Sexism in RTE Sports Coverage?

Corsendonk

siopatmul wrote: »

Boards.ie has a reputation for intelligent debate and I'm glad to see that since I left here, the quality of the debate on this issue has improved.
To those of you who have discussed the popularity of women's sports and its lack, the point is that if women's sports were on television more often, their popularity would increase.
RTE's coverage is lopsided in favour of men, therefore it is sexist. They make no attempt to redress this imbalance, year after year and this situation MUST change.
I agree with those who say that encouraging women to play different types of sports would have huge health benefits for women and young girls. Apart from anything else, RTE are failing in their duty to promote and encourage women in this regard.

If there successful they will get on TV, just look at the athletics coverage that RTE gave to Sonia O'Sullivan over the years, they even covered the Golden League Meets she attended. When the U17 ladies soccer team started to do well suddenly the RTE website was webcasting them. 10 years ago the Irish Mens cricket team wouldn't have got a mention on the RTE News even but that changed with success.

Not ever Licence payers watch sports so do you want to reduce present levels of MENs sport coverage to allow more ladies only sports or do you want to increase sports coverage levels further?

siopatmul

If they're successful they will get on TV, just look at the athletics coverage that RTE gave to Sonia O'Sullivan over the years..

Now I understand! Women have to be successful before they have a chance to be televised like Sonia O' Sullivan. This doesn't apply to mens' sports as its on television ad nauseum every weekend on RTE to the almost total exclusion of womens' sport.
If we follow this line of argument, only successful men (and women) sports people would ever appear on tv which isn't possible because there are always losers no matter what sport is being covered.
This ridiculous - women have to be successful - argument reveals what you are really thinking but don't dare say because you might come across as an out-and-out sexist. Mind you, your argument, though silly, is not as vicious as some of the (male?) responses on this thread.
Most of the negative replies reveal a horrendous attitude and a complete denial that equality between the sexes should exist in any arena.
Appalling.

28064212

siopatmul wrote: »

If they're successful they will get on TV, just look at the athletics coverage that RTE gave to Sonia O'Sullivan over the years..

Now I understand! Women have to be successful before they have a chance to be televised like Sonia O' Sullivan. This doesn't apply to mens' sports as its on television ad nauseum every weekend on RTE to the almost total exclusion of womens' sport.

No, women's sports have to be popular before they have a chance to be televised. You continue with this flawed assumption that supply dictates demand. It does not.

Before the current generation of Irish rugby super-stars, how much rugby was shown on TV? How much coverage was given to it, compared to soccer or gaelic? Or soccer for that matter, how much coverage was given to it before we qualified for the 1988 European championships and the Jack Charlton area began? As already pointed out, cricket coverage has multiplied tenfold since Ireland started becoming successful

siopatmul wrote: »

This ridiculous - women have to be successful - argument reveals what you are really thinking but don't dare say because you might come across as an out-and-out sexist. Mind you, your argument, though silly, is not as vicious as some of the (male?) responses on this thread.
Most of the negative replies reveal a horrendous attitude and a complete denial that equality between the sexes should exist in any arena.
Appalling.

And all of your responses have refused to enter into any kind of debate, or even open up to the possibility that your position is flawed. And now you've resorted to openly insulting posters based on what you think they said, rather than what they actually said

mikom

Lol at the appeals for RTE to feature more womens sports.
They can't even afford to show a world title fight which is taking place here in Ireland.
Willie Casey comes from traveller stock, so siopatmul you can add this to your list of "isms" to rage and wail against.

"Thank you for taking the time to write to me on the subject of the Willie Casey fight. As you may know I have a particular interest in boxing having instigated RTE's relationship with Bernard Dunne in my capacity as Head of Sport. The Cordoba Fight was the culmination of 4 years work and support and a truly great night for Irish Sport. Late last year RTE covered Willie Casey's European title fight, however since then our finances have taken a further turn for the worse. The government's December budget resulted in a Euro 15million hit to RTE. We are currently forecasting a 30million deficit for 2011(including costs relating to the implementation of Digital Terrestrial Television etc) that could be worse should commercial revenues not pick up.
That is a pretty long winded way of saying that we simply do not have the resources to fund this broadcast. The promoters are asking us to provide an outside broadcast unit which will cost a minimum of 75k. We already have very significant budgeted obligations in RTE Sport such as the upcoming 6 Nations, The GAA Championships, The Rugby World Cup and Ireland's Euro 2012 qualifiers. Much as it pains me to say it RTE will not be in a position to fund this additional unbudgeted event unless we can secure commercial sponsorship to offset the production costs.

Thank you again for your enquiry,

Kind Regards,

Glen Killane


Glen Killane
Managing Director
RTE Television"

http://www.sportsnewsireland.com/2010/12/20/willie-casey-to-fight-for-world-title/

Supraman

It's as simple as this the reason ladies sports are not shown on rte as much as mens is that generally speaking the standard in the more commercial sports is of a higher standard in the mens equivalent. The ladies events don't have anywhere near the same attendance figures so why would rte in a nation with only a few national channels provide such niche viewing.

I'm not dismissing ladies sport either by the way , I have 2 very good friends who have been in college in the states and won state and national championships in soccer.
The sport has taken off there relatively recently and as a result probably isn't subject to the notion that has been built up since the game was founded that it's predominantly a male game.

In an ideal world we'd all be out picking tulips singing Kumbaya, eating strawberries and cream for breakfast lunch dinner and tea, living in a country where the politicians prefer to look after the general public rather than the bulge in their bank accounts. The reality is not such and society is flawed from many forms of isms. The situation WILL NOT change in the immediate future.

PeakOutput

siopatmul wrote: »

If they're successful they will get on TV, just look at the athletics coverage that RTE gave to Sonia O'Sullivan over the years..

Now I understand! Women have to be successful before they have a chance to be televised like Sonia O' Sullivan. This doesn't apply to mens' sports as its on television ad nauseum every weekend on RTE to the almost total exclusion of womens' sport.
If we follow this line of argument, only successful men (and women) sports people would ever appear on tv which isn't possible because there are always losers no matter what sport is being covered.
This ridiculous - women have to be successful - argument reveals what you are really thinking but don't dare say because you might come across as an out-and-out sexist. Mind you, your argument, though silly, is not as vicious as some of the (male?) responses on this thread.
Most of the negative replies reveal a horrendous attitude and a complete denial that equality between the sexes should exist in any arena.
Appalling.

everything is equal, forcing unpopular sports on tv to appease a small number of eejits who see themselves being slighted in every little way is affirmative action and is just as wrong sexism itself

womens sports have just as much chance as being shown on tv as mens sports and they are most days of the week you choose to be blind to that fact so you can feel hurt and down trodden by the evil men who are running society.

its a joke and you are the reason why the feminist movement is an irrelevant joke in todays world

carry on being offended by perceived injustices, people who actually care will be out looking for the real thing no matter who they are happening to

Heroditas

siopatmul wrote: »

1. You cannot analyse the viewing numbers, demand etc for something that does not already exist so most of the replies here so far are irrelevant and off message

Yet you then say:

siopatmul wrote: »

2. Women's sport would become more popular/ be in more demand if it got more of an airing, specifically on RTE

No viewing figures exist yet you declare the sports would become popular?
Any substantiation to back this up like, y'know, international studies with empirical data?

siopatmul

PeakOutput wrote: »

everything is equal, forcing unpopular sports on tv to appease a small number of eejits who see themselves being slighted in every little way is affirmative action and is just as wrong sexism itself

womens sports have just as much chance as being shown on tv as mens sports and they are most days of the week you choose to be blind to that fact so you can feel hurt and down trodden by the evil men who are running society.

its a joke and you are the reason why the feminist movement is an irrelevant joke in todays world

carry on being offended by perceived injustices, people who actually care will be out looking for the real thing no matter who they are happening to

I notice you have no problem with the neanderthal rants of some of the respondents on this thread but that's only to be expected. Like for like.

PeakOutput

siopatmul wrote: »

I notice you have no problem with the neanderthal rants of some of the respondents on this thread but that's only to be expected. Like for like.

i dont care what the other people say im addressing you and your points only, im not suprised you choose to ignore the points and facts i bring up.

siopatmul

PeakOutput wrote: »

i dont care what the other people say im addressing you and your points only, im not suprised you choose to ignore the points and facts i bring up.

Yes, and I am addressing your directly with a great idea I think will really work for you.
If you tremble at the thought of the possibility of 50 pc womens' sport on RTE, I suggest you get a one-way ticket to one of the small villages in Afghanistan where Sharia Law is still practiced.
Once you get there, you will find that when girls reach puberty, they are not allowed to participate in any sports while at the same time being segregated from men and discriminated against 24-7.
Who knows? The Sharia chieftains (who still live in the Dark Ages) might welcome you with open arms...Also, there is no chance you would be obliged to watch women playing sports on telly or anywhere else for that matter. Let me know when you get there.

Corsendonk

siopatmul wrote: »

I notice you have no problem with the neanderthal rants of some of the respondents on this thread but that's only to be expected. Like for like.

The phrase "chip on shoulder" comes to mind. You might get more support for your idea if you stop insulting everyone. How do you stand on female sports stars demeaning women by doing provocative photo shoots?

PeakOutput

siopatmul wrote: »

Yes, and I am addressing your directly with a great idea I think will really work for you.
If you tremble at the thought of the possibility of 50 pc womens' sport on RTE, I suggest you get a one-way ticket to one of the small villages in Afghanistan where Sharia Law is still practiced.
Once you get there, you will find that when girls reach puberty, they are not allowed to participate in any sports while at the same time being segregated from men and discriminated against 24-7.
Who knows? The Sharia chieftains (who still live in the Dark Ages) might welcome you with open arms...Also, there is no chance you would be obliged to watch women playing sports on telly or anywhere else for that matter. Let me know when you get there.

haha still ignoring fact, logic and reason i see

i doubt they would welcome me there as i like my women just as outspoken, educated and strong willed as i am.

give me one good reason why 50% of the sport on rte should be womens sport? just one, you havn't given any yet

siopatmul

You're not a Sharia chieftain who happens to work in RTE's sports department, are you?
Tell the truth now.

PeakOutput

siopatmul wrote: »

You're not a Sharia chieftain who happens to work in RTE's sports department, are you?
Tell the truth now.

gotta respect a troll whose thread reaches this length

ill keep checking in with the thread and if you decide to debate like an adult ill be delighted to keep knocking your prejudices out of the park

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSS6EDPJSco

Heroditas

Scary, but she claims to be a lecturer in Politics and Print Journalism.
One can only wonder what her lectures are like.

siopatmul

Heroditas wrote: »

Scary, but she claims to be a lecturer in Politics and Print Journalism.
One can only wonder what her lectures are like.

Does it scare you having a debate with an intelligent woman?
By the way, I've reported you for revealing my personal details in your last post.

Heroditas

siopatmul wrote: »

Does it scare you having a debate with an intelligent woman?
By the way, I've reported you for revealing my personal details in your last post.

You posted a link to your own website in your very first post on this thread where it states who and what you are.
Yes, clearly very intelligent. :rolleyes:

Care to answer the question I put to you on the previous page?

28064212

siopatmul wrote: »

Does it scare you having a debate with an intelligent woman?

What debate? You refuse to actively engage, instead you soapbox and throw insults at anyone who dares to question your viewpoint. A debate requires both sides to actually respond to the points raised, not one side repeatedly stating their own point then ignoring any issues the other side raise

ulinbac

siopatmul wrote: »

You're not a Sharia chieftain who happens to work in RTE's sports department, are you?
Tell the truth now.

I have read all the posts on this debate and even in all my time on boards I have never seen such narrow-minded, ignorant and downright rude behaviour!

You mention supply and demand a number of times. The majority of people (women and men) DEMAND male sports including the premiership, heineken cup and so you don't get upset the olympics and horse racing (which have women involved) so what do you think is going to be supplied. Its basic economics!!

RTE has a limited budget and its extremely difficult to compete with the likes of sky or bbc for rights. So do you not think the little they get should be the one the make the most profitable for? It was also mentioned that there would be a broader range of adds available during the sports instead of just male dominated advertisements. Strangely, if you look at the tv any time of day or night 85% + of the adds are towards a female audience and don't the soaps etc. get the majority of prime time of viewing Monday through Friday. So is that sexist?

Yes women should compete in sports more and join clubs to be fit, have another output and social life but your argument is beyond flawed as shown when you intentionally neglect to answer questions that have been previouslt put to you and how you undermine people.

The 60's are over and bra burning is gone along with narrow-mindedness. Also, I have asked the rare few girls that I know that are into sports and the ones that are not would they rather watch womens sports then mens and they answered no! This was followed by a quick why not? To which THEY replied its not a good as mens. And that is a female perspective. Even within you sex your ideology is a minority and in a democracy majority rules!!

So from an economic perspective supply v demand is at equilibrium for society as a whole.

PeakOutput

siopatmul wrote: »

Does it scare you having a debate with an intelligent woman?
By the way, I've reported you for revealing my personal details in your last post.

god if you are a lecturer who thinks this is a debate i pity anyone who has ever had the misfortune of being in your classroom

what do you do if a student challenges something you say in class? turn up the volume in your headphones and carry on talking?

Raedwald

Funniest thread I have read in a good while.

To it simply womens sport will never get the same coverage as mens sport due to demand by the public for coverage of sports events that are regarded by general consensus to be the pinnacle of excellence and they happen to nearly all be mens sports and they draw in the most advertising revenue for each broadcaster.

Broadcasters would be monumentally stupid to cut their male sports coverage in favor of womens sports coverage because their viewing figures would fall dramatically and they would lose revenue, neither of which any broadcaster wants to lose.

IRE60

siopatmu: its a pity that you didn't try and rail-road your views across the back desk of the Daily Star where your were an intern sub for the sunnier months way back when.

The paper has to have some of the best coverage of sport in Ireland - and every sport. But they appeal to the sporting masses for want of the cover price.

A previous poster mentioned Irish Cricket: I stood in a bar in Dublin (which was not noted for its cricket following - believe me!) and we all watched that famous Ireland Game - which was well covered ion the print the following day. The Inter-varsities Canoe polo missed out that day - even if there were women playing.

I'd hazard a guess that's because the Cricket - that day - was going to be a more sought after read - like the cricked caught eyeballs in the bar.

You should have tried to grandstand in the Daily Star - like you are here - or did they scare you into silence.

You should have grown a set of balls and spoke your mind - then - when you were in a position to influence/cajole that particular medium.

Amazotheamazing

Any one else suspect the OP is a troll account set up to discredit the lecturer linked in the first post?

It's frankly inconcievable that a person intelligent enough to be a lecturer could engage in such assinine debate, or at least, you'd hope so anyway.

mikom

Politics.ie fails to take the bait.
Fair play.

http://www.politics.ie/media/149638-rte-political-balance-log-thread-15.html

UrbanSea

Please tell me the OP was a troll or can someone seriously have such terrible tunnel vision?
Bet it's a fake link at the start too.
Lecturer in politics my eye.

Bonavox

siopatmul wrote: »

Does it scare you having a debate with an intelligent woman?
By the way, I've reported you for revealing my personal details in your last post.

Intelligent? Not doubting that, but you need to polish up your points and presentation.

Sincerely,

An Intelligent Man

Morgans

I smell a project/thesis.

There is no way that a lecturer in politics would use arguments that are used - refusing to answer the numerous very valid points made by both male and female posters - call them neanderthals, and call herself intelligent.

Of course, labelling yourself an intelligent female is a underhanded insult to all women. That the men responding on this thread are used to talking to unintelligent females unlike herself the exception. I think the vast majority of posts have been respectful, but I suppose the sexism card is always there for the ignorant to play.

Best of luck with the blog.

And congratulations on moving the lack of coverage from Andy Gray attitude to Sharia Law. That was a dooozie.

flogen

siopatmul wrote: »

Does it scare you having a debate with an intelligent woman?
By the way, I've reported you for revealing my personal details in your last post.

You revealed your personal details in a link at the bottom of your opening post. If you have an issue with them being in the public domain I suggest you delete the site immediately.

To the other posters, please refrain from drawing inferences on others and stick to discuss the topic at hand. If others choose not to discuss the topic that's their own business.

UrbanSea

Watching the Irish rugby match here.
Raging,I wanted to see the Irish under nineteen's women camogie match.

kevin99

RTE television and radio doesn't have the airtime to broadcast women's sport. Simple as.
Next best thing is for the station to hire female sports journalists.
The ubiquitous Joanne Cantwell, Evanne Ni Quillan (sounds so secondary school girlish with no understanding nor interest in what she is reading) and a few others.