England women



“information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view”

I’ll go with sales

Propaganda general implies political misleading

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations and the media can also produce propaganda.

Propaganda - Wikipedia

Depends which example you use doesn’t it ;)

I reiterate - it is correct to call it propaganda.
 
Last edited:

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations and the media can also produce propaganda.

Propaganda - Wikipedia

Depends which example you use doesn’t it ;)

I reiterate - it is correct to call it propaganda.
It’s really not. But you seem agitated about women in cricket. So go ahead
 
It’s really not. But you seem agitated about women in cricket. So go ahead

I will, but I’m grateful I’ve atleast managed to get your permission.

It happens, just look at the BBC’s coverage of the Women’s Football World Cup. It’s a pity you are too naive to appreciate that it’s a real thing and it happens.

I’m not agitated about women in cricket, I’m agitated about misrepresentation and the false economy that surrounds it. I worry that in the long term it will be to the detriment of the men’s game. Already this week we’ve seen games on the main Sky Sports channel ahead of World Cup Fixtures - I’ve no doubt whatsoever that the viewing figures won’t have matched that of the WC game it was pushed ahead of.

I’m happy to debate with anyone my ‘position’ on women in cricket, but continue to throw your muck around if it makes you happy, some of it might stick.
 
I will, but I’m grateful I’ve atleast managed to get your permission.

It happens, just look at the BBC’s coverage of the Women’s Football World Cup. It’s a pity you are too naive to appreciate that it’s a real thing and it happens.

I’m not agitated about women in cricket, I’m agitated about misrepresentation and the false economy that surrounds it. I worry that in the long term it will be to the detriment of the men’s game. Already this week we’ve seen games on the main Sky Sports channel ahead of World Cup Fixtures - I’ve no doubt whatsoever that the viewing figures won’t have matched that of the WC game it was pushed ahead of.

I’m happy to debate with anyone my ‘position’ on women in cricket, but continue to throw your muck around if it makes you happy, some of it might stick.
The England women’s football semi final got 11m viewers. More than the FA Cup Final.

The detriment of the men’s game? The men’s game is heavily supported. Way more than any female game.
 
I will, but I’m grateful I’ve atleast managed to get your permission.

It happens, just look at the BBC’s coverage of the Women’s Football World Cup. It’s a pity you are too naive to appreciate that it’s a real thing and it happens.

I’m not agitated about women in cricket, I’m agitated about misrepresentation and the false economy that surrounds it. I worry that in the long term it will be to the detriment of the men’s game. Already this week we’ve seen games on the main Sky Sports channel ahead of World Cup Fixtures - I’ve no doubt whatsoever that the viewing figures won’t have matched that of the WC game it was pushed ahead of.

I’m happy to debate with anyone my ‘position’ on women in cricket, but continue to throw your muck around if it makes you happy, some of it might stick.

I don't really get involved in these kind of debates, but it's not hard for someone who doesn't know you to think that your idea of cricket is that it's a game that should be played between 11 men v 11 men watched by a very white audience (preferably all male). That just from reading your posts on the first page.
 
My view on the England team.... And I've got more knowledge than most on here given my daughter played England U19 and Academy.

There's too many of them are comfortable with their contracts.

England are the only team to have regressed since becoming professional

Too many cliques... Its incredibly difficult for a player to get accepted by the main team. Lass at Kent has scored runs for fun in CC and for England academy yet never gets a look in.

Players picked on past performances rather than form... Sarah Taylor, Laura Marsh, Kate Cross etc.

Too many players continue to get picked for u19 and Academy without showing any form in CC.

Ditch Robinson
 
The England women’s football semi final got 11m viewers. More than the FA Cup Final.

The detriment of the men’s game? The men’s game is heavily supported. Way more than any female game.

I’d question that, bearing in mind they make an estimation based on a sample size of 20,000. So less than 0.2% of the perceived figure....... How mny of the 20,000 flicked on looking for Eastenders and then turned off when they knew what had replaced it?

And where were the figures for yesterday? Why have they not boasted about that game? Is it because barely anyone was interested and it would go against their aims?

However what I was really hinting at was the social media campaign they ran, where they would post multiple times the same story, often thirty minutes after the first posting, because they were getting so many negative comments. Mainly due to the horrific quality which they attempted to pass off as ‘outstanding’.

Regarding the support of the men’s game, without doubt its heavily supported - but why then would a woman’s game get priority over it? No way at all more people would want to watch that than the WC game that was on at the same time. Yet Sky did that, which is my point and my worry - when they make decisions solely to suit a particular agenda rather than actual interest and merit who’s to say it won’t escalate over time? That’s the danger. That is what could damage the game in the long term.

I don't really get involved in these kind of debates, but it's not hard for someone who doesn't know you to think that your idea of cricket is that it's a game that should be played between 11 men v 11 men watched by a very white audience (preferably all male). That just from reading your posts on the first page.

That says more about their unconscious bias than about me though doesn’t it.

The only way to find out more about people is to engage them and to find out what and why they think the way they do.

My main concern is England and County Cricket.
 
Last edited:
I’d question that, bearing in mind they make an estimation based on a sample size of 20,000. So less than 0.2% of the perceived figure....... How mny of the 20,000 flicked on looking for Eastenders and then turned off when they knew what had replaced it?

And where were the figures for yesterday? Why have they not boasted about that game? Is it because barely anyone was interested and it would go against their aims?

However what I was really hinting at was the social media campaign they ran, where they would post multiple times the same story, often thirty minutes after the first posting, because they were getting so many negative comments? Mainly due to the horrific quality which they attempted to pass off as ‘outstanding’.

Regarding the support of the men’s game, without doubt its heavily supported - but why then would a woman’s game get priority over it? No way at all more people would want to watch that than the WC game that was on at the same time. Yet Sky did that, which is my point and my worry - when they make decisions solely to suit a particular agenda rather than actual interest and merit who’s to say it won’t escalate over time? That’s the danger. That is what could damage the game in the long term.



That says more about their unconscious bias than about me though doesn’t it.

The only way to find out more about people is to engage them and to find out what and why they think the way they do.

My main concern is England and County Cricket.
So you’re questioning the viewing figures for this one game? And yet making assumptions for others? (As in your post about cricket viewing figures, made up)

Viewing figures for 3rd/4th place play offs are always dreadful. I can’t remember watching the men’s one last summer. I can’t even remember the score.
 
I’d question that, bearing in mind they make an estimation based on a sample size of 20,000. So less than 0.2% of the perceived figure....... How mny of the 20,000 flicked on looking for Eastenders and then turned off when they knew what had replaced it?

And where were the figures for yesterday? Why have they not boasted about that game? Is it because barely anyone was interested and it would go against their aims?

However what I was really hinting at was the social media campaign they ran, where they would post multiple times the same story, often thirty minutes after the first posting, because they were getting so many negative comments. Mainly due to the horrific quality which they attempted to pass off as ‘outstanding’.

Regarding the support of the men’s game, without doubt its heavily supported - but why then would a woman’s game get priority over it? No way at all more people would want to watch that than the WC game that was on at the same time. Yet Sky did that, which is my point and my worry - when they make decisions solely to suit a particular agenda rather than actual interest and merit who’s to say it won’t escalate over time? That’s the danger. That is what could damage the game in the long term.



That says more about their unconscious bias than about me though doesn’t it.

The only way to find out more about people is to engage them and to find out what and why they think the way they do.

My main concern is England and County Cricket.

There's no contradiction there mind at all.
 
I’d question that, bearing in mind they make an estimation based on a sample size of 20,000. So less than 0.2% of the perceived figure....... How mny of the 20,000 flicked on looking for Eastenders and then turned off when they knew what had replaced it?

And where were the figures for yesterday? Why have they not boasted about that game? Is it because barely anyone was interested and it would go against their aims?

However what I was really hinting at was the social media campaign they ran, where they would post multiple times the same story, often thirty minutes after the first posting, because they were getting so many negative comments. Mainly due to the horrific quality which they attempted to pass off as ‘outstanding’.

Regarding the support of the men’s game, without doubt its heavily supported - but why then would a woman’s game get priority over it? No way at all more people would want to watch that than the WC game that was on at the same time. Yet Sky did that, which is my point and my worry - when they make decisions solely to suit a particular agenda rather than actual interest and merit who’s to say it won’t escalate over time? That’s the danger. That is what could damage the game in the long term.



That says more about their unconscious bias than about me though doesn’t it.

The only way to find out more about people is to engage them and to find out what and why they think the way they do.

My main concern is England and County Cricket.

The problem is you view everything though male eyes. Women's cricket isn't men's cricket and if lasses enjoy watching it and/or playing it then that's good surely. If you think it's shit, fine, don't watch it.

I think most male footy is shit and avoid watching it. Absolutely ruined by money
 
So you’re questioning the viewing figures for this one game? And yet making assumptions for others? (As in your post about cricket viewing figures, made up)

Viewing figures for 3rd/4th place play offs are always dreadful. I can’t remember watching the men’s one last summer. I can’t even remember the score.

No, I question the viewing figures for all the games. I question the figures actually for everything, because there is no way they can actually know. There are plenty of articles out there which explain this.

I ask you - how can they pluck a figure of 11million from a sample of 20,000?

Regarding the agenda though, the BBC tweeted something along the lines of the semi final having the highest viewing figures of any programme this year...... Then got pulled up by loads of people because it contradicted one of their posts from a few weeks ago saying Line of Duty had received more. Unless you looked at the comments and replies though you wouldn’t know that and they didn’t delete the post. Shit sticks and when ignorant people believe everything they see and here it can be very dangerous. Just look at the whole MSM anti-semitism smears against Corbyn.

I’m making what I believe to be educated guesses based on the popularity in this country of men’s cricket over women’s cricket - I’m not giving estimate numbers like the BBC, simply a prediction on more or less.

There's no contradiction there mind at all.

Are you trying to suggest that me as an individual is the same as a media corporation?!

Because if not I can’t see what you’re getting at.

The problem is you view everything though male eyes. Women's cricket isn't men's cricket and if lasses enjoy watching it and/or playing it then that's good surely. If you think it's shit, fine, don't watch it.

I think most male footy is shit and avoid watching it. Absolutely ruined by money

I agree with all of that, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
 
Last edited:
No, I question the viewing figures for all the games. I question the figures actually for everything, because there is no way they can actually know. There are plenty of articles out there which explain this.

I ask you - how can they pluck a figure of 11million from a sample of 20,000?

Regarding the agenda though, the BBC tweeted something along the lines of the semi final having the highest viewing figures of any programme this year...... Then got pulled up by loads of people because it contradicted one of their posts from a few weeks ago saying Line of Duty had received more. Unless you looked at the comments and replies though you wouldn’t know that and they didn’t delete the post. Shit sticks and when ignorant people believe everything they see and here it can be very dangerous. Just look at the whole MSM anti-semitism smears against Corbyn.

I’m making what I believe to be educated guesses based on the popularity in this country of men’s cricket over women’s cricket - I’m not giving estimate numbers like the BBC, simply a prediction on more or less.



Are you trying to suggest that me as an individual is the same as a media corporation?!

Because if not I can’t see what you’re getting at.
Interesting post. Thanks.

I don’t believe there is a massive conspiracy here. I think there is a statistical sample that’s used, and applied across the board

I also know I was in a rammed pub for the US game
 

Back
Top