Alex Scott - Question of sport

planty · 19 Sep 2020 at 22:26

AndrewNR said:
I'm with the guy that stated she's very cliché as a commentator/talk about footy. Can predict what she'll say before the show begins.

This is the case for 99% of sports commentators/pundits - they all talk in clichés.

She is clearly qualified for the role, and unfortunately due to the colour of her skin her credentials are being questioned because some people view it as tokenism - a real shame.

NVP · 20 Sep 2020 at 00:27

AndrewNR said:
Definitely think ticking a few diversity boxes has got her where she is today. Gave her an easy way in - brown privilege?

I'd say her looks, personality and CV did wonders too.

Colonel_Klinck · 20 Sep 2020 at 10:00

AndrewNR said:
I'm with the guy that stated she's very cliché as a commentator/talk about footy. Can predict what she'll say before the show begins.

She's pretty tasty though.
I also agree her voice is irritating though

Definitely think ticking a few diversity boxes has got her where she is today. Gave her an easy way in - brown privilege?

All that is true of 80% plus of football pundits except the tasty bit. As I already mentioned in an earlier post I could list a load of pundits that are terrible, just spout the same nonsense every week, can't keep their personal bias for their own club from impacting on their analysis.

Would she have got the gig 10 years ago? No because no women would have because they are female. So yes some diversity boxes were probably ticked and in cases like this that is no bad thing, she is as good if not better than a lot of pundits employed out there. Lots of women watch football, lots of women play football, she can do the job, what more does anyone want? Male pundits were used for the woman's World Cup so what is the problem?

Oh and no I don't think the colour of her skin has any relevance on her getting a gig.

Nasher · 20 Sep 2020 at 10:34

It's the BBC so "diversity" boxes were definitely being ticked. An average white male going up against her for the role would have no chance.

But if she is good then she is good, bonus.

GIBURROWS · 20 Sep 2020 at 11:53

Colonel_Klinck said:
All that is true of 80% plus of football pundits except the tasty bit. As I already mentioned in an earlier post I could list a load of pundits that are terrible, just spout the same nonsense every week, can't keep their personal bias for their own club from impacting on their analysis.

Would she have got the gig 10 years ago? No because no women would have because they are female. So yes some diversity boxes were probably ticked and in cases like this that is no bad thing, she is as good if not better than a lot of pundits employed out there. Lots of women watch football, lots of women play football, she can do the job, what more does anyone want? Male pundits were used for the woman's World Cup so what is the problem?

Oh and no I don't think the colour of her skin has any relevance on her getting a gig.

You say wouls she have got the gig 10 years ago, no because she's a woman but she's replacing a woman who had the job for 24 years?

ianh · 20 Sep 2020 at 12:21

GIBURROWS said:
You say wouls she have got the gig 10 years ago, no because she's a woman but she's replacing a woman who had the job for 24 years?

Sadly his own unconscious sexism means that he couldn't believe a woman would be a sports presenter before now, whilst his own unconscious superiority complex makes him think he can't be wrong so he never bothers to do a 3 second google search to find out just how wrong he is, just as his own unconscious racism prevents him seeing that skin colour actually does have an effect on her getting a job at the BBC, because they haven't short-listed any of the multitude of fantastic White female athletes with TV experience who are just as qualified, which then links back to his unconscious superiority complex making him unable to see that he might be wrong.

It always seem to be the most "progressive" minds that seem, in reality, to be the worst purveyors of "-ism's" because at least people that are out in the open with their "-ism's" are easily identifiable, rather than these insidious people who keep it hidden under a veil of righteousness

chroniclard · 20 Sep 2020 at 12:27

Nasher said:
It's the BBC so "diversity" boxes were definitely being ticked. An average white male going up against her for the role would have no chance.

But if she is good then she is good, bonus.

An average white male has the most prestigious job in sports presenting.

GIBURROWS · 20 Sep 2020 at 12:29

chroniclard said:
An average white male has the most prestigious job in sports presenting.

And no one wants him there!

chroniclard · 20 Sep 2020 at 12:33

GIBURROWS said:
And no one wants him there!

Well yeah, he's the wrong average white male. Richard Keys is probably more their style.

GIBURROWS · 20 Sep 2020 at 13:09

chroniclard said:
Well yeah, he's the wrong average white male. Richard Keys is probably more their style.

I think Graham Norton would be quality for MOTD

NVP · 20 Sep 2020 at 14:36

ianh said:
Sadly his own unconscious sexism means that he couldn't believe a woman would be a sports presenter before now, whilst his own unconscious superiority complex makes him think he can't be wrong so he never bothers to do a 3 second google search to find out just how wrong he is, just as his own unconscious racism prevents him seeing that skin colour actually does have an effect on her getting a job at the BBC, because they haven't short-listed any of the multitude of fantastic White female athletes with TV experience who are just as qualified, which then links back to his unconscious superiority complex making him unable to see that he might be wrong.

NVP · 20 Sep 2020 at 14:36

GIBURROWS said:
I think Graham Norton would be quality for MOTD

Better than Clarkson I reckon

Yadda · 20 Sep 2020 at 14:41

Alan Carr?

That would be interesting.

GIBURROWS · 20 Sep 2020 at 14:45

Norton hosting, Clarkson and Alan Carr as panelists. Ultimate MOTD

Nasher · 20 Sep 2020 at 16:52

chroniclard said:
An average white male has the most prestigious job in sports presenting.

He has been there for years, soaking up a huge un-equal salary and never made a peep about it. But since the box ticking crusade started he seems to have become worried and started using virtue signalling to try and justify his possition.

But I can see his angle on it. The only way for a regular white guy to survive at the BBC now (and channel 4) is to go full woke. Have no personality or humour because it might offend someone. Be basically...an NPC.

chroniclard · 20 Sep 2020 at 17:18

Nasher said:
He has been there for years, soaking up a huge un-equal salary and never made a peep about it. But since the box ticking crusade started he seems to have become worried and started using virtue signalling to try and justify his possition.

But I can see his angle on it. The only way for a regular white guy to survive at the BBC now (and channel 4) is to go full woke. Have no personality or humour because it might offend someone. Be basically...an NPC.

Heh, how do people get so delusional. Npc indeed.

Colonel_Klinck · 20 Sep 2020 at 17:25

GIBURROWS said:
You say wouls she have got the gig 10 years ago, no because she's a woman but she's replacing a woman who had the job for 24 years?

Sorry I was talking about being a football pundit on MOTD, Sky etc. Should have made that clearer.

Colonel_Klinck · 20 Sep 2020 at 17:32

ianh said:
Sadly his own unconscious sexism means that he couldn't believe a woman would be a sports presenter before now, whilst his own unconscious superiority complex makes him think he can't be wrong so he never bothers to do a 3 second google search to find out just how wrong he is, just as his own unconscious racism prevents him seeing that skin colour actually does have an effect on her getting a job at the BBC, because they haven't short-listed any of the multitude of fantastic White female athletes with TV experience who are just as qualified, which then links back to his unconscious superiority complex making him unable to see that he might be wrong.

It always seem to be the most "progressive" minds that seem, in reality, to be the worst purveyors of "-ism's" because at least people that are out in the open with their "-ism's" are easily identifiable, rather than these insidious people who keep it hidden under a veil of righteousness

Except I was talking about women being pundits on MOTD, Sky Sports Football, BT Sports Football. I could have been clearer on that and there are several white women doing football punditry.

Hagar · 20 Sep 2020 at 18:26

Colonel_Klinck said:
Except I was talking about women being pundits on MOTD, Sky Sports Football, BT Sports Football. I could have been clearer on that and there are several white women doing football punditry.

Except why the ******* **** differentiate? That is what is divisive. It is not in the front of my brain at all until some toss pot (Lineker) starts weighing the odds on twit face. Quotas are ridiculous. If someone is good enough, they get the gig.

Colonel_Klinck · 20 Sep 2020 at 18:42

Hagar said:
Except why the ******* **** differentiate? That is what is divisive. It is not in the front of my brain at all until some toss pot (Lineker) starts weighing the odds on twit face. Quotas are ridiculous. If someone is good enough, they get the gig.

I agree it should be if they are good enough. So why did it take until 2018 for us to see a female football pundit? Are you saying they weren't good enough until that point? Sometimes certain things need a kick or it just doesn't happen. It shouldn't be the standard but it shouldn't have taken until 2018 for it happen. TBH I think Lineker was trolling because his twitter feed is full of people being offended. And once again it worked, his feed was full of people losing their ****.