Joe MacCarthy Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Richard, I agree with your comment about the hats, but this is a new media, presenting new content (infotainment) to a new audience. When we grew up it was socially unacceptable for a man to wear a hat indoors. Now, I'm not sure if they are asked to remove them in school anymore. I do think young Ben should not wear the hat, with Chantelle it is acceptable. To the "kids"... and I say that non condescendingly because all the new guys were called "the kid" and the day you weren't was the day you learned things weren't going to come so easily... here is the goofiest bit of advice I can give about where "TV" is going. Canadian actors are apparently now in demand in Hollywood. Why? No botox or other surgical procedures, they show up like a sore thumb in HD. I used to work with a 60 plus newscaster, the rule was always hands in the shot. You had to have the camera shot loose enough to see his hands, hence no wrinkles on the face easily visible. That guy would likely be unemployable today (save Lloyd Robertson). Ageism has reared it's ugly head and is even worse now with the technology and present society mores. So if you want a career you'd better do it young and do it fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 ^ Thanks for dashing my dreams Joe!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe MacCarthy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Ed ^ Thanks for dashing my dreams Joe!! I pulled a Brendan Taman out of a network news division after 12 years at age 32. But actually Ed there is still hope. With the fragmenting of the media and basically narrowcasting becoming the vogue there will hopefully always be a constituency for someone with talent. Maybe not a "network" level (whatever that will be in ten years time) but at another level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizz1402635577 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Okay, my point was not to hold up Morency as a pillar of excellence and professionalism. Yes, he is a goofball, but obviously that doesn't matter to his employers at one of Canada's all-sports networks (nor to the people who, apparently, must be watching and listening to his program). All I'm saying is that if this were a podcast, as opposed to an Internet TV show, would we be talking about Rycroft's hat, Knight's vest or Chantelle's non-existent "fatty"-ness? No, we wouldn't. So if these guys are producing a program that has content that we enjoy, I don't think it should matter what any of them look like (within reason, of course - a t-shirt with a racist slogan or something would be cause for alarm). If they happen to parlay this little start-up endeavour into something different, perhaps the impetus will exist for them to change the way they look. Or maybe someone will actually see their choice of wardrobe as a positive and present them with a new opportunity because of it. Who knows? As Joe said, the nature of the new media and narrowcasting means there's an audience for almost anything... as long as there is substance to begin with... which, most people seem to agree, there is, in this case. So, yeah. There you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's new media, so all of a sudden you can't criticize. Old media is supposedly responsible and has ethics and good practice and should research and prepare, even a local radio station or a university newspaper or small town tv, but somehow new media is a free for all and you can't say a word in criticism without getting jumped on. And that is totally incoherent. If the new media rightfully claims its place as legitimate, opinion making and ultimately aspiring to a lot of what the mainstream has sought out, namely getting to a specific market sector and gaining their trust as audience, then it should also be subject to the same sort of scrutiny, instead of treating them like amateurs. Or like children. By arguing that I am being too hard or a jerk or whatever you are basically insulting the whole show terribly, I don't think they'd agree with you. Ben Knight is totally prepared for scrutiny, he opens himself up to it all the time, and if the others are worth anything they'd have the maturity to handle it too. I think the show was fine, quite good at moments, and just fine other times, the camera shifts were well done, the interview with Lenarduzzi was mostly correct, they asked some good questions to the Everton fan about how fan bases can be manipulated by money and power. Ben Knight has the virtue of being a free spirit, someone who is creative, thinks on his feet, not always right but at least interesting, not at all canned. Refreshing. Rycroft is fine too. Junker was pathetic for the reasons stated and incredibly arrogant to boot, I thought it was a pathetic display and it looked to me she felt she could get away with it because she thought she was a hot chick or something, meaning she was the first person being sexist on the show: if you want to be respected as a person act like one, and if you want to be taken as a respectful journalist, even in an alternative format, try to behave like one. So I say who cares about Knight being out of focus or the scarves or the shirts because it is all just style, it is like Vampira presenting late night horror in 1954, it is all about giving it a feel and making it more watchable. What matters is that someone was totally moronic on the program and felt she could get away with it, and that some of you think the same when if she was a he you'd have torn "him" to shreds by now for that sad performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Joe, youngsters and adults coming into my home remove their hats. If these presenters really wish to be taken seriously they should behave and dress so. Do you show up for a job interview in Bermuda shorts and thong sandals? If it was a radio show they could dress in clown costumes for all I care but if they're going in front of a camera, lose the hats for starters. And while I'm about it, lose those table microphones, lapel microphones are cheap and just as good nowadays. This is TV guys, not radio. They also need to be professional in terms of their preparation, language, manner and yes, elocution. Of course if they have no ambition to be anything more than obscure 'new media' internet TV serving a narrow niche market then who cares, they can do as they please but I suspect the Ben's at least would like to move up the media food chain. The young woman still has a long way to go. The standard will have to improve if they want to keep a fussy old fart like me watching, especially in this 400+ channel TV universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe MacCarthy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 First, a few technical points for Richard and Jeffery. Lavalier mics are omnidirectional they pick up sound in all directions and sound wise are not as good as a quality directional studio mic. That's why you see stick mics still used at big sporting events where there is a lot of noise. Now I see there are tiny directional headsets but I can only imagine the cost. Second, Jeffery, the camera switching or shifting as you call it is not well done at all. But I'm giving the benefit of the doubt because I can only imagine what the switcher is working with. There doesn't look to be any floor direction or IFB and for all I know they're using laptop webcams and software for switching (I don't know) That isn't an optimal setup and I don't begrudge them some mistakes. One point I do agree with is if you are going to do something do it to the best of your ability. I don't think we should excuse the kids on a few things but also we must acknowledge they are still learning and take it easy on the criticism and offer sage advice. In the olden days, at the network level, if you made a chyron/cg mistake you might (might) keep your job, a second time you were expected to get up and head for the exit. Something to look forward to eh? guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 ^ But these three are sitting inside a quiet studio, not the booth or field-side at a noisy sports event. CBC, CNN and even Sportsnet in-studio presenters for the most part don't use clunky desktop microphones, they haven't done for years. Absolutely no reason why lapel mikes shouldn't work just fine and certainly look a whole lot better and they're not expensive. Your defence of those ugly mikes is spurious Joe. As for criticism, I haven't seen much sign of malicious criticism or complant here, for the most part it has been pretty constructive and all aimed at making the show better. As you say, they are still learning but if we don't point this stuff out who will, they'll just end up yet another failed internet show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Rollins1555362254 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 There is a difference between being critical and getting personal. Some of the stuff directed at Chantelle is personal. That crosses a line at any level. It especially crosses a line at this level. I've appeared on the show. I enjoyed it. I've watched every episode produced since Ben Knight came on board and I will continue to support it. I'll be on the show next week again and I'm sure some here will be critical of me. I welcome that. But, if that criticism takes the form of "your (sic) useless because your bald," for instance, then you aren't really offering much. I'm going to put this pout there once and then leave it alone ('Cause you are either going to hear me or not). Talking about whether you find Chantelle attractive is dirty pool. For one, she's a kid -- maybe 20, 21 years old. So, if you're older than 30 give your head a shake. Second, what in hell's name does that have to do with anything? She's a broadcaster, not a pin-up model. And she's a hell of a lot better at it then I would have been at her age. Could she grow in her ability to ask questions and in her understanding of the sport? Of course. But, can't we all? I'm not real comfortable offering any more critique than that since I will be in the studio with them next week. But, one think that I think they are struggling with is finding her role. I noticed last week that they were working hard at making sure that her voice was being heard. I would think that they will continue down that road moving forward. Once they find her role, she can grow into it and we can talk about the content of the program rather than the personalities that are making it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 In typical Voyageur style its nice to see that this now lengthy thread has almost nothing to do with the actual content of the soccer discussion which took place (which was quite good) and instead about more important and appropriate topics for a soccer discussion board such as whether youths can wear baseball caps in someone's house. I suppose its my fault for starting things off with my indignation at someone calling Chantelle a "fattie" - it's a pet peeve of mine that normally-shaped women get called "fat" leading to a view that women have to be anorexically thin in order to be considered at a normal weight. Mea Culpa, if I had known what it would lead to I'd have kept my indignation to myself. Anyway, props to Tail Gunner Joe for at least discussing the substantive content of the show - I though the interview with Lenarduzzi was interesting, particularly what he had to say about Lensky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by squizz Okay, my point was not to hold up Morency as a pillar of excellence and professionalism. Yes, he is a goofball, but obviously that doesn't matter to his employers at one of Canada's all-sports networks (nor to the people who, apparently, must be watching and listening to his program). All I'm saying is that if this were a podcast, as opposed to an Internet TV show, would we be talking about Rycroft's hat, Knight's vest or Chantelle's non-existent "fatty"-ness? No, we wouldn't. So if these guys are producing a program that has content that we enjoy, I don't think it should matter what any of them look like (within reason, of course - a t-shirt with a racist slogan or something would be cause for alarm). If they happen to parlay this little start-up endeavour into something different, perhaps the impetus will exist for them to change the way they look. Or maybe someone will actually see their choice of wardrobe as a positive and present them with a new opportunity because of it. Who knows? As Joe said, the nature of the new media and narrowcasting means there's an audience for almost anything... as long as there is substance to begin with... which, most people seem to agree, there is, in this case. So, yeah. There you go. If you were to compare this "New Media" show with the FootyShow podcast http://my.thescore.com/footyblog/default.aspx (which features semi-professional and professional media) you would immediately notice a difference in quality. I have all the time in the world for the informed yet "unprofessional" discussion that occurs twice weekly on this podcast. I am genuinely surprised at the lack of discussion that arises out of their under-rated commentary while ICF is discussed Ad nauseam. TV really did kill the radio star. I say good work so far from the ICF crew keep it up. I encourage as much football media as possible. I like some of their content but am turned off by other parts. We shall see if they learn from their mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Joe MacCarthy Each person has a role on the program and Chantelle's is that of a new fan still learning about the Canadian soccer scene and asking questions on that level. Out of the mouth of Babes... as it were... Wait, then what's Ben Knight's role? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Now that you've got me going: gotta love the way anyone who is interviewed from more than 600 kilometres away to the west is "out there", Ben the host must have repeated it 10 times. Lenarduzzi should have reminded them that he was not on Mars, that he was actually in Canada. They talked about Portland as if it were a moon of Jupiter. But yes, it was pretty good, I watched most and listened to all, with interest, and even laughed a few times. But not as many times as I cringed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soro17 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I enjoyed the show. For those who didn't like the production quality or were distracted by apparel, I suggest listening to it rather than watching it. It was nice to hear Lenarduzzi interviewed by someone who could ask a relatively informed and intelligent follow-up, rather than the usual useless interview with Pratt & Taylor and their ilk. I also thought that Ben Rycroft is a better broadcaster than he is a writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe MacCarthy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone Wait, then what's Ben Knight's role? Where's Casey and Finnegan? As for the kids, especially Chantelle, don't listen to half those retards and their juvenile, sexist crap. Just work at being prepared and get better. Don't ever think that because you're on the Internet or Cable TV that it isn't worthwhile compared to the drivel that passes for TV these days. Be as professional as you can, treat your audience with respect, listen, learn, and someone, I guarantee, will notice. Some words of wisdom from my arch-enemy Ed Murrow "Just because the microphone in front of you amplifies your voice around the world, is no reason to think we have any more wisdom than we had when our voices could reach only from one end of the bar to the other." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe MacCarthy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard Your defence of those ugly mikes is spurious Joe. You ever heard of computer fans, power supplies, fluorescent light ballasts? You think they're using condenser mics on the radio? Give your head a shake Daddy-O. I'll be surprised if the kids show up next week after reading some of this unwarranted garbage. Spurious, indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Tonka If you were to compare this "New Media" show with the FootyShow podcast http://my.thescore.com/footyblog/default.aspx (which features semi-professional and professional media) you would immediately notice a difference in quality. I have all the time in the world for the informed yet "unprofessional" discussion that occurs twice weekly on this podcast. I am genuinely surprised at the lack of discussion that arises out of their under-rated commentary while ICF is discussed Ad nauseam. TV really did kill the radio star. I think that's totally understandable mainly for three reasons: (a) It's Called Football is still relatively new so there is disucssion as people begin to check it out ( The Footy Show podcast has a lot of non-Canadian soccer discussion on the show, which, while understandable given that they show EPL games, isn't as interesting to those of us mainly interested in Canadian soccer discussion and most importantly © the people behind ICF are starting threads announcing their podcasts here, while the Footy Show folks haven't done that here for some time, and that's bound to get people's attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Rollins1555362254 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca I think that's totally understandable mainly for three reasons: (a) It's Called Football is still relatively new so there is disucssion as people begin to check it out ( The Footy Show podcast has a lot of non-Canadian soccer discussion on the show, which, while understandable given that they show EPL games, isn't as interesting to those of us mainly interested in Canadian soccer discussion and most importantly © the people behind ICF are starting threads announcing their podcasts here, while the Footy Show folks haven't done that here for some time, and that's bound to get people's attention. You nailed it G-L. I would say ICF's (isn't it odd to use those initials in a positive way..?) focus is TFC:Canada:MLS:International, whereas the Footy Show is more EPL:International:TFC:Canada:MLS. There is crossover, but ICF speaks more to the issues that concern those here than TFS does. So, there is tremendous potential. As far as the format goes...it’s a live broadcast. To me, it’s on the cusp of the new mainstream. They are in a studio with a producer. It isn’t two kids in their basement. I’m pretty sure that they have goals that are commercial. So, critiquing it is worthwhile. Just keep those critiques on the content and content delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPjr Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca The Footy Show podcast has a lot of non-Canadian soccer discussion on the show, which, while understandable given that they show EPL games, isn't as interesting to those of us mainly interested in Canadian soccer discussion and most importantly I've had a few chats with James Sharman at the Score lately and they are working to increase the Canadian content, especially this summer, for both the podcast and the televised Footy Show. I have no doubt that James will drop by the forum as his plans firm up to give the rundown on their plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouversoccerman Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Marshall McLuhan would be so proud of this thread if he were alive today. The medium has completely overtaken anything of substance actually said in the interview. He saw this day coming :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmcmurph Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone Wait, then what's Ben Knight's role? Resident "fattie" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe MacCarthy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Vancouversoccerman Marshall McLuhan would be so proud of this thread if he were alive today. The medium has completely overtaken anything of substance actually said in the interview. TV is a medium because it's rare that it's well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Just watched my first ICF podcast and thought it was great. The production was amateur (as expected) but the content was top notch. Canadian content is what I am interested in, and I thought the interview with BL was first class. Great to hear the 'Voyageurs Cup' is the most important trophy for the Whitecaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe MacCarthy Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Winnipeg Fury Just watched my first ICF podcast and thought it was great. The production was amateur (as expected) but the content was top notch. Canadian content is what I am interested in, and I thought the interview with BL was first class. Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I agree with Fury. One of the most insightful interviews I have heard. Keep it up guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.