Exactly
Discord and Twitter have destroyed medium-form content, which is what message boards excel at.
I’ve been doing medium-to-long form content on message boards since 2005, when I became obsessed with Lost, and the reboot of Doctor Who shortly thereafter. It seems like YouTube has become the place for longer content now, but that requires making videos, and I just don’t have the time for that!
Besides, no one cares about Lost or Doctor Who anymore.
I have sads.
3 Likes
That’s fundamentally different. It’s a statement about Detroit as the subject, not a statement about Everyone as the subject. Furthermore, “Detroit” is functioning metonymously, typically referring to a sports team.
It’s not normalizing something that isn’t commonplace if we’re likely to find examples for other sports teams as well:
This isn’t propaganda; it’s not a lie – in a sports league, a team is against everybody (in that league).
The correct (non-propagandistic) approach to increasing the appeal of women’s sports would be through ordinary advertising: “Watch Women’s Sports!” Which I’m wholeheartedly for.
4 Likes
I enjoy watching Woodward about as much as I enjoyed reading whatever the ■■■■ is happening in this thread.
12 Likes
It’s not fundamentally different. It’s called hyperbole. It’s completely common in advertising, and certainly in sports advertising.
The notion that “everybody” watches women’s sports is VERY easily falsifiable, and the people who created the t-sheet aren’t actually trying to convince you or anyone else that everybody does.
We, ALL of us, recognize similarly hyperbolic statements - say, “Detroit vs. Everybody” or “Best Mom Ever” - for what they are: expressions of pride/identification/support/whatever.
Only in the context of support for women’s sports does this tried-and-true technique become the mark of a sinister influence campaign. Double-standard, much?
The fact that people get this upset about whether or not other people are actually watching women’s sports is weird. The amount of people that actively want women’s sports to fail is even weirder.
3 Likes
Okay. They are also T shirts. I know what T-shirts look like. I wear them often. I like them quite a bit. And don’t get me started on hoodies. I’m a Bellicheck when it comes to loving hoodies.
not gonna lie, I checked out a long time ago
but hey, you have to accept that sometimes these things take on a life of their own
1 Like
I don’t really care. But i will say that an organization that loses millions like the WNBA sends/represents an awful message to society.
In reality, it has no business (see what I did there 
) to exist. On top of all that, they ask and demand MORE. It’s completely ridiculous and shapes many young minds in very negative way.
2 Likes
I care about Doctor who.
Well, I agree that the campaign is trying to increase viewership of women’s sports. The intent of the campaign in that respect is as laudable as any other advertising campaign.
But there’s a difference between this campaign and a campaign that proclaims, “Women’s Sports is The Best Ever!” or “Women’s Sports vs. Everybody” And that’s because this particular campaign isn’t just using hyperbole, but a particular form of hyperbole – one that can be read as a tactic of social pressure. Because, again, unlike the other hyperbolic examples you’ve listed, the subject of the message isn’t women’s sports, it’s “everyone.” In this message, “women’s sports” is the object. So the message reads as a statement about what every person “does” and implicit in that is a statement about what everyone “should” do, rather than something about women’s sports. “Everyone watches women’s sport – why aren’t you? Hmm?” There’s an undercurrent of shaming to this campaign. It’s political, or at least can be read as political, and that makes it polarizing.
Note that its use is not intentionally ironic (unlike, say, Everyone Loves Raymond). However, we could certainly read it as ironic. As you point out, the statement is verifiably false – so it could come across as sarcastic, or evidence that those wearing it are clueless.
And because “women’s sports” is the object of the sentence instead of the subject, it can be read as an instance of objectification – which is certainly not what these fine upstanding men would want to convey! One can imagine women’s sports being offered as a titillating affair (references already abound to that mindset here), so there’s obviously a “good” way to advertise and a “not good” way to advertise. I think this particular advertising campaign does more harm than good, or at least less good than other kinds of campaigns could elicit.
To be clear, I like watching competition. Back in the day, when I golfed regularly, I watched a ton of women’s golf. It was every bit as dramatic as men’s golf, if not more so. I catch clips of women’s basketball, softball, soccer, skating, and tennis on the YouTube, and I think it’s marvelous. “Women’s Sports: It’s The Best Rush!” works for me as a campaign. It’s hyperbolic, exciting, and foregrounds the activity as the subject.
Now let’s go watch Sophie Cunningham crack some heads open.
2 Likes
New pro leagues typically lose money until they don’t. The NBA lost money for most of the 60s and 70s. Major League Soccer didn’t turn a profit for a decade-plus. Minor league baseball and arena football. The UFC lost tens of millions for years - and sold for $4 billion in 2016. Building a profitable league takes time.
The WNBA following a very familiar path, w/more franchises set to join in the next few years.
1 Like
The WNBA is not losing money anymore. The new media rights deal they secured took care of that which is why franchise values exploxed.
The NBA took 40 years to become profitable as a league.
The NFL took 35 years.
1 Like
I thought Harbaugh’s said “Everyone watches women’s shorts”
3 Likes
I heard their still losing money. Its a pretty bad leauge. But I honestly dont care. Ill still go to bed fall asleep and wake up and not worry at all about the wnba
1 Like
Me too
1 Like
One of the most fascinating developments in the show was the “doctoring” of the Companions, followed closely by the “monstering” of the Companions. Especially in the reboot, where the Doctor often is monstered as well. But these moves are subtle, not explicit, which makes them more effective. We saw this in the Classic era with moves like Romana getting her own Sonic in Horns of Nimon, or Peri becoming possessed by Kiv in Mindwarp.
The Revival takes this to 11. For example, Rose loses her identity (becomes “faceless”) in The Idiot Lantern, is called “the big bad wolf” in Tooth and Claw, but also gets to do “doctorish” things like figuring out the plot in Fear Her, and of course becoming divine in Parting of the Ways, a weapon of mass destruction in Day of the Doctor (who doesn’t actually destroy anything – The Moment has been prepared for), and eventually an incarnation of the Doctor herself.
The show fundamentally transformed during the hiatus between the Classic era and the Revival; I hope the current hiatus will yield similarly incredible fruit.
1 Like
