Woman on pole

fast_eddie_72 wrote: That's very poetic, but what is the point? Specifically *who* is doing exactly *what* wrong and, in detail, *what* is it you'd like to see done differently? I know it's the fashion to be darkly cynical about everything and blaming "the media" is in vogue, but no one wants to admit that it simply is what you all built and there is no mystery to it at all.

It's a song.

You're quite angry and defensive about this, it's unlike you.

The media NOT pushing stories exceptionally similar to this with the exception of remarkable success is who is to blame. All stop.

Oh, I know I get real touchy about the subject. It hits pretty close to home. So I'll leave it at that. Suffice to say, people demand "the media" be one thing, and then lambast it for being that. Yeah. It gets a little old after 25 years or so. There’s nothing “edgy” or insightful about bashing the media. It’s a rouse. “Oh, it’s not my fault that ‘the media’ is so bad. I only watch Masterpiece Theater”. Really? Because somebody, somewhere is spending a whole heap of time watching Jerry Springer.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Oh, I know I get *real* touchy about the subject. It hits pretty close to home. So I'll leave it at that. Suffice to say, people demand "the media" be one thing, and then lambast it for being that. Yeah. It gets a little old after 25 years or so. There’s nothing “edgy” or insightful about bashing the media. It’s a rouse. “Oh, it’s not *my* fault that ‘the media’ is so bad. I only watch Masterpiece Theater”. Really? Because somebody, somewhere is spending a whole heap of time watching Jerry Springer.

Not trying to be edgy

Don't even have a TV, so no Springer for me

I demand the media be as unbiased as possible. It isn't. Not even close.

tuna55 wrote: I demand the media be as unbiased as possible. It isn't. Not even close.

Unbiased media is out there. No one in great numbers is consuming it. If they did, it would become the norm.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Oh, I know I get *real* touchy about the subject. It hits pretty close to home. So I'll leave it at that. Suffice to say, people demand "the media" be one thing, and then lambast it for being that. Yeah. It gets a little old after 25 years or so. There’s nothing “edgy” or insightful about bashing the media. It’s a rouse. “Oh, it’s not *my* fault that ‘the media’ is so bad. I only watch Masterpiece Theater”. Really? Because somebody, somewhere is spending a whole heap of time watching Jerry Springer.

Some of us say the same thing about bashing dealers, or parts guys, or lawyers or.....

Get yourself a thicker skin and get over it.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I demand the media be as unbiased as possible. It isn't. Not even close.

Unbiased media is out there. No one in great numbers is consuming it. If they did, it would become the norm.

OK, now it sounds like you're agreeing. You're confusing sometimes.

tuna55 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I demand the media be as unbiased as possible. It isn't. Not even close.

Unbiased media is out there. No one in great numbers is consuming it. If they did, it would become the norm.

OK, now it sounds like you're agreeing. You're confusing sometimes.

Confusing how? If you're saying that people chose to watch things that are trivial and sensational at the expense of things that are important and informative- uh, yeah. That's the point I've been making. If you're saying there's a vast conspiracy called "the media" that does something other than give people exactly what they want, then no, I don't.

"The Media" didn't make Danica news. They are completely reactive. NASCAR, Danica, and GoDaddy all have reasons to promote her brand. It only works to the extent that people follow them. "The Media" is the last to the party. NASCAR promotes, people follow, media follows people. Moving them to the top of that food chain just isn't accurate. That's all.

In reply to tuna55:

If you put a double space at the end of a line before hitting carriage return...
You can single space lines of text on this board.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I demand the media be as unbiased as possible. It isn't. Not even close.

Unbiased media is out there. No one in great numbers is consuming it. If they did, it would become the norm.

OK, now it sounds like you're agreeing. You're confusing sometimes.

Confusing how? If you're saying that people chose to watch things that are trivial and sensational at the expense of things that are important and informative- uh, yeah. That's the point I've been making. If you're saying there's a vast conspiracy called "the media" that does something other than give people exactly what they want, then no, I don't. "The Media" didn't make Danica news. They are completely reactive. NASCAR, Danica, and GoDaddy all have reasons to promote her brand. It only works to the extent that people follow them. "The Media" is the last to the party. NASCAR promotes, people follow, media follows people. Moving them to the top of that food chain just isn't accurate. That's all.

So you are saying that when the media reports "news" in a biased way, they are just giving peope what they want? I can watch coverage of an event on two different stations and get two completely different ideas of what happened. From that I would have to conclude that you believe that asking the media to report with honesty and integrity is expecting too much. I don't think it is. But I guess I'm also now not talking about Danica any more.

bravenrace wrote: But I guess I'm also now not talking about Danica any more.

Pretty much. Let's move this more towards women in motorsports and base-line hating on NASCAR instead of having this debate again.

If you want to talk about just how the media covers NASCAR more than other motorsports, that would be legitimate too. It is kind of a shame. Someone could completely annihilate the record at Pike's Peak or completely sweep the field in WRC or even F1. It still will not get the attention in this country as the results of a big NASCAR race like Daytona, even if there was nothing spectacular about that race.

Beer Baron wrote:

bravenrace wrote: But I guess I'm also now not talking about Danica any more.

If you want to talk about just how the media covers NASCAR more than other motorsports, that would be legitimate too.

I would, but I don't watch/listen/or read about NASCAR news.

In reply to bravenrace:

Bias is in the eye of the beholder. Most of the time, it doesn't serve anyone's interest to be intentionally biased. It might, if you're trying to attract a particular audience. That's what MSNBC and Fox News do in their evening "opininon" programs.

But more to the point of this thread - coverage of Danica Patrick isn't really biased. The complaint is that they cover Danica but not other women drivers, some of whom may be better. But that's because the intent was never to give exposure to great women drivers. The intent was simply to leverage her fame and success to get people to watch the news/sell newspapers. Where people get confused is when they attribute some organized effort to exclude those other drivers. That effort simply doesn't exist. If Danica wasn't famous, they wouldn't give it as much coverage.

Danica put herself in the position to get this kind of coverage if she could do something like win the poll at Daytona. If it had been an unknown woman who won the poll, it would almost certainly get some media coverage, but it wouldn't be the big deal this is. If people thought it was neat, and it became the thing everyone is talking about, then the news folks would give it more time. Many times that's how these stories get big. But in this case, Danica was already popular, so this achievement was an opportunity.

In reply to Beer Baron:

This is the "Best Sellers List" problem. You need enough exposure to get on the list and when you are there - your E36 M3ty book about housewives and S&M can fuel themselves. Your doughy uninteresting fat housewife arse will be on Letterman for free.

The obviously more interesting and well researched book about how to build your own sports car and race it will never, ever get there on it's core market. If they got Danica to build one and put her forward in it... and put her on the cover... it just might. Not as quickly as Kim Kardasian but... you get the idea. Once it makes the list - (like NASCAR has) it IS the standard and whether it sucks or not... it's a best seller now!

fast_eddie_72 wrote: In reply to bravenrace: Bias is in the eye of the beholder. Most of the time, it doesn't serve anyone's interest to be intentionally biased. It might, if you're trying to attract a particular audience. That's what MSNBC and Fox News do in their evening "opininon" programs. But more to the point of this thread - coverage of Danica Patrick isn't really biased. The complaint is that they cover Danica but not other women drivers, some of whom may be better. But that's because the intent was never to give exposure to great women drivers. The intent was simply to leverage her fame and success to get people to watch the news/sell newspapers. Where people get confused is when they attribute some organized effort to exclude those other drivers. That effort simply doesn't exist. If Danica wasn't famous, they wouldn't give it as much coverage. Danica put herself in the position to get this kind of coverage if she could do something like win the poll at Daytona. If it had been an unknown woman who won the poll, it would almost certainly get some media coverage, but it wouldn't be the big deal this is. If people thought it was neat, and it became the thing everyone is talking about, then the news folks would give it more time. Many times that's how these stories get big. But in this case, Danica was already popular, so this achievement was an opportunity.

I agree with you on Danica for the most part. On bias, when I watch two "news" programs and they report an event in totally different ways, then somebody is biased. Either that or they are just inaccurate. Either way they aren't serving their viewers the way they should.

I'd rather see Pippa Mann personally

bravenrace wrote: I agree with you on Danica for the most part. On bias, when I watch two "news" programs and they report an event in totally different ways, then somebody is biased. Either that or they are just inaccurate. Either way they aren't serving their viewers the way they should.

I think most news people would agree with what you're saying. I just don't think "bias" is the right word. That implies intent. There are exceptions, but for the most part, they aren't trying to spin stories one way or the other. Sure, they're human, and they work on tight deadlines with less and less ovesight. People have opinions and sometimes despite an effort not to show them, they come through.

More often, stories are just complicated and there simply isn't time to explore every piece. A journalist has to make decisions about what tells the story best. But as soon as you make that decision, something is being left out. If someone finds that bit more important than some bit you included, they'll percieve it as bias. But that is rarely intentional on the part of the journalist.

It's worse in television than print. In the paper, they could print all they want. You can self edit the paper. A story can go on for half a page. They stack them to put what they think are the most important facts near the top specifically so you can do that. You read what you like and skip the rest. It's in their best interest to include a lot so you find things you like.

On television, you can't self edit. It's linear. So they have to be careful about time. There still has to be a lot of content to attract a lot of people, but also to do a fair job of covering the news of the day. If people don't feel like they know what's going on after they watch a newscast, they're going to pick a different newcast next time. So time is precious. You can only go into so much detail before a good number of people move on. That's why TV news tends to be somewhat breathless and superficial.

Okay, sorry. I got long winded here and drug this a little off topic. I work with a lot of really good journalists and I guess I feel like I should defend them when "the media" is under attack. It's a great industry to work in and most of the people are very good at what they do. They all understand why people get frustrated with them and they honestly agree with many of the complaints. I guess I'm just hoping to explain things enough for people to understand why it is the way it is. But I'll let it go and move on. I'll already be here late doing all the crap I should have been doing while defending my industry. Sorry for the threadjack and hope someone found it at least somewhat interesting.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I think most news people would agree with what you're saying. I just don't think "bias" is the right word. That implies intent. There are exceptions, but for the most part, they aren't trying to spin stories one way or the other. Sure, they're human, and they work on tight deadlines with less and less ovesight. People have opinions and sometimes despite an effort not to show them, they come through.

No. Spin implies intent. Bias in the underlying values that effect what people choose to report and how they report it. It is the subtle judgement call that all journalists make to say, "This is more important than that." All people have some bias and that's fine. No news source can report everything. Say a news source reports a car accident in another state as opposed to one in another country, that is bias. It is the judgement call that something that happened closer to the reader will be more important to them.

To a certain degree, some amount of bias is a good thing, because the event that happened closer probably is of more value to the reader.

The word bias implies prejudice or promoting a particular point of view at the expense of another. I'm 90% sure of that, but will let everyone use their own dictionary. It's not the same as simply saying a report is incomplete. It attaches a motive to it being incomplete other than simply not having time to explore a story in a more in depth way.

The so-called "gatekeeper" function of news is different. A lot of things happened today. I count on news people to cull through it all and let me know the important things, then to give me the most important parts of those stories. I understand the information has been selected by someone. I not only accept that, I value that as a consumer. But if, through that process, some stories and facts are systematically included or excluded in order to advance a viewpoint, that is bias.

I said I was leaving, didn't I?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Okay, sorry. I got long winded here and drug this a little off topic. I work with a lot of really good journalists and I guess I feel like I should defend them when "the media" is under attack. It's a great industry to work in and most of the people are very good at what they do. They all understand why people get frustrated with them and they honestly agree with many of the complaints. I guess I'm just hoping to explain things enough for people to understand why it is the way it is. But I'll let it go and move on. I'll already be here late doing all the crap I should have been doing while defending my industry. Sorry for the threadjack and hope someone found it at least somewhat interesting.

If the journalists you know are so good, you shouldn't have to defend them. Also, they should be working within their own industry to expose and weed-out those who do not rise to the defined standards. It seems those you defend are but a small minority in the journalistic community, or you agree with them when others may have an equally legitimate reason to disagree.

I think Danica is HOT!!! I think she's the best race car driver EVAR!! I think you are all just JEALOUS and THREATENED by her looks and ability!! I'm not using emoticons because I don't want you to know if I'm serious or NOT!!

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The word bias implies prejudice or promoting a particular point of view at the expense of another. I'm 90% sure of that, but will let everyone use their own dictionary. It's not the same as simply saying a report is incomplete. It attaches a motive to it being incomplete other than simply not having time to explore a story in a more in depth way. The so-called "gatekeeper" function of news is different. A lot of things happened today. I count on news people to cull through it all and let me know the important things, then to give me the most important parts of those stories. I understand the information has been selected by someone. I not only accept that, I value that as a consumer. But if, through that process, some stories and facts are systematically included or excluded in order to advance a viewpoint, that is bias. I said I was leaving, didn't I?

The content that "gatekeepers" choose to cover, and to what extent, is a form of bias. When subject A does the same thing as subject B and subject B receives ten times more coverage, there is more than a hint of bias and/or prejudice. Sometimes it is intentional, even if only subconsciously.

And yes, you can go now...........

RandyS wrote:

NASCAR does a better job of marketing ? .... more NASCAR coverage on TV ? etc...etc ....

BINGO!. Pole - smole. NASCAR poles are decided before they even start. Either through "the call" or creative use of the timing equipment. (i've actaully used a stop watch to time pole days and rarely does the pole winners time even remotely match what I get). The pole winner is simply what is good for NASCAR - be it sponsors who want more coverage, manufacturers who want more coverage, team owners who need more sponsorship, drivers who can bring more sponsors, etc. Fixing the pole is perfect for NASCAR too, it feeds the above matrix and they can't be acused of fixing races. .02 Randy

Comparing time with a hand held stopwatch to electronic timing does not compute.

bravenrace wrote: I think Danica is HOT!!! I think she's the best race car driver EVAR!! I think you are all just JEALOUS and THREATENED by her looks and ability!! I'm not using emoticons because I don't want you to know if I'm serious or NOT!!

berkeley!

NASCAR equates the Daytona 500 as the Superbowl of their Sprint Cup series. If Danica had won pole in Nationwide it would probably receive 1/10 the coverage. Danica, the Sprint Cup rookie winning pole in mid-season, maybe 1/4 the coverage.

The mainstream media whores take E36 M3 and run long and hard with it, hype it to the trees, beat it to death. Just look at what the media does w/ Superbowl competitors. I know it goes with the territory but I kinda feel sorry for these folks in a way... don't pitch your media circus tent up my ass, just let me do my job.