A few months ago I sat through "Don't Get Me Started":
TV presenter Selina Scott speaks out for the first time about what has happened to the industry in which she made her name. She goes onto the attack against the cruel, cynical and nasty programmes that she feels have become the norm
Forgive me but I didn't know who Selina Scott was, apparantly she "was the first journalist in the world to expose the cruel ivory trafficking trade in Kenya", she's "produced highly acclaimed documentaries on the royal Heads of Europe" she worked on BBC Breakfast TV at it's launch, she then joined Sky, and then went to live on a farm in Yorkshire, and then sold socks...
Currently she's very much aggrieved by a perceived lack of quality on British TV, explaining all to The Observer (which I confess I haven't read - it should soon become clear why).
Basically, she's a whinge-bag. I think it's ironic and hypocritical to pitch a television program labelling television watchers as morons, rather than produce a better product. It's pretentious, elitist, offensive, and counterproductive.
Over the last few weeks I've been watching (and rewatching) The Lakes. I bought it on DVD, having not seen it since it originally aired. If you ever get depressed by people like Selina Scott then turn to programmes such as this and see where they lead you. Check out the many many more works of genius from writer Jimmy McGovern. Check out what John Simm's done since. And when you've got through that, let me know, and i'll find something else.
I don't really understand the charge that television provides for "the lowest common denominator". This suggests that programmes will reflect the tastes of the most ignorant, deprived, moronic person in the country... but why? It stikes me as silly.
Viewing figures don't incorporate your IQ - it's one man one vote, so surely the Median Voter Theorem might be a more appropriate model?
Recent Comments