can tolerate both styles, but in the main I would prefer a good un-biased call.  An appropriate amount of colour and analysis matched with an accurate account of the play, is generally the way to go.

Which style of commentary do you prefer?

Dicky vs Donnie

The second episode of Richard Branson’s The Rebel Billionaire screened here in Australia last night.  Not that I watched it.  I taped the first episode but have not been motivated to have a look, nor have I really had the time.  Apparently it is crap anyway, and even the American's aren't watching it. 

Yep, Branson’s plan to conquer the comb-over king, The Trumpster himself, are taking a dive. In fact, I reakon, if the Branson show was a Virgin jet the stall indicator would be flashing and blaring a warning, and the ground proximity alert would be chanting "pull up, pull up".

My bet is that the American's can see through all of Branson’s roguish charm, and that they realise that The Rebel Billionaire is all about launching Virgin Mobile and a planned domestic airline in the US.  Remember that many of his stunts here in Australia were designed to generate publicity for Virgin Blue the airline, the Virgin mobile network (with Optus) and the Virgin credit card.  The Rebel Billionaire is no different; a stunt, funded by another billionaire and his TV network; Rupert Murdoch and Fox.

So Trump still rules, and it would seem the Dicky has met his match in Donnie.  So the publicity hungry Branson did what he usually does and launched an attack on Trump, describing the American's business ideas as garbage. Check out Star Magazine and The Age.  Obviously Branson's famed ability to generate publicity from attacking an established operator paid off. He forced Trump to reply and recognise him.  But the viewers still aren’t watching his show. 

Maybe a task for the next Apprentice could be how to save The Rebel Billionaire?

Anyway, apparently he’s flying here into Australia on Wednesday to launch the Virgin Atlantic Service to Australia via Hong Kong.  Rival Qantas will no doubt cop a bit of a Branson-eqsue spank. But here is the irony, as reported on the radio this morning:  Virgin Atlantic is 49 per cent owned by Singapore Airlines, which is controlled by the Singapore Government investment arm, Temasek Holdings, which in turn is the largest single shareholder in Qantas and in turn is a partner with Qantas in Jetstar Asia that starts operating out of Singapore this week....

So it seems that Dicky is pretty well connected, and if he starts taking a playful jab at Qantas or anyone else, remember it's all a bit of theatre, designed to burnish his profile, that of his various products, and make him even more money….

Trumping NBC

Todd over at A Penny For has a nice snip from a WSJ article

Before Donald Trump agreed to tape a second season of his hit reality show "The Apprentice," he says he told NBC he'd need a few things. More creative control would be nice, and perhaps flashier living quarters for the contestants. And how about a personal publicist?

Then Mr. Trump took out his calculator. NBC paid him about $50,000 an episode the first season. But with his show winning huge ratings, Mr. Trump wanted a fat raise. He heard the six actors on the hit comedy "Friends" each took home about $1.5 million an episode so, as the sole star of "The Apprentice," he figured he should get $9 million per show. Still, his program ran an hour and "Friends" just 30 minutes. Mr. Trump bumped the figure to $18 million. "That seemed fair," he says in an interview. "I'm not being totally facetious."

Does that mean that the next Survivor contestants will be able to commission a fee? Or the morons who lock themselves inside a Big Brother house?

Part of the appeal of reality programing for networks has been their relative cheap production costs. With their huge success in the ratings more and more personalities are going to up their cut provided they can get another go.

(P.S. Wouldn't it be great to have an Australian version of the Apprentice with big Kerry Packer at the helm!)