Jump to content

Recommended Posts

glau Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm also a licence fee payer and heartily dislike

> The Vicar of Dibley. I actually find Dawn French's

> comic stlye offensive. Should we get her

> sacked/suspended? Also don't care for the Antiques

> Roadshow or whatever it is called and I do not

> enjoy Songs of Praise either. I am launching my

> petition now.


I'm with you on this one Glau.

Can I add the Seven O'Clock Show, some of the Newsnight Review, the bands I don't like on the Glastonbury coverage, the bits on the Six O' Clock news that are just puffs for upcoming programmes (and don't get me started on the 'going live to' bollocks, featuring someone standing outside an empty, darkened building), those occasions when John Humphrys' attempts at being jovial and Strictly Come Dancing never doing the 'what's white and moves across the floor?' joke.

Oh and Casualty, I find that so offensive, I've never watched it.


I'm going to hell in a handcart, I tell you.

Just who is RB's target audience anyway?


I would have thought it was more the likes of Glau's daughter above, hijacking mum or pop's account ;), but radio 2 is more traditionally associated with an older audience, just finding the positive qualities in cords and slippers.


For the record I like his football column, but then he is an iron....so to speak.

A bit like Harry Hill really.. his stand-up shows are blisteringly good (especially the small-gig 'material tryouts' he does) but TV peeps seem intent on shoehorning them both into a format supported by tv clip funnies.


In the last-but-one Secret Policemen affair, Russ Brand (and The Boosh) were largely the only acts that made me laugh 'properly' at all.

Is Radio 2?s audience changing perhaps? I mean I?m well young and hip* and I prefer it to Radio 1 mostly because they don?t play so much of that bang-crash music I don?t understand.



*word, brother etc. =<_? (that?s txt spk for the sign I?m making with my fingers)

Wossy started out as a broadcaster who was willing to push boundaries, but hasn't got to where he is simply by being controversial, for quite while he's gone up the ranks via his more mainstream material with just an added but ersatz veneer of edginess. He's an intelligent, witty and affable chap though and good at what he does.


I'm really not a fan of his 'flagship' show, it seems to be horribly luvvy and despite appearances of being rude and risque is actually horribly fawning, and utterly standard chat show fare once it's stripped down to its components.


But he's every bit as good as Barry Norman on Film xx, he introduced me to so much through the incredibly strange film show and actually seems a pretty decent chap all told.


The problem comes when anyone gets the sort of ludicrous contract he was offered by the Beeb. Ones own self worth hits hyperinflation, and people can be tempted to believe the hype, that the rules no longer apply. I think an element of this has happened to Ross and since Hollywood to Brand.

They're friends and their dinner party humour ended up being recorded and broadcast.

It was not so much in bad taste, that's pretty much a trade mark for both of them in their careers, it was that they blurred the divide between medialand and reality and that generally they really shouldn't actually meet, and that's what happens when you yourself get out of touch with reality.


The fact that it wasn't particularly funny just adds to the woes, but I'm inclined to agree that far worse, far more 'shocking' occurs in print and broadcast media pretty much daily, and that this is a classic case of the hypocritical press getting their teeth into something. Whether to sell papers or not I don't know, I'm never convinced sales fluctuate that much according to the story of the day, I think they just love taking people down.


So end of the day, poor effort on show noone listened to has suddenly equated questions in parliament and national witch hunt.

I'd have thought with an American Presidential election in 4 days time the silly season might be over, I KNOOOW we're all sick to death of hearing the end of the world is nigh, but really, haven't 40,000 people got something better to do with their time? I hear that Jerry Springer the Opera is well worth a watch.

....Indeed, I thnk that 'they' will, although HIGNFY seemed business as normal last night eg "If Jonathonn Ross went to prison for this he'd certainly have to watch his 'Rs'". But the debate seems to have moved away from the relity that most people believe that comedy/satire general rudery can go as close to the edge as it wants but phoning people up and leaving offensive messages on their answer machines is illegal under harrasment laws and rightly so. an attack on this highly offensive behaviour is not an attack on 'comedy'....as the opposite equivalents to the 'Daily Mail' readers seem to keep missing in their branding of all who think RD and JR's behaviour as disgraceful as 'little englanders,, etc

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Rant ahead: You're not one of them but unfortunately, there's a substrate of posters here that do very little except moan and come up with weird conspiracy theories. They're immediately highly critical of just about any change, and their initial assumption is that everyone else is a total fucking contemptible idiot. For example: don't you think that the people who run the libraries will have considered the impact of timing of reconstruction on library users? (In fact, we know they have - because they've made arrangements at other libraries to attempt to mitigate the disruption). After all, these are the people that spend their whole working week thinking about libraries and dealing with library users (and the kids especially). You don't go into the library game for the chicks and fame - so it's fair to assume that librarians are committed to public service and public access to libraries, including by kids. Likewise the built environment people (engineers, architects, construction managers, project managers, construction contractors, subcontractors or whoever is on this job) are told to minimise disruption on every job they do. The thing that occurs to us as amateurs within 30 seconds of us seeing something is probably not something a full time professional hasn't thought about! Southwark Council, the NHS, TfL, Dulwich Estate, Thames Water, Openreach - they're not SPECTRE factories filled with malevolent chaosmongers trying to persecute anyone. They're mostly filled with people who understand their job and try to do their best with what they've been given - just like all of us. Nobody is perfect or immune from challenge, and that's fair enough, but why not at least start from the assumption that there's a good reason why things have been done the way they have? Any normal person would be pleased that their busy, pretty, lively local library is getting refurbished, and will have more space and facilities for kids and teens, and will be more efficient to run and warmer in winter. But no, EDT_Forumite_752 had kids who did an exam 20 years ago, and this makes them an expert on library refurbishment who can see it's all just stuff and nonsense for the green agenda and why can't it all be put off... 😡😡😡
    • I completely misread the previous post, sorry. For some reason I thought the mini cooper was also a police vehicle, DUH.
    • This has given me ideas for the ginger wine I love, that no one else likes!      
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...