Reminds me of the time when the BBC national news at 6pm devoted 20 of its
30 minutes to informing us that the English football team had failed to
win a particular match. I asked them why the News had been taken off and
replaced by Match of the Day. They said a lot of people would want to know.
I said a 60 second announcement would have told them, and the rest of the
guff could have gone on one of the sports programmes which those who wanted
it would certainly watch anyway. They said 'Did I want to make a
complaint?' Needless to say they ignored it. Last week the entire 6pm news
was shifted to BBC2 because of a tennis match!!!! At least watching
somebody scraping away in a hole is more interesting than that.
At 18:47 02/07/03 +0100, you wrote:
>Actually, figures regularly show that far more people are
>interested/participate in culture & heritage than are interested/participate
>in sport. Just because newspapers think that (mostly male) sports are
>important enough to have their own daily section of newspapers, and tv
>programme schedulers put them above and beyond all other programming doesn't
>mean that sports evoke more interest or participation. More councillors must
>be taken in by the high profile sports and sports stars get than bother to
>take notice of statistics that show culture & heritage are more important!
>Some Local Authorities are beginning to get the idea that culture & heritage
>are good for a healthy local economy - but they haven't yet connected that
>with the basics of having enough long-term posts to carry out the essential
>tasks of conserving, researching, displaying, educating and carrying out
>John Wood wrote:
> > Though as far as I am aware only a minute proportion of the electorate was
> > involved nor many more interested to watch it on tv.
> > Archaeology is popular with the genral public but not that popular
> > to such things as sport.