EVER since Joe Brolly’s ill-fated appearance on the Claire Byrne Show, my in-box has been filling up with messages about my former Sunday Game colleague.
ost of them have been along the lines of ‘your friend Joe won’t be happy’.
I beg to differ. Of course, Joe was probably annoyed at being cut-off in mid-sentence. But when he woke up the next day and discovered everybody was talking about him, I imagine he wasn’t displeased.
A programme about the reunification of Ireland turned into a story about Joe Brolly.
All told, it wasn’t either RTE’s or Claire Byrne’s finest hour. Granted, I know how draconian the Irish defamatory laws are, but RTE ought to have known what to expect from Brolly.
Claire Byrne is an excellent broadcaster, but I think she overreacted.
Complex
If presenters pulled the plug on every guest who talked over them, there would be a lot of unfinished programmes on the station.
Joe is a frustrating, annoying, but very complex individual. But I like him. I always expected the unexpected when I worked with him on live TV. He could make an argument in part one of the show and take the exact opposite view in part two.
Some of his opinions seem to be plucked from thin air. He could throw you under the bus one minute, and then invite you for a pint in the next breath, before throwing you back beneath the bus the following day.
He is a complete Jack in the Box, yet impossible to fall out with. In terms of TV, Joe is box-office gold. Who knows, we might even work together again someday. Writing about Joe reminds me of another topic which I have been interested in during the lockdown.
I started to pay attention to what the TV sports analysts were saying.
The whole business has become more inclusive, with more female presenters and guests – which, of course, is very welcome.
It’s all about optics – with sets, gizmos and graphics which wouldn’t be out of place in a Star Trek movie.
And the age profile of the analysts is getting younger.
Evidently, TV bosses believe they are more in touch with the so-called modern game and their presence on panels will entice younger people to tune in.
The reality is that it continues to be the older generation who watch sports programmes on TV.
My issue with the younger generation of analysts is that due to their closeness to current managers and players, they’re afraid to say anything to upset them.
Don’t get me wrong – they all speak well. But, by and large, their comments are utterly bland – and this applies across all sports on all stations.
It’s a bit like going to a fast-food outlet for dinner. The burger and chips might sate your appetite in the short term, but you’re hungry again an hour later. That’s how I feel about modern TV sports punditry.
Anoraks
Yes, they are articulate and use all the buzz words, but after a couple of hours I’ll have totally forgotten what they said. TV bosses have made a fundamental error about punditry of late.
They have forgotten that only about ten per cent of their audience want what could be described as analytical analysis.
They’re the anoraks who are obsessed with the minute detail of the game. The majority just want to know why one team won and the other lost.
Essentially, they want to be entertained. They will remember a blazing row and tune in again.