2016 Footy Show

[joy division]

I never record the show if I'm going to miss it and I rarely watch more than an hour of it but I managed to get through the whole thing. I think she just brought the level of maturity up in the show and some humour still managed to come through. It seemed a little unnatural early on but she did well and knows her stuff and didn't have that feel that she was 'going to take over' the show like I initially thought.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I never record the show if I'm going to miss it and I rarely watch more than an hour of it but I managed to get through the whole thing. I think she just brought the level of maturity up in the show and some humour still managed to come through. It seemed a little unnatural early on but she did well and knows her stuff and didn't have that feel that she was 'going to take over' the show like I initially thought.

Yeah, her riff on Gary Ablett's wedding was pure gold. She knows him too well!

 

[Gasometer]

Yeah, her riff on Gary Ablett's wedding was pure gold. She knows him too well!

Do you even like it...or wat....confused....

 

[Sweet Jesus]

confused....

Jesus loves you just the way you are.

 

[Gasometer]

Jesus loves you just the way you are.

Ok

 

[cobbly]

How is that 'clearly the case'?

It's my contention that it's yet to be demonstrated.

Nonsense.

My standard is the same regardless of gender. A journalist in her role - male or female - should be able to demonstrate a firm grasp of the subject matter. Otherwise what's the point of having a journalist?

Should the bar be lower because she's a woman? That's its own kind of sexism.

And if she's just there to be female, then that's the definition of tokenism.

Your name is very appropriate because the whole time reading this thread I was thinking Sweet Jesus how many ******* times is he going to post the same damn thing!

First, of course the bar shouldn't be lower because she's female, but it shouldn't be higher than the bar set for the others on that show either.

Second, her footy knowledge is yet to be demonstrated? What do you want her to do, take an exam live on air? She can only demonstrate it when given the opportunity to do so. You want her to talk off the cuff about something? There also has to be an opportunity for that, which is unlikely to come seeing as nothing on the footy show is off the cuff, it is all entirely scripted.

Third, so what if she is a journalist? That is not all she is. Why hire a journalist? Why not? Maybe they did't go out looking for a journalist, maybe they just went out looking for someone that could host the footy show and she just happened to be a journalist.

Fourth, they are promoting that she is a "journalist" who "knows her footy" because they know their target audience is full of dumb bogan sexist males who will assume that because she has **** she can't possibly know anything about footy and complain all over social media about it. Yes they did it before the criticism came, because they wanted to preempt it, blind freddy could see that the criticism was going to come (which it has by the way), and they thought maybe they could minimise it by getting the stories out there about how much she knows about footy first. That doesn't mean that they hired her as some sort of expert analyst who is going to wow us with her insight, she is just a footy show host FFS.


Now please quit it with the obvious chauvinism badly disguised as "just asking the questions". It's already clear from one episode that she knows enough about footy to do what she needs to do as the footy show host. Whether she will improve the show, or help it gain viewers (or atleast stop the slide), we wont be able to properly judge until later in the season.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Your name is very appropriate because the whole time reading this thread I was thinking Sweet Jesus how many ******* times is he going to post the same damn thing!

Cool story!

First, of course the bar shouldn't be lower because she's female, but it shouldn't be higher than the bar set for the others on that show either.

OK, good.

So you'd agree that pieces like this set the bar unnecessarily low when trying to demonstrate that she 'knows her footy'?

Second, her footy knowledge is yet to be demonstrated?

That's right. Or, at least, the kind of knowledge I'd expect from a journalist in her position.

What do you want her to do, take an exam live on air? She can only demonstrate it when given the opportunity to do so. You want her to talk off the cuff about something? There also has to be an opportunity for that, which is unlikely to come seeing as nothing on the footy show is off the cuff, it is all entirely scripted.

She's a journalist, so I'd expect her to be broadly conversant with the game, its history, the players, its influential figures, the evolution of rules and tactics, the mechanics of player movement and the various other issues affecting the sport and its administration. That would be true of Garry Lyon or James Brayshaw (who aren't journalists) and I'd expect it to be the case for any journalist in Maddern's position.

I'm sure there will be ample opportunity for her to demonstrate a command of this material that extends beyond asking scripted questions.

Third, so what if she is a journalist? That is not all she is. Why hire a journalist? Why not? Maybe they did't go out looking for a journalist, maybe they just went out looking for someone that could host the footy show and she just happened to be a journalist.

Channel Nine have emphasised her experience as a journalist. So for you to hypothesise that maybe it just happened randomly isn't very convincing. They sought someone who could credibly claim some understanding of the subject matter. They didn't just wheel out the weather girl or a Getaway presenter.

So, as a journalist, she should be expected to bring a level of insight and understanding to the role. That would be the standard for any journalist in her position, regardless of gender. And, as you've said, the bar should not be set any lower for her on account of her being a woman.

Fourth, they are promoting that she is a "journalist" who "knows her footy" because they know their target audience is full of dumb bogan sexist males who will assume that because she has **** she can't possibly know anything about footy and complain all over social media about it.

OK. So she should be assessed according to that standard. Right?

Wouldn't it be more sexist to say she doesn't need to know anything and being female is sufficient? Is she just a potted plant? A token female?

You said earlier that the bar shouldn't be any lower for her because she's female, so let's keep that standard in mind.

Yes they did it before the criticism came, because they wanted to preempt it, blind freddy could see that the criticism was going to come (which it has by the way), and they thought maybe they could minimise it by getting the stories out there about how much she knows about footy first. That doesn't mean that they hired her as some sort of expert analyst who is going to wow us with her insight, she is just a footy show host FFS.

They hired her as a journalist and have insisted she knows her footy. So, gender aside, that's the standard by which she should be judged.

She doesn't need to be an 'expert analyst'. I've already outlined broadly the level of understanding I would expect her to demonstrate.

Now please quit it with the obvious chauvinism badly disguised as "just asking the questions".

What have I said that's chauvinistic?

I'm establishing a standard that should apply to any journalist, regardless of gender. That's the opposite of sexism.

I think it's far more troubling when people either lower the bar because she's a woman or argue that she doesn't actually need to know anything - simply being female is sufficient. That's the soft bigotry of low expectations.

It's already clear from one episode that she knows enough about footy to do what she needs to do as the footy show host.

How was it clear?

Do you think she needs to be able to do more than deliver a scripted question? Or is that sufficient to demonstrate that she 'knows her footy'?

In my view, a journalist hosting a show needs to have a firmer grasp of their subject than that, regardless of their gender.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Have you met her or just watched her from afar?

Sure. That's why I'm more interested in whether she demonstrates an understanding of the subject matter.

You seem overly fixated on how "smart and cool" she is.

I've met her, quite a few times although not for a little while and she absolutely knows footy.
I'm 100% confident she knows footy more than most who post on Bigfooty.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm 100% confident she knows footy more than most who post on Bigfooty.

Also a low bar.

But you might well be right. All I'm asking is that she demonstrate it.

The cascade of comment pieces insisting she's already shown how much she 'knows her footy' leave me totally unconvinced.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Also a low bar.

But you might well be right. All I'm asking is that she demonstrate it.

The cascade of comment pieces insisting she's already shown how much she 'knows her footy' leave me totally unconvinced.

* me.
She's done one show, would have been very much feeling her way and done a pretty good job.
That's all we have to go on.
Nobody wants her spewing facts and figures out Mcavaney style, nor do they want her making a complete arse of herself by showing little knowledge off the game.
Somewhere in the middle, with an ability to join in the silly footy show banter and a females perspective is the pass mark.
Ticks the first box comfortably.
Reckon she looked pretty comfortable with the rest too.

 

[Balony_pony16]

arguing about "footy knowledge" of presenter's on the Footy Show. That show is more light entertainment then actually a footy show

 

[Sweet Jesus]

**** me.
She's done one show, would have been very much feeling her way and done a pretty good job.
That's all we have to go on.

I'm merely conveying my expectations in light of the puff pieces insisting she has already 'silenced the critics'.

Somewhere in the middle, with an ability to join in the silly footy show banter and a females perspective is the pass mark.

Interesting. What constitutes 'a female's perspective' when it comes to football?

How is it different to a male perspective?

Should there be a difference?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

arguing about "footy knowledge" of presenter's on the Footy Show.

So your view is that she doesn't need to know anything about football?

That show is more light entertainment then actually a footy show

In that order?

 

[Balony_pony16]

So your view is that she doesn't need to know anything about football?

In that order?

Just needs to know enough to make some passing comments. I mean they aren't exactly doing game tactic analysis on the show are they. Hell Sam doesn't even know 90% of the players in the AFL. Not saying if she has great knowledge or not...hardly the big deal people are banging on about

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Just needs to know enough to make some passing comments. I mean they aren't exactly doing game tactic analysis on the show are they.

She needs to be able to respond off the cuff without being forced to bluff.

Hell Sam doesn't even know 90% of the players in the AFL.

Sam's role is different.

Not saying if she has great knowledge or not...hardly the big deal people are banging on about

Surely she needs something to hang her hat on.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

I'm merely conveying my expectations in light of the puff pieces insisting she has already 'silenced the critics'.

Interesting. What constitutes 'a female's perspective' when it comes to football?

How is it different to a male perspective?

Should there be a difference?

Females perspective on everything to do with the show, not just footy.

 

[cobbly]

Cool story!

I expected this reply and I told myself I wasn't going to bite, but I can't help myself, so you win.

So you'd agree that pieces like this set the bar unnecessarily low when trying to demonstrate that she 'knows her footy'?

No, I think it sets the bar at the level of the footy shows hosts job, which is just to ask questions, keep the show moving and try not to say anything too stupid.

That's right. Or, at least, the kind of knowledge I'd expect from a journalist in her position.

Again, what does her being a journalist have to do with whether she is capable of hosting the footy show? For one thing she was never a football journalist. The word journalist has lost all meaning anyway when the likes of robbo can use it.

She's a journalist, so I'd expect her to be broadly conversant with the game, its history, the players, its influential figures, the evolution of rules and tactics, the mechanics of player movement and the various other issues affecting the sport and its administration.

There is nothing to suggest she isn't all those things, so why question it at all? You wouldn't be questioning it if a male news presenter got the gig.

They didn't just wheel out the weather girl or a Getaway presenter.

What makes you think the weather girl or a Getaway presenter wouldn't know about footy?

They hired her as a journalist and have insisted she knows her footy. So, gender aside, that's the standard by which she should be judged.

No, they hired her as a host of the footy show, that's the standard by which she should be judged

What have I said that's chauvinistic?

You are starting with the assumption that she doesn't know enough about footy to meet your standard, and asking that she prove it to you before you will be satisfied, just because she is a woman.

How was it clear?

She hosted the show, and didn't embarrass herself, which is more than i can say for Sam Newman these days.

Do you think she needs to be able to do more than deliver a scripted question? Or is that sufficient to demonstrate that she 'knows her footy'?

It is sufficient to demonstrate that she is capable of hosting the footy show.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Anyway, the footy show is black.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Females perspective on everything to do with the show, not just footy.

OK, like what?

I still don't really know what that means in this context.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

OK, like what?

I still don't really know what that means in this context.

You don't think a female has a completely different perspective on things than a male?
Are you taking the piss?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I expected this reply and I told myself I wasn't going to bite, but I can't help myself, so you win.

Don't feel bad about it.

No, I think it sets the bar at the level of the footy shows hosts job, which is just to ask questions, keep the show moving and try not to say anything too stupid.

Well, if all that's required is being able to asked scripted questions then I think that sets the bar way too low, for reasons I've outlined.

Again, what does her being a journalist have to do with whether she is capable of hosting the footy show? For one thing she was never a football journalist. The word journalist has lost all meaning anyway when the likes of robbo can use it.

Channel Nine have emphasised her experience as a journalist so it becomes pertinent.

And, ultimately, it feeds into the question of credibility and her ability to demonstrate an understanding of the material. If she's a journalist, she's not there just to be a potted plant. A journalist who is paid to talk about a certain subject needs to be on solid ground.

There is nothing to suggest she isn't all those things, so why question it at all? You wouldn't be questioning it if a male news presenter got the gig.

I'm just waiting for her to demonstrate this level of understanding, and reiterating my expectation in light of the puff pieces claiming she's already silenced the doubters.

And I absolutely would question it if a male journalist with no discernible background covering football had taken the job. The standard would be the same. That's my point.

What makes you think the weather girl or a Getaway presenter wouldn't know about footy?

They might. But they'd have to demonstrate it if they were paid to talk about it. And the bar might reasonably be lower than for a journalist.

No, they hired her as a host of the footy show, that's the standard by which she should be judged

Channel Nine have emphasised her experience as a journalist throughout so it's disingenuous to pretend it's irrelevant.

I've already outlined the level of understanding I expect her to demonstrate.

You are starting with the assumption that she doesn't know enough about footy to meet your standard, and asking that she prove it to you before you will be satisfied, just because she is a woman.

How do you know what my assumptions are? It seems self-serving and intellectually dishonest to simply insist that's the case and work backwards from there.

I'm merely waiting for her to demonstrate the kind of grasp of the subject that I'd expect from any journalist in her position, male or female. Gender has nothing to do with it. It's a standard of professionalism, experience and understanding that would apply to anyone doing her job.

She hosted the show, and didn't embarrass herself, which is more than i can say for Sam Newman these days.

Well, that's the kind of low bar I'm talking about. The soft bigotry of low expectations.

It is sufficient to demonstrate that she is capable of hosting the footy show.

Granted, she didn't fall of her chair. But does that prove she 'knows her footy' to the extent a journalist in her position should be expected to?

I don't think it does. But there will be ample opportunity for her to demonstrate this in future. I will wait.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You don't think a female has a completely different perspective on things than a male?

Sure, to the extent that any individual might have a 'different perspective' to another individual on anything. I'm not sure that's defined fundamentally by gender.

So I don't really know what it means to talk collectively about the 'female perspective' versus the 'male perspective' vis-a-vis football.

What's the difference? Should there be one?

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Sure, to the extent that any individual might have a 'different perspective' to another individual on anything. I'm not sure that's defined fundamentally by gender.

So I don't really know what it means to talk collectively about the 'female perspective' versus the 'male perspective' vis-a-vis football.

What's the difference? Should there be one?

It just gives the show a women's perspective on things.
These things are obvious surely, and i know they are to you.
You just like an argument you cheeky bastard!!
Did I just call Jesus that?

 

[cobbly]

Well, that's the kind of low bar I'm talking about. The soft bigotry of low expectations.

My last post on this topic just to say this. The low bar was set by the footy show long before she arrived by the likes of sam newman, garry lyon, jb and whoever is running the show. Nothing to do with bigotry or gender. It's just it doesnt take much to reach the levels of these guys, and she shouldnt be expected to reach a higher level just because she is female. Though she may well do that anyway.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It just gives the show a women's perspective on things.

Yeah, still don't know what that means with regard to football.

These things are obvious surely, and i know they are to you.

Feel free to explain it.