Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradise City
Yes, it's the 'more is better' fallacy. Not always so. It's not a swipe at the "Sky Team" even if you channeled the spirits of Fangio and Clark and made them pundits, saturation coverage is always going to be simple common sense stated six times over X hours. To paraphrase an exchange between Thompson and Davidson at the Sky Pad 'Do you think the stewards will be watching the start closely after the Spa startline accident, Ant?' 'Yes,I do Georgie. They will be looking at it very closely.' Lovely and true but not exactly a complex deduction beyond the power of mortals.
It's there not just in sport, the worst is 24/7 news.
I do miss the days when the sport was somewhat mysterious. I wasn't aware too much of the business, if I had a knowledge gap I got off my backside and dug up the information I needed. I actually miss the first generation of BBC coverage where Walker would just run through the trails and struggles of the grid and then just went racing. I also think that people can get jaded and take the saturated coverage for granted.
|
Well said. I know it must be difficult to come up with something new to say - why not just cut back the length of transmission? Oh, of course, they paid so much for the rights, they've got to justify it.