to think that sport should not be included in news reports?

[MardyBra]

I've thought this for a long time, but this post was prompted by seeing this football v archeology thing on Facebook, although for me it applies to all sport, rather than football:

www.tickld.com/x/how-football-sounds-to-people-that-just-dont-care-T

Why should sport get so much coverage on the media? Every TV news report has a good chunk of sport at the end. Not only do they have it on radio news, but people like Chris Evans on Radio 2 in the morning have a boring bloke special reporter who drones on about sports. I don't mind it at all in newspapers as I just stop reading when I get to that bit, but if you're watching telly or listening to the radio, you have to put up with it.

I know that there are a lot of people who like sport, but there are also a lot of people who don't give a shit. Maybe we could even things out a bit, replacing the sports news with "leisure" news, to include music, books, films, telly and a bit of sport too (if they must) - all on a more equal footing.

Also, with the increase of the internet, and other communication methods, it's much easier for fans to get results on-line, so they shouldn't have to rely on news reports.

Part of me wonders if this is a feminist issue also. After all, early news formats were largely devised by men, and men tend to be more interested in sports news than women. (I know this is a generalisation and there are plenty of women sports fans; I'm just saying it is skewed towards men). Are we perpetuating some male dominated status quo by mildly accepting this format.

Anyone else NOT looking forward to the world cup?

In answering this OP, I'd be interested to know if you are a sports fan or not. Ta!

Tiger, I'm a big fan of drinking wine. There is no section on most news bulletins about wine. You are interested in sport - good for you. That doesn't automatically make it a suitable subject for the news though.

Puppy, with the greatest respect no one is interested in your wine drinking habits. However, there are a fair few people who would be keen to watch a Man U winning goal, or Lewis Hamilton crossing the finishing line.

But we'll never know that , because my wine drinking never gets a shot

I bet more people drink than watch sport.

I'm interested in your wine drinking habits Puppy.

This just in...

There are reports that a woman from Derbyshire drank three large glasses of Chardonnay in a record breaking 1.33 hours last night.

Sources say the wine, which was from the popular discount retail store Aldi, was quaffed while the 47-year-old veteran drinker was watching Britain's Got Talent and Coronation Street.

The achievement was all the more significant as she was simultaneously posting messages on the popular chat forum Mumsnet, described by some critics as the musings of "a nest of vipers."

"I'm completely thrilled," the unnamed woman commented. "I've been training for this for many years and I've put so much hard work into my drinking. I'd like to thank my family for all their support, I couldn't have done this without them."

The wine consumed was believed to be Limestone Coast Chardonnay.

More on this as we get it...

Drinking Chardonnay is so yesterday's news, Puppy.

Sauvignon Blanc is the new Chardonnay, I understand.

Really? You haven't seen any cycling on the news CorusKate? I find that exceedingly hard to believe given the upcoming TdeF.

The thing is, the news is a forum for information sharing no? So they share the information the majority of people would be interested in.

So world news, national news, celeb news, sports. I don't agree that on a daily basis that sport receives a disproportionate amount of time. But on days when there are major happenings then of course it will be reported.

I've seen athletics, football, rugby, tennis, cricket all reported on the news. I've seen male sport and female sport. [shrug]

But there is always something happening in one sport or another, therefore as a whole, it deserves a special section.

Missed that Kate although (a) not all tourers are drug fuelled and (b) "man cycles to work" isn't news although various bike protests have been reported.

But surely the point of the sports section is so those not interested can, at that point, turn off. I mean its pretty de rigeur that at 20 past the hour/10 to the hour there's a brief sports section. Anything that crosses into mainstream news is of national interest. And by national interest that doesn't mean every person in the country should be interested, it means a strong majority.

Y A Sooooo NBU. I agree. Why is there a whole section on sports in every news broadcast? I've never really noticed it because I'm so used to zoning it out, but now that you've pointed it out, it is weird. There are many other things that contribute a huge amount to the UK economy - the arts, finance, manufacturing - that don't have their own special section in every news broadcast (there is a general business section sometimes, so why not shove sport in that if its included for its economic contribution?). Likewise, there's lots of things that many people are interested in that doesn't have a dedicated section on the news broadcast (eating, literature, music, stamp collecting, gardening, fashion, flower arranging, wine drinking, complaining).

Also, this whole thing of obesity crisis and having sports on TV helping solve it - come on. Just because someone likes watching sports doesn't mean they actually do it. I know (and have seen) many dedicated sports fans who are overweight and don't do any exercise (they watch instead).

Clearly it's the ingenious commentary... www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/accidental-partridge-talksports-sam-matterface-drops-textbook-alanism-onair-9451166.html

I've found this thread really frustrating, as there haven't been any coherent arguments from the sports lovers apart from "lots of people are interested", but nothing to counter the view that there should be a wider coverage of leisure activities to satisfy a greater proportion of the population.

YANBU
Come on, it isn't that important.
Breaking news! Someone kicked a ball and won!!!

I dont get your issue tbh

Whats wrong with a few minutes dedicated to sport headlines after the main news is read out?

Unless your watching a dedicated sports channel like SSN or talksport, sports coverage is pretty avoidable.

I've found this thread really frustrating, as there haven't been any coherent arguments from the sports lovers apart from "lots of people are interested", but nothing to counter the view that there should be a wider coverage of leisure activities to satisfy a greater proportion of the population.

What leisure activities do you want them to cover?

The mains sports like football and cricket get the most coverage as there the most popular.

I don't understand why they should 'have' to cover any leisure. It should be an individual thing, not another example of lumping everyone into the same box.