Who has mentioned anything about his blog? I do not read it because I am not interested in it.
The BBC Fail thread
- Thread starter DHCanary
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Who has mentioned anything about his blog? I do not read it because I am not interested in it.
"Jake tweets show up on the BBC F1 page so they should be about F1, nobody really cares if he is going to a wedding or redoing his house."
So you do not read Jake's tweets, but you know what they are about. Fascinating.
So you do not read Jake's tweets, but you know what they are about. Fascinating.
Mifune. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in this post you are discussing Jake Humphrey's Twitter page.
I think you are getting mixed up with his blog and his twitter.
No problemo.
I do not care what he writes in his blog because I just choose not the read it, but his tweets are displayed on the F1 page and I just find some of the inaneness of them quite irritating.
I guess that because he has "F1" in his Twitter name, you assume that this must be a "work" account rather than personal? If it is a "work" Twitter account then why would he post about his Wife/house/football team/general everyday life? He puts more or less everything on this account so what would he need another account for? It's not an email or phone number where you need one for private contact with people, its use is specifically designed for getting updates of news/life to the masses.
Would you mind posting a link where Jake says he didn't care about F1 before he got the job? I'm slightly inclined not to believe that because in this link it is mentioned about his interview that "We had a good, open chat about the sport, my commitment, my knowledge and finally they asked me to count the steps to the lift while they had a chat. I was so nervous I quickly lost count, loitered outside the room and then when I returned they asked me if I'd like the job."
Clearly, the beeb found out what knowledge he had and whether he cared about the sport so either a) he knew nothing and the beeb were perfectly happy to let him do it anyway or b) he did know about the sport and this is why he got the job. I'm inclined to believe B. Even in the event that it was A and he genuinely doesn't know anything (which I would find hard to believe now considering that he's been part of it for 2 and a half years), it doesn't matter because he presents the show well in a way that it allows me to envisage being there and soaking up the atmosphere. Besides, we've got Brundle, DC, EJ and Ted Kravitz who give us all the info I could ever need. Plus websites such as James Allen's Blog and Scarbs' technical updates.
However, I do agree that maybe the jokey approach is going just a bit too far. On the whole, I prefer the friendly approach that they have going but I think they just need to tone it done a small step.
I don't think anyone would put up with the amount of commitment to travelling and jet lag that presenting the F1 show requires without actually enjoying and loving it. As I mentioned before, I think that Jake, like a lot of people, is a sports fan and thus if the opportunity arises he would naturally want to add things to his CV. Plenty of presenters who are known for one sport occasionally do others (especially when the Olympics roll around and we get football commentators doing Ice Hockey and such), it doesn't mean that they care less about their main job though. Murray Walker commentated on other forms of motorsport; BTCC, motocross, Ilse of man TT. Does that mean he didn't care about F1? Of course not.
As an aside I thought I'd just add this. It's from Martin Brundle's Twitter account...
Father's day party at home today with lots of family round. I get to do the one thing I'm good at. BBQ. Fathers are an underrated resource
He's not tweeting about F1 either.
Father's day party at home today with lots of family round. I get to do the one thing I'm good at. BBQ. Fathers are an underrated resource
He's not tweeting about F1 either.
On another note The times claims BBC will drop F1 in 2013
Interestingly enough, Sunday Times is Co - owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Interestingly enough, Sunday Times is Co - owned by Rupert Murdoch.
I thought that story was all dried up and getting boring now? Most British F1 fans have said they won't watch it if we have to fork out money every week.
Keep F1 out of PPV! It won't work in the UK let alone the rest of the world.
This is what really irritates me about journalism: the braying headline "BBC Axes Formula 1" actually means "the corporation will not bid for an extension of its current contract beyond 2013."
Well, most people expected that. That's the status quo. The contract only runs until the end of 2013, there's no existing provision for the BBC to broadcast F1 beyond the end of 2013, and the correct headline would have been "BBC honours its current contract with F1" because it hasn't axed it!
I read that the BBC is paying £40m a year for F1. I think that's ridiculous. What commercial companies want to pay is their business but, even as a F1 fan, I think that's about five times what the BBC should be paying annually for a sport.
This makes Adam Parr's ideas interesting though. Perhaps the BBC would reconsider if they were charged, say £8m a year to broadcast the live feed of qualifying and the race and additional content (race replays, free practice, online stuff) was sold separately to another channel.
Well, most people expected that. That's the status quo. The contract only runs until the end of 2013, there's no existing provision for the BBC to broadcast F1 beyond the end of 2013, and the correct headline would have been "BBC honours its current contract with F1" because it hasn't axed it!
I read that the BBC is paying £40m a year for F1. I think that's ridiculous. What commercial companies want to pay is their business but, even as a F1 fan, I think that's about five times what the BBC should be paying annually for a sport.
This makes Adam Parr's ideas interesting though. Perhaps the BBC would reconsider if they were charged, say £8m a year to broadcast the live feed of qualifying and the race and additional content (race replays, free practice, online stuff) was sold separately to another channel.
The only reason the BBC is paying as little as £40m is becuase there is an agreement that in the UK it must be available on free to view TV.
If that clause is taken out, expect Sky to bid and that would take the annual fees way up.
Remember the TV rights to Football, cricket, tennis etc are far far higher than what the BBC pay for F1.
£40m is a comparative bargain in todays commercial world.
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
Originally Posted by Mifune
You must log in or register to see images
Who has mentioned anything about his blog? I do not read it because I am not interested in it.
Excuse me Basil; I have never read his blog and I've only ever glanced at a couple of tweets when I quickly realised he was just using it in a casual sense of what he's up to, which doesn't interest me personally, although some might like it.
I don't read much of the on-line stuff either because I find it rather banal, and in fact usually it is due to being directed to a link through a forum, about a particular issue which is being debated. I do not remember mentioning Jake's blog anywhere in this thread and do not believe I have ever read it! I accept that others might find the on-line stuff to be of low quality; that is their prerogative, but I have been saying throughout this thread that I feel the BBC do a great job in general, since by far the most important aspect of it is what comes through the TV!
Cheers.
. Cant stand the ****ing adverts every 10 minuet on ITV or god forbid sky. Who the **** has ever watched BBC4 anyway.
I wonder, if push came to shove, how many of us would actually bite the bullet and pay to watch F1 if it went to Sky or something?
Personally, I can't afford a sky box let alone any pay per view channels, so that makes the decision for me! I suppose it would also depend on whether highlights/repeats would be shown later in the day on freeview or not.
Personally, I can't afford a sky box let alone any pay per view channels, so that makes the decision for me! I suppose it would also depend on whether highlights/repeats would be shown later in the day on freeview or not.
I already have Sky and it wouldn't cost significantly more to subscribe to Sky Sports. I fully intend to cancel Sky completely and move to FreeSat or FreeView but I haven't got round to it yet because I have no TV aerial for FreeView and would probably need a replacement dish for FreeSat. I'd like to think, if Sky got F1, that I'd cancel the service on principle but I suppose I'd decide at the time. I think I'd be happy recording live timing on my laptop and downloading a HD copy of the race and then watching it on Sunday or Monday evening. It just means I'd have to avoid the result until then.
I'm sure it will be. I watched Le Mans on my laptop. It can be a bit flaky, though.