±«Óãtv

Dear Amanda,

It's time this blog got pernickety. I can't find "confliction" in my favourite online dictionaries.....

Flag on your car? Come off it.. you're as bad as a government minister.

The Sport Vs News clash is expected although it is important to remember that SPORT IS NEWS, it makes up a huge part of the daily news storys with its match reports especially in international events such as the World Cup and Wimbledon.
News is to reflect the social reality storys of today in which sport has a major impact on our culture. For example you admit to having an england flag on your office door therefore you are in support of this popular culture movement which effects us every four years.

We should ask ourselves the impact of sport on society? The ±«Óãtv as under licence fee to inform and entertain therefore should show the world cup matches as they entertain its audience while reinforcing social solidarity with its patriotic influence.
The ±«Óãtv is showing its support of patrioticism in showing the world cup matches althought the bumping off of the news is a major issue which will effect its audience but to a minor part concearned with that of the world cup which without a doubt will have higher ratings than its news program.

Is sport really news? It's a thing that has always been covered and as a person who has minimal interest in the topic it annoys me that potential 'real' news is pushed aside, just so we can know which footballer has hurt which part of his body.

I can understand the need to report on the World Cup, seeing as it is an international event and the need for the ±«Óãtv to be patriotic is high. But does it really need that amount of coverage? Do the British public really need an in depth news story to remind them of the match that had seen only a few hours earlier? Even someone like me, who has never had the off side rule explained to me, can know what is going on in this event, whether or not I want to or not, simply because everyone I know is relaying to me the match they had just seen. Do we really need to be spoon fed everything that occurs in this sporting event? I would have thought there are other ways for people to know this without a bombardment of news stories.

It seems to me sport in general and the amount of news stories it makes up a day is just an excuse for 'dumb' news, and to acquire ratings through an entertainment factor

I agree that you feel a bit annoyed at the fact you may well be moved onto ±«Óãtv2 at 6 o clock. However the World Cup only occurs once a year and with football being our national sport I feel that the World Cup should be a priority during this time. With England being such a patriotic country I think we should support them as best we can by showing all of the matches. So I feel that major sports events should take a priority over different shows when they are on. Also with the amount of quality footballers on show at this major tournament then why shouldn't we be able to watch who we want when they are on because it is not very often at all that we may see these quality players. With regards to Wimbledon it is Britains chance to show that they really are the best at hosting major sporting events. Also regarding the news it is shown multiple times during the day so if only one bulletin gets moved onto a different channel then does it really make much of a difference. We have so many news channels on Sky TV including a ±«Óãtv one that one news bulletin being skipped or being placed on a different channel won't make much of a difference.

Well this is a confilicting story but no offence to the news teams but more people in britain want to watch sport rather than news. People in britain are patriotic and no proud, honest British person will want to watch the sport instead of the news. The news is reapeated often in the middle of the day with 5 minute bulletin briefs. If you had the chance to watch the Worldcup final and the teams involved were England and Brazil or Argentina would you watch the news? The only exception to watching the sport is if there was breaking news i.e. A terrorists bombing or assassination of a V.I.P.
Big sporting events only happen once, twice maybe three times a year. People will always watch the news, now and again to catch up with the latest happening around the world, but again some people only watch the news to find out what is going on with the sport, you will sometimes bring the overwhelming sport attention on yourselves by showing people that there have been football games on or, there is some sport event coming up. The fact is that people will always choose sport over news. It is saddening because once the news was a thriving source of entertainment and supplied us with the informaton we wanted to know. Competitions have evolved over the years and morepeople want to watch it. Some sporting matches or evets can only be viewed by sky viewers and so some people will watch the news instead i'm not suggesting that the news is a last resort I'm just saying that the news needs to be mre modern, appeal to more people such as younger viewers. People will always need to know what is going on in the world, so the news will always have a place in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with you on that, I totally hate it when they collide. Not only colliding with sports but with other programs. Meaning, I have to decide on what I have to watch... although, I'm not a big fan of sports. I would like to have the opportunity to support my favourite team by observing them. However, the only time when I do actually watch the news is when I need to know what the weather would be on that particular day or if there is something massive happening such as hurricanes and bombings etc. Basically, having more priority then Sports.
I'll say that sporting does have a greater priority for most people, but there is a time when they do need to switch over to the news and keep up to date. In concern of sports, people would actually turn over to the news but would only watch the sports section.
In my own opinion, if the news was more appealing or entertaining, more people would be viewing especially the younger viewers.

Why do all the sports fans contributing to this thread find it so inconceivable that many people do not give a damn if England win or lose a game of football.

I don't wish to deprive sports fans of their enjoyment - there are entire channels of radio and television provided for their amusement. I just don't see why sport should infiltrate every other programme.

It seems that this year more than ever, the 'world cup' hype is beyond belief! Every media and advertisement establishment is getting in on the act and using it to their advantage. So, it inevitable that it will affect other television programming. Yet it is questionable whether it should affect the airing of the daily news and an audience’s opportunity to know what is going on at regular intervals.
Now I'm a supporter of the old England boys, and perhaps would cherish my St George's flag! But excuse me; football is only a game...! I don't think people realise this. Regular news updates should be definitely prioritised over football, even if the nation disagrees...

Paint your face, shout "Rooney", display flags, go to the pub,call in sick for work...I mean "the match is on after all" these are the thoughts of any "True Brit!" even if england win the cup will it change anything? are we a better country after our cricketers victory....? enjoy the football, watch the news, make your own decisions

Surely the news being moved so we can watch England win isn't really that bad. The world cup is only every four years so can we have a chance to enjoy it without any complaints please.
If football fans can be patient enough to wait four years for the world cup, then I think everyone else can wait an hour for the news.

I am not a football fan, however I will watch the england games, there are two sides to this argument.
The first being that in all fairness yes the World Cup is taking over our television, radio and newspapers. It is pushing all other news stories aside to some extent. The major stories that may be more important are not recieving as much publication as they deserve.
The second side being that the World Cup and other major international sport events (such as wimbeldon or the olympics) do not occur that often, be it once every four years or once a year therefore they should be covered heavily, i am not trying to argue that other stories should not be covered, i am simply saying that such sporting events such as the World Cup also need a lot of coverage.

Since the World Cup is once every four years and is not an occasional and frequent event then im sure the ±«Óãtv staff should not mind the news being moved, on a once every four years basis.
I'm even sure that this would benefit you because more people would be watching the World Cup instead of the news and would not mind waiting an extra hour for the news to come on. Even if you stated yourself that you love the world cup and have a 'flag on your car' then surely you will not mind either.

In response to 'When news and sport collide' I feel that it is the ±«Óãtvs task to provide a wide range of programmes for the public, as shown in its charta.

For just a few weeks every four years the World Cup occurs and this is a chance for the ±«Óãtv to show the public its wide range of quality programming. The ±«Óãtv is also well known for hosting Wimbledon and so if the ±«Óãtv decided to scrap the tournament ITV could leap at the chance and would have adverts every 15 minutes.

For just a short while each summer the ±«Óãtv hosts world known sporting events and it is they who must decide whether to move the news onto ±«Óãtv2 if the proggrammes clash so that there is no interuption in the sporting event being shown. I beleive that hosting these sporting events is an honour for the ±«Óãtv and the news can be moved onto ±«Óãtv2 if needed. The two programmes may not even clash anyway.

As each and every individual brands different information as news, it won't come as a surprise to you that certain members of the public view the World Cup as news that they want to be fed through to them. So, as the World Cup only comes around once every four years and the ±«Óãtv wants to fulfill its purpose as a Public Service Broadcaster, it must sacrifice something so it can show some World Cup matches, not only comply with being a Public Service Broadcaster but to keep up with competition with other channels.

Being 'bumped off' to ±«Óãtv2 isn't as a big deal as you think, as ±«Óãtv2 is as equally available to the public as ±«Óãtv1, but the World Cup needs to be on a channel that the majority of people usually view, and this is ±«Óãtv1. People who watch the news, often go out of their way to sit down and watch the news and will therefore be prepared to wait for the later slot, or look for changes in channels from ±«Óãtv1 to ±«Óãtv2.

The passion and patriotism of the country is represented best by the ±«Óãtv when we are participating in a huge global event, such as the World Cup, which I believe to be a great thing. The quality of news coverage is very good, especially on "the day" of an England game, with updates on the players and continuous encouragement and praise towards our supporters in Germany. More so than there has been in previous World Cups, like '98 and 2002, where our supporters would be seen as threats to our chances. Now the ±«Óãtv appear to give support to our fans and any small trouble is now brandished as competative hype.
However, sometimes I feel the extensive coverage from the ±«Óãtv on the World Cup and in particular on the England football team is a bit too much, especially when the players private lives are discussed. Also because of the World Cup, other importantant issues are being pushed aside and people are being made less aware of what is going on in "our" country. It may not be such a bad if it was another news station, which may be specialised in giving sports news, but with the ±«Óãtv being a news station and having such a huge audience, this problem has to be resolved.

The world cup is a very important event and it only occurs every four years. Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about does it really matter that the news is being moved to ±«Óãtv2 or a later time? How much difference is it really going to make?
Everyone seems to be getting into the World cup these days men, women, children, even my nan has a flag up outside her house and she's never showed any intrest in football in her life! So surely it is more important to air the programme which will be the most popular and pull in the most viewings. The world cup is something everyone can watch, it brings people together. The news however is just watched by adults. If people want to watch the news instead they can.