Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

Oakland did you watch Question Time in Motherwell the other week? The BBC selected the audience. You are naive if you dont think they have an agenda. Also I work nights so the time of my post is irrelevant, and I did not grow up on a council estate and studied politics at university, so your Tory predijuces of what you think I come from are blown out of the water here. I dont have a choice regarding not having a TV either sadly.

The main point here is the tone of the beeb is all wrong. They need to drop the drug nonsense when referring to Dan. It is simply not relevant, condescending and patronising.

---

Dan has had a significant amount of time out of the game, that is why he has a ranking of around 100 but is able to take a previous double slam winner to three sets in a fantastic game of tennis. He had the time out because he had been banned for using cocaine, not because he was injured if that were to be the case, it would be repeatedly mentioned as it was with Andy when he had spinal surgery. These are facts that anyone interested in the match would find interesting... why is this guy doing so well.... basically because hes good but got banned. Half the world watching tennis do not know who Dan is. Just because there is a stigma associated with cocaine use that offends your sensitivities it does not mean the truth should be sanitised. 

1. Dans cocaine use is a fact... it is relevant. When he is ranked 40 or above it will not be, it should be mentioned less tending to very rarely. 

2. Condescending .....is having or showing an act of patronising superiority. Reporting a fact in the context above is not condescending and so by definition not patronising, although pointing out a grammatical error to a politics graduate is probably both for which I apologise. You have however been rude and insulting suggesting I have Tory prejudices, mine come firmly from the centre left in my view the sane part of the Labour Party. 

Oakland2002 wrote:

---

Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

Oakland did you watch Question Time in Motherwell the other week? The BBC selected the audience. You are naive if you dont think they have an agenda. Also I work nights so the time of my post is irrelevant, and I did not grow up on a council estate and studied politics at university, so your Tory predijuces of what you think I come from are blown out of the water here. I dont have a choice regarding not having a TV either sadly.

The main point here is the tone of the beeb is all wrong. They need to drop the drug nonsense when referring to Dan. It is simply not relevant, condescending and patronising.

---

Dan has had a significant amount of time out of the game, that is why he has a ranking of around 100 but is able to take a previous double slam winner to three sets in a fantastic game of tennis. He had the time out because he had been banned for using cocaine, not because he was injured if that were to be the case, it would be repeatedly mentioned as it was with Andy when he had spinal surgery. These are facts that anyone interested in the match would find interesting... why is this guy doing so well.... basically because hes good but got banned. Half the world watching tennis do not know who Dan is. Just because there is a stigma associated with cocaine use that offends your sensitivities it does not mean the truth should be sanitised. 

1. Dans cocaine use is a fact... it is relevant. When he is ranked 40 or above it will not be, it should be mentioned less tending to very rarely. 

2. Condescending .....is having or showing an act of patronising superiority. Reporting a fact in the context above is not condescending and so by definition not patronising, although pointing out a grammatical error to a politics graduate is probably both for which I apologise. You have however been rude and insulting suggesting I have Tory prejudices, mine come firmly from the centre left in my view the sane part of the Labour Party. 

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Sunday 10th of March 2019 08:10:43 AM

---

Come on, fellow posters, accounts of individual or corporate political persuasion don't really add a lot to the tennis discussion. Let's stay friendly and stay focused on the important stuff. I think the BBC overall is good institution, I'm happy to pay my license fee, even though I don't really watch the gogglebox very much. I do think, however, that the BBC reporting of matches involving the British tennis players is generally pretty dire, there is often no detail other than the basic score, and there is a tendency to roll out the same stocking filler fact, in effect to disquise the reporting lack of any real insight either in the match play or the players recent progression within the sport. It's probably a question of resource. It does get my goat when one of these oft-used stocking fillers rises from the background blurb, to form the basis of an inflammatory headline, just when the player is doing well, and representing British tennis in a very positive light, currently.

6-2 in 27 mins

edited for score