- Banned
- #301
Also more willing to simply listen to the radio.People over the age of 60 are also the last likely to look for other sources, and are more likely to have an allegiance to a particular channel (note: "more likely", I am aware it is a gross generalisation)
That's a very broad generalisation. There would be quite a few advertisers who wouldn't be impressed with a pitch of: 'We'll bring you the low brow market.'I wonder if the low brow market isn't exactly what they are aiming for.
Cricket is seen as rather cerebral for a ball support, but the advertising dollar is in alcohol and gaming (and junk food I guess)
There are certainly a lot of stupid dickheads in Australia. But broad appeal only becomes a byword for lowest common denominator if you're too lazy to offer an alternative.
Ergo, Richie Benaud offered an alternative. His style didn't happen by accident. It was unique for a reason. That kind of nuanced observation and delivery requires real skill, judgement and attention to detail. Without him, Channel Nine are just too lazy. James Brayshaw simply hasn't put in the hours Benaud did.
So we're left with the dumbest, broadest approach to cricket coverage, poured through a 'blokey entertainment' filter that's meant to make people who don't like cricket want to watch cricket. Surprise, surprise – it's excruciating.
I wonder, why hasn't golf coverage or tennis coverage required the same kind of retooling?
I don't care for golf, particularly. I find it a bit dull. Why hasn't the sport been reformatted and the coverage jazzed up to persuade me to watch it? Do these dullards think they can just carry on appealing to people who like golf?
Sounds like a job for Brad McNamara.
Last edited: