Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that this organization exists and allows people to compete, but it’s not a moral failing if the average Joe doesn’t want to watch.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that this organization exists and allows people to compete, but it’s not a moral failing if the average Joe doesn’t want to watch.
That has nothing to do with the network’s equitable obligation to provide equal coverage.
Network tv is not a government entity. There’s no obligation to provide equal coverage.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that this organization exists and allows people to compete, but it’s not a moral failing if the average Joe doesn’t want to watch.
Who says the average Joe doesn’t want to watch?
That’s once said about women’s softball yet it makes as much money as many men’s sports except the big 2.
If you air it they will come.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that this organization exists and allows people to compete, but it’s not a moral failing if the average Joe doesn’t want to watch.
That has nothing to do with the network’s equitable obligation to provide equal coverage.
Like they provide equal coverage for men's and women's sports?
Title IX.
Anonymous wrote:This has been bothering me for a long time.
Every four years, the world’s attention is drawn to the Olympic Games.
And we all get bombarded with constant adds, reminders, images, coverage etc. for months in advance of the Games.
Then we are again repeatedly assaulted for months afterwards, with athletes in adds who won gold and landed promotional gigs.
How is it in any way fair we fail to provide the same Media coverage to the Special Olympics?
It’s discrimination, really. An ugly form of modern bigotry, which no one wishes to speak about.
It certainly is not equitable.
Anonymous wrote:
The network has an obligation to shareholders. They have no obligation to air something that people won't watch.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that this organization exists and allows people to compete, but it’s not a moral failing if the average Joe doesn’t want to watch.
That has nothing to do with the network’s equitable obligation to provide equal coverage.
Like they provide equal coverage for men's and women's sports?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that this organization exists and allows people to compete, but it’s not a moral failing if the average Joe doesn’t want to watch.
That has nothing to do with the network’s equitable obligation to provide equal coverage.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that this organization exists and allows people to compete, but it’s not a moral failing if the average Joe doesn’t want to watch.
That has nothing to do with the network’s equitable obligation to provide equal coverage.
Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that this organization exists and allows people to compete, but it’s not a moral failing if the average Joe doesn’t want to watch.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s nice that this organization exists and allows people to compete, but it’s not a moral failing if the average Joe doesn’t want to watch.
That has nothing to do with the network’s equitable obligation to provide equal coverage.