Off Topic CBC to offer alternate female commentary

[millbank]

http://whilethemenwatch.com/

 

CBC is going to offer a Female Commentary for Stanley Cup final, via link above.

I ponder how this will be perceived. Will folks have fun with this, or offended. It is clear over the past few decades women have fought a long battle for their place in sport, as fans, media, athletes, commentators. Does this sort of programming do harm or is it good fun, that people of both sex will take in as a change from the norm , simply as something different .

 

(given some of the current commentators, who is to say a female option could not be better and a welcome change. )

[wonderbread]

She's already better than Millbury.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

I did not know Jamie Sale did a FHM shoot.......very nice.

[darksabre]

I remember really liking Cammi Granato commentating during the Winter Olympics.

[Eleven]

From what I hear, (1) many are already offended and (2) the women CBC is offering are actually very funny. I'm going to give it a listen.

[apuszczalowski]

I don't see what the big commotion is over this. I would say a greater deal of couples are either both into hockey and are just fine watching the regular telecast, or in a situation where the guy is into the sport and the woman is bored out of her skull sitting there complaining that he is watching the game. This might entertain them when the guy watches the game. Everyone that seems to be taking offence to this seems to be woman who are into the game and watch the normal telecast anyways. Its not like CBC is forcing any woman to have to follow this weither they are into hockey or not. I can say that my Fiance would probably want something like that while I am watching football. Just like I would love a mens version for when she is watching the Kardashians or some other female oriented crap

[darksabre]

I don't see what the big commotion is over this. I would say a greater deal of couples are either both into hockey and are just fine watching the regular telecast, or in a situation where the guy is into the sport and the woman is bored out of her skull sitting there complaining that he is watching the game. This might entertain them when the guy watches the game. Everyone that seems to be taking offence to this seems to be woman who are into the game and watch the normal telecast anyways. Its not like CBC is forcing any woman to have to follow this weither they are into hockey or not. I can say that my Fiance would probably want something like that while I am watching football. Just like I would love a mens version for when she is watching the Kardashians or some other female oriented crap

 

But the trick with that is we wouldn't even want a men's oriented version of those shows. Because they don't interest us. Creating a female oriented version of sports telecasts is for women who don't really even want to watch sports. They want to hear about how pretty Henrik Lundqvist is, or what Mike Fisher and Carrie Underwood are up to.

 

A sports cast is a sports cast. It's not oriented towards men alone. It's oriented towards sports. If the sports are women's sports, then a female oriented sports cast makes sense, but even then it tends to be about sports. Not about whether the target audience is male or female.

 

Sport is sport. If you're a woman who thinks a sports broadcast needs to cater to your feminine ideals, then are you really even interested in the sports aspect in the first place? Or are you just looking to sugar coat it to make something interesting that you don't think is interesting to begin with?

[spndnchz]

:angry: Hi. We're CBC. We're still patronizing the female sports fan. If they think it's such a good idea they should put them on TV instead of just on the internet and see what happens. Fine if they want to have their own website, I've been there here and there, but for CBC, the godfather of hockey, to endorse is just wretched.

 

Maybe they're just pissed there are no Canadians teams playing.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

:angry: Hi. We're CBC. We're still patronizing the female sports fan. If they think it's such a good idea they should put them on TV instead of just on the internet and see what happens. Fine if they want to have their own website, I've been there here and there, but for CBC, the godfather of hockey, to endorse is just wretched.

 

Maybe they're just pissed there are no Canadians teams playing.

 

 

I can't wait until Don Cherry calls one of them "Toots" on the air.

[nobody]

:angry: Hi. We're CBC. We're still patronizing the female sports fan. If they think it's such a good idea they should put them on TV instead of just on the internet and see what happens. Fine if they want to have their own website, I've been there here and there, but for CBC, the godfather of hockey, to endorse is just wretched.

 

Maybe they're just pissed there are no Canadians teams playing.

 

I'm of the same opinion here. Like d4rk said - sport is sport. Sex, race etc do not need to be considered as long as you have intelligent people talking about the sport in question.

 

Should we have Scott create a separate section of this site so Chz and Bio have a place to post their opinions?

 

As far as the women involved with that website - kudos to them for implementing an idea that is probably making them money. I wish I could make a living with my sport commentary (if anyone knows someone looking to hire someone who makes stupid insignificant one line comments - let me know :) .) In terms of CBC - sure they are just trying to tie themselves to that site in order to help their ratings also but it does diminish their standing.

[biodork]

But the trick with that is we wouldn't even want a men's oriented version of those shows. Because they don't interest us. Creating a female oriented version of sports telecasts is for women who don't really even want to watch sports. They want to hear about how pretty Henrik Lundqvist is, or what Mike Fisher and Carrie Underwood are up to.

 

A sports cast is a sports cast. It's not oriented towards men alone. It's oriented towards sports. If the sports are women's sports, then a female oriented sports cast makes sense, but even then it tends to be about sports. Not about whether the target audience is male or female.

 

Sport is sport. If you're a woman who thinks a sports broadcast needs to cater to your feminine ideals, then are you really even interested in the sports aspect in the first place? Or are you just looking to sugar coat it to make something interesting that you don't think is interesting to begin with?

:angry: Hi. We're CBC. We're still patronizing the female sports fan. If they think it's such a good idea they should put them on TV instead of just on the internet and see what happens. Fine if they want to have their own website, I've been there here and there, but for CBC, the godfather of hockey, to endorse is just wretched.

 

Maybe they're just pissed there are no Canadians teams playing.

I'm of the same opinion here. Like d4rk said - sport is sport. Sex, race etc do not need to be considered as long as you have intelligent people talking about the sport in question.

 

Should we have Scott create a separate section of this site so Chz and Bio have a place to post their opinions?

 

As far as the women involved with that website - kudos to them for implementing an idea that is probably making them money. I wish I could make a living with my sport commentary (if anyone knows someone looking to hire someone who makes stupid insignificant one line comments - let me know :) .) In terms of CBC - sure they are just trying to tie themselves to that site in order to help their ratings also but it does diminish their standing.

 

Agreed with the above; if there are female commentators who know their shiz (Kathryn Tappen is really good) and are part of the broadcast, that's great, but I'm watching to watch the game! As long as the commentary is quality and (relatively) unbiased, I don't care who's delivering it. Boo to CBC.

[SabreFX]

I recall Cammi Granato's color commentary during the Winter Olympics being horrendous. My wife and I found it ridiculously aggravating that she spent more time talking about which players had lunch together in the Olympic Plaza than she did on the play happening in front of her and basically added nothing of value to the broadcast. She made me pine for Pierre McGuire's inane ramblings about players' college roommates as well as his mumbling about traffic on the way into Buffalo. Her male counterpart who was supposed to be doing the play-by-play wasn't any better. I can't even be bothered to look up who it was though it wouldn't surprise me if it was one of these knuckleheads doing NHL games for NBC.

 

It's not that females can't provide good hockey commentary- I certainly think they're capable of it, especially after hearing Kathryn Tappen almost every night on the NHL Network- but it comes down to the culture of the network's broadcast team. It strikes me as though there's a sort of mandate to dumb things down for audiences who don't follow hockey as closely as we do. Hell, Mike Emrick is an award winning commentator, but aside from the past couple of Rangers vs. Devils games, his play-by-play for NBC is nearly non-existant and he seems to get caught by surprise half the time when somebody scores. If CBC's intent is to gear their commentary toward women by having female broadcasters talk about things that they expect women enjoy or relate to, then they are doing broadcasting, hockey, and intelligent female hockey fans a great disservice. If that's what you want to hear during a hockey game, just put it on mute and talk about fashion, stretch marks, and the number of calories in your Yoplait amongst yourselves.

 

To paraphrase the LA guy who started the petition to replace the current NBC crew, the historic "Do you believe in Miracles!?" call would never happen under these circumstances.

[Jeanbe]

:angry: Hi. We're CBC. We're still patronizing the female sports fan. If they think it's such a good idea they should put them on TV instead of just on the internet and see what happens. Fine if they want to have their own website, I've been there here and there, but for CBC, the godfather of hockey, to endorse is just wretched.

 

Maybe they're just pissed there are no Canadians teams playing.

 

I was about to post when I read your response and as a fellow female lover of all things hockey, I totally agree. This is the equivalent of "separate but equal" in hockey sense. If you have a woman that knows her hockey (see spndnchz as an example) does it really she has to go on an internet site instead of having her opinions broadcasts over the airwaves to the viewers????

[bunomatic]

http://whilethemenwatch.com/

 

CBC is going to offer a Female Commentary for Stanley Cup final, via link above.

I ponder how this will be perceived. Will folks have fun with this, or offended. It is clear over the past few decades women have fought a long battle for their place in sport, as fans, media, athletes, commentators. Does this sort of programming do harm or is it good fun, that people of both sex will take in as a change from the norm , simply as something different .

 

(given some of the current commentators, who is to say a female option could not be better and a welcome change. )

 

That site is too much. Exactly why I don't want anything to do with this tripe they're promoting. Its like cosmopolitan on ice. I didn't count how many articles about hockey had a sex angle but I would expect nothing less. Whats next? 101 sex tips to turn on the hockey wife. Hockey should be about hockey not instant game day stain removal ideas.

[apuszczalowski]

But the trick with that is we wouldn't even want a men's oriented version of those shows. Because they don't interest us. Creating a female oriented version of sports telecasts is for women who don't really even want to watch sports. They want to hear about how pretty Henrik Lundqvist is, or what Mike Fisher and Carrie Underwood are up to.

 

A sports cast is a sports cast. It's not oriented towards men alone. It's oriented towards sports. If the sports are women's sports, then a female oriented sports cast makes sense, but even then it tends to be about sports. Not about whether the target audience is male or female.

 

Sport is sport. If you're a woman who thinks a sports broadcast needs to cater to your feminine ideals, then are you really even interested in the sports aspect in the first place? Or are you just looking to sugar coat it to make something interesting that you don't think is interesting to begin with?

But the point of this is to get woman who don't normally follow the game or have any interest in it something for them to follow while their significant other watches the game. They don't expect someone like chz who knows and follows the sport regularly to use this. How many guys have a significant other that doesn't enjoy the same sports (or they don't share teh exact same interests) and complain because you spend too much time watching hockey, and not enough time with them? Well now theres an option for them to allow you to both sit through the game. It is sugar coating something they might not be interested in so that it may interest them enough that they will be interested enough to watch with you. Yes it is stupid, and it is not going to turn any uninterested woman into one thats a hockey expert, but it might get your significant other into it enough that they don't complain that you are watching hockey and not doing something they want to do.

 

You wouldn't sit through an episode of the Kardashians with your significant other if there was an alternative broadcast of them in bikinis or less for the entire show?

[darksabre]

But the point of this is to get woman who don't normally follow the game or have any interest in it something for them to follow while their significant other watches the game. They don't expect someone like chz who knows and follows the sport regularly to use this. How many guys have a significant other that doesn't enjoy the same sports (or they don't share teh exact same interests) and complain because you spend too much time watching hockey, and not enough time with them? Well now theres an option for them to allow you to both sit through the game. It is sugar coating something they might not be interested in so that it may interest them enough that they will be interested enough to watch with you. Yes it is stupid, and it is not going to turn any uninterested woman into one thats a hockey expert, but it might get your significant other into it enough that they don't complain that you are watching hockey and not doing something they want to do.

 

You wouldn't sit through an episode of the Kardashians with your significant other if there was an alternative broadcast of them in bikinis or less for the entire show?

 

I wouldn't sit through it period. I wouldn't want an alternate version because it still ends up being the same crap I don't care about. Why watch something that doesn't interest you? What man forces his girl to be interested in something she isn't? If sports is so important to you that it forces your female counterpart to have to fake interest in something she doesn't like, then maybe there are some bigger issues to think about.

 

Bottom line, this whole thing is a way for women to fake interest in something they don't care about. Why bother?

[apuszczalowski]

I wouldn't sit through it period. I wouldn't want an alternate version because it still ends up being the same crap I don't care about. Why watch something that doesn't interest you? What man forces his girl to be interested in something she isn't? If sports is so important to you that it forces your female counterpart to have to fake interest in something she doesn't like, then maybe there are some bigger issues to think about.

 

Bottom line, this whole thing is a way for women to fake interest in something they don't care about. Why bother?

But its not making them fake an interest in it, its giving them things to help them maybe be interested in something.

 

I guess you and your significant other have the exact same interests? Do either of you do things for the other that your not interested in for the other one? My Fiance doesn't like football, but she likes spending time with me. I watch football, And she would probably love to find a way that she can also enjoy watching football with me. It doesn't mean we have any problems because I like watching football and she doesn't.

[darksabre]

But its not making them fake an interest in it, its giving them things to help them maybe be interested in something.

 

I guess you and your significant other have the exact same interests? Do either of you do things for the other that your not interested in for the other one? My Fiance doesn't like football, but she likes spending time with me. I watch football, And she would probably love to find a way that she can also enjoy watching football with me. It doesn't mean we have any problems because I like watching football and she doesn't.

 

It's not giving them a reason to like it. It's giving them something to distract them from the fact that they don't like it. It's a smoke screen.

 

The trick is that if I do something she doesn't like, she just doesn't do it. I'm the same way. Fortunately we do tend to have exactly the same interests so it works out. It's rare that one of us likes something the other doesn't. I guess I'm fortunate. If she didn't like hockey for example, I probably wouldn't even be with her. I'm not willing to put up with someone who doesn't share an interest that plays such a central role in my life.

 

I just don't see the point in faking interest or sugar coating disinterest. Either you like it for what it is, or you don't.

[Sabre Dance]

I didn't watch any of the "commentary", but I did look at a couple of the "articles". I found most of them kind of insulting to men as well as (especially) to women. Whomever came up with this idea should be canned immediately. I could see something like this on the "Onion" web site as a tongue-in-cheek bit during the playoffs, but I think these guys (gals?) are serious... :blink:

[millbank]

some comments from the young ladies before their first broadcast tomorrow night...

 

 

 

 

"The last time we checked, hockey was a game and a form of entertainment. Whether it’s a Tortorella rant, or Angelina’s leg popping out on the red carpet, there is always something to talk about. While traditional sports fans and respected journalists stay tuned to the official broadcast of the Stanley Cup Finals, we will be commenting about the game in a whole new way.

 

We don’t know what goes on in your living room, nor is anyone telling you what you should be watching – so please don’t tell us. As educated and confident women who aren’t afraid to have some fun in uncharted territory we can’t wait to broadcast game 1 next Wednesday. Whether it’s from our ranch or yours, enjoy the game the way you like it and keep talking."

 

- think it might be fair for women to do their program first before making judgement. It is possible it might very well be fun and not demeaning to anyone. It does get tiresome at times talking heads making out the games we watch seem as life and death, more often I am fine without any commentary personally and turn sound down or off.