Lineker leaving MotD

[Currywurst and Chips]

Alex Scott currently the bookies favourite

[Proposition Joe]

It will definitely be a women and that will give the BBC an opportunity to put the show about Womens' football before the one about Mens'. It will then be even later and not worth staying up for.

See, this is where legitimate opinions veer into mad conspiracies. Why would they put the Women's highlights on first? Unless they do so at a more family friendly timeslot, in which case, who cares?

[Currywurst and Chips]

It’s not particularly likely, not least because the show is too long already

However, working on the assumption that the BBC is rational and takes rarional decisions that benefit the corporation and license fee payers has consistently been shown to not be the case so I wouldn’t rule it out entirely.

[Hoover Attack]

It will definitely be a women and that will give the BBC an opportunity to put the show about Womens' football before the one about Mens'. It will then be even later and not worth staying up for.

Yeah, and they’ll probably put the Women’s football show on at 7pm in the prime time slot just to keep the woke brigade happy.

[Dunners]

Alex Scott currently the bookies favourite

Of course it’s likely to be Alex Scott. She checks at least two boxes on the BBC’s identity matrix chart. And if it’s not her, it will be someone else who does.

Personally, I think Alex Scott is about as good a choice as there is. She is an experienced presenter who has experience as a player and is young enough to grow into the role. Whomever the BBC appoints will generate criticism. Because that is where we are at nowadays.

There's a variety of reasons why we've arrived at this point. These include good intentions, cynical exploitation of the zeitgeist to further one's own corporate career, moral lecturing of the lumpen masses by the liberal elite, herd mentality, thick people, maximising ESG scores to obtain favourable audit and credit ratings etc. But there is an issue of hyper-representation across all aspects of the media, and especially the BBC.

We see it in every advert, where a mixed-race couple is now mandatory (and preferably same sex). Every panel show which, while usually targeted at a middle-aged and overwhelming white audience, must include at least one token BAME representative (which, when you think about it, is pretty demeaning to them). And almost all mainstream presenter positions are awarded to candidates who will usually share one thing in common – they are not straight, white males.

I have no idea if hyper-representation is likely to do more harm than good. I don't think it's particularly helpful to frame it in a binary "good v bad" context. But the BBC will absolutely be sh*tting themselves at the prospect of appointing a straight white male, because they absolutely will receive criticism from certain quarters.

And when, as they inevitably will, they appoint a non-straight-white-male presenter, they will then also receive a backlash for that, and it will play safely into the far-right narrative of replacement. However, for now, that is the safer option for the BBC as it can be dismissed (although it will further fuel conspiracy theories online).

So, here we are. This is where the dog-turd that is identity politics has got us. A lose-lose scenario. And one where, ironically, appointing a straight white male would be the stunning and brave choice.

[Dunners]

Actually, probably the best option for now, would be to have a revolving cast of presenters, so that everybody gets to be disappointed in equal measure.

[Currywurst and Chips]

Hyper representation as you put it is still selective though. Let’s look at mixed race couples in adverts as you raised it:

Why is this solely white/black? And never Arabic/Oriental/South East Asian + 1 other? Especially when they make up a far larger (and thus more representative) number of our population.

[Dunners]

No idea.

But if I was to speculate…

An element of laziness and stereotyping within the luvvie-bubble, whereby black people are their go-to ethnic minority group for whenever a non-white face is required.

Fewer grievance grifters pushing the agenda of those other ethnic groups.

A lack of availability of actors. This could be an area of genuine under-representation, but actors from the south Asian community are in short supply. Whereas acting talent from the black community isn’t. And this may be due to differing parental attitudes in those communities when it comes to encouraging their children into areas of study and career choices.

[Mistadobalina]

He just prefers men’s voices to women’s voices, so what?

Personally, as a straight male, I much prefer women’s voices and am happy to state that on here. I don’t see the issue with someone coming out with the opposite.

Was asking out of genuine curiosity. It took me maybe a couple of matches to get used to it, then immediately stopped noticing unless someone is bad at the job. Ros Taylor is better than a fair number of the male commentators imo (for example Jonathan Pearce, who seems to be utterly miserable in every game).

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Alex Scott is a really good pundit and knows her stuff but her presenting is genuinely awful. Constantly tripping over words, butting in with her own opinions or random words that aren’t words

[Admin]

Actually, probably the best option for now, would be to have a revolving cast of presenters, so that everybody gets to be disappointed in equal measure.

I like this. Be even better if we could use fictional comedy characters on a weekly basis. Father Dougal Maguire would be an excellent opening choice.

Obviously, Mrs Brown and Miranda are excluded from this idea.

[Orient_Man_And_Boy]

One of my favourite things about the internet is people taking the time and trouble to comment that they're not interested in something, when not commenting at all would surely be the best demonstration of this.

‘Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.’

George Eliot

[Hoover Attack]

Alex Scott currently the bookies favourite

Of course it’s likely to be Alex Scott. She checks at least two boxes on the BBC’s identity matrix chart. And if it’s not her, it will be someone else who does.

Personally, I think Alex Scott is about as good a choice as there is. She is an experienced presenter who has experience as a player and is young enough to grow into the role. Whomever the BBC appoints will generate criticism. Because that is where we are at nowadays.

There's a variety of reasons why we've arrived at this point. These include good intentions, cynical exploitation of the zeitgeist to further one's own corporate career, moral lecturing of the lumpen masses by the liberal elite, herd mentality, thick people, maximising ESG scores to obtain favourable audit and credit ratings etc. But there is an issue of hyper-representation across all aspects of the media, and especially the BBC.

We see it in every advert, where a mixed-race couple is now mandatory (and preferably same sex). Every panel show which, while usually targeted at a middle-aged and overwhelming white audience, must include at least one token BAME representative (which, when you think about it, is pretty demeaning to them). And almost all mainstream presenter positions are awarded to candidates who will usually share one thing in common – they are not straight, white males.

I have no idea if hyper-representation is likely to do more harm than good. I don't think it's particularly helpful to frame it in a binary "good v bad" context. But the BBC will absolutely be sh*tting themselves at the prospect of appointing a straight white male, because they absolutely will receive criticism from certain quarters.

And when, as they inevitably will, they appoint a non-straight-white-male presenter, they will then also receive a backlash for that, and it will play safely into the far-right narrative of replacement. However, for now, that is the safer option for the BBC as it can be dismissed (although it will further fuel conspiracy theories online).

So, here we are. This is where the dog-turd that is identity politics has got us. A lose-lose scenario. And one where, ironically, appointing a straight white male would be the stunning and brave choice.

I’m desperately searching for the EAGLE but can’t see it?

[Proposition Joe]

One of my favourite things about the internet is people taking the time and trouble to comment that they're not interested in something, when not commenting at all would surely be the best demonstration of this.

‘Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.’

George Eliot

Yes indeed, Eliot's quote does very much apply to your original post, good self-awareness.

[Orient_Man_And_Boy]

One of my favourite things about the internet is people taking the time and trouble to comment that they're not interested in something, when not commenting at all would surely be the best demonstration of this.

‘Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.’

George Eliot

Yes indeed, Eliot's quote does very much apply to your original post, good self-awareness.

Why else would I post?

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

“Acting as if the post being referred to was by a different entity that happened to share my name, so posting as if in thorough and obvious agreement with the person who had a little pop” has clear potential to be a trend as good as “flat out deny I said what I just said”

[Don Keybollock]

Blokes a fanny.

[Beradogs]

Do you think countries in Africa with majority black populations are constantly tying themselves in knots over the amount of white people on TV.

[Hoover Attack]

Yes, that would be exactly the same thing.

[The Reverend]

I bet a woman replaces him which means I will again have to scroll forward over the chat like I do with Lineker.

Fair play for admitting out loud that, regardless of what she might actually say or whether she's any good at her job, you'd fully commit to ignoring a woman simply because she's a woman. 2024, everyone!

I am allowed to say that I prefer a male voice.

Except you don’t, because you’ve also said that you don’t listen to Lineker.

What you’ve actually said is “I only like listening to people talking about football who are male and share similar political opinions to me”.

Sounds a bit snowflakey to me….

[BIGRON]

Actually, probably the best option for now, would be to have a revolving cast of presenters, so that everybody gets to be disappointed in equal measure.

I like this. Be even better if we could use fictional comedy characters on a weekly basis. Father Dougal Maguire would be an excellent opening choice.

Obviously, Mrs Brown and Miranda are excluded from this idea.

I think Mrs Brown presenting it would be quite watchable

[Chief crazy horse]

Fair play for admitting out loud that, regardless of what she might actually say or whether she's any good at her job, you'd fully commit to ignoring a woman simply because she's a woman. 2024, everyone!

I am allowed to say that I prefer a male voice.

Except you don’t, because you’ve also said that you don’t listen to Lineker.

What you’ve actually said is “I only like listening to people talking about football who are male and share similar political opinions to me”.

Sounds a bit snowflakey to me….

I think he meant (correct me if I'm wrong Duvb) that he just doesn't like Lineker. The same here. I think he said he also prefers a male voice when talking about football. Same here.
And Nothing to do with the fact that the person in question is a woman.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

A dispreference for hearing a female voice that results in the person not watching the show would have nothing to do with the presenter being a woman?

You’ll have to show your working there mate

[Chief crazy horse]

You know what I mean, or you should do.. .Nothing to do with being discrimitory against a woman. Ok...mate.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Jesus Christ