egafd.com

I remember the huge news coverage recently about the cyclist who had been taking performing enhancing drugs. The coverage of that was massive and went on for ages. I remember being puzzled as I had never heard of him.

We now have Oscar Pistorius getting O J Simpson sized news coverage over allegedly bumping off his missus. I had to research the name Oscar Pistorius and copy-and-paste it to here because I had never heard of him either, until the last few days. (I don't think the O J Simpson thing deserved that much coverage internationally as he was not really known outside the USA.)

Do people think it's justified to give these incidents this much coverage? It's not as if these people are worldwide household names like Tom Cruise, Kate Winslet, or someone like that. As I say, I hadn't even heard of the cyclist or Oscar Pistorius before.

Remember the name, he'll be SA President in about 30 years.

[quote]Do people think it's justified to give these incidents this much coverage? It's not as if these people are worldwide household names like Tom Cruise, Kate Winslet, or someone like that.[/quote]

What, you mean put athletes who've spent years and years training, going through the pain barrier over and over and over, eating right, giving up a proper social life and ultimately becoming the best they can be (sometimes the best in the world), at similar levels to some other people who are just good at pretending to be somebody else for a living for about 2 or 3 months of the year in front of a camera? Heaven forbid!

I think the question you pose says more about your lack of interest when it comes to sport rather than who and who shouldn't have more press attention.

Oscar Pistorius was one of the most recognisable athletes at last year's Olympics, just down the road from you. I say 'recognisable' because he was the only one without any fucking legs. What else does he have to do to get your attention, Max, suck you off?

Probably still in the nick in 30 years.

I've always regarded the definition of a household name being someone everyone has heard of - whether they're interested in the field that person is from or not. For example: your granny knows who Beyonce or Noel Gallagher are, even though she doesn't follow music. Someone with not the slightest interest in politics, and who rarely watches the news, knows who Barack Obama is. So if something major happens regarding household names then it deserves saturation media coverage cos everyone knows of that person. The cyclist and the bladerunner do not deserve this sort of coverage.

max_tranmere wrote:

> Probably still in the nick in 30 years.

Apparently it's about the same as it is here, life means he'll be out in 12-16 years assuming it's a standard sentencing (according to yesterdays radio)

max_tranmere wrote:

> It's not as if these people are worldwide
> household names like Tom Cruise, Kate Winslet, or someone like
> that.


Actually they are.

Oscar Pistorius IS a worldwide household name, far more famous than your example of Kate Winslet.

In 2008 and again in 2012 Pistorius made the "Time 100" ? Time magazine's annual list of the world's 100 most famous people. Winslet's fame has so far failed to reach that level.

I think Kate Winslet would be regarded as more of a household name than this guy. If I was to have asked everyone I know socially, all my neighbours, everyone in my local pub, and everyone on a bus or train I was on, anytime up until a week or two ago, whether they had heard of Kate Winslet I am certain all would have said they had. That would not have been the case with this person. Of course we've all heard of him now.

Who is Noel Gallagher?

max_tranmere wrote:

> That would not have been the case
> with this person.


Why not?