My problem with Chris Morris is that every thing he does (although very funny) seems partly designed to add to the mythology of the "Chris Morris" character. Why does he use his own name in OTH/TDT/BE, when he is clearly playing a character that he's kept running for 7 years? His "persona" in the Music show was very similar. During Jam, it was remarked at how he played a background auter-ish role, but in fact he was very visible, intentionally appearing as a sort of ghostly presence in the odd scene, controlling everything, or as the presenter of tonight's story, like Hitchcock in those TV shows.

This is why the idea of him simply writing a sitcom is absurd - he'd have to be in it, and the main character would have to be called Chris, and might even be a newsreader, or maybe just someone who cuts out and collects interesting headlines.

This only bugs me personally because I tend to like things that are offered to me through a sideways route - not just a penis poking through a cubicle wall, but in the sense of a creative endeavour that doesn't have a label on it saying "I MADE THIS!"

'People Like Us' isn't as good as BE, but at least it doesn't have that ego trip element. I'd love to see a Chris Morris program that wasn't like that.

It should be a minor complaint but it's always really got on my tits. And the result is clear - a small hoard of believers. You may mock Chris's viewing figures, but I bet they're about the same as for 'People Like Us', and I doubt if Chris Langham has even the smallest religion devoted to him. (I'll start one if not... no, I'm missing my own point.) Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Rich' on Thu Jul 26 08:46:08 BST 2001:

i do quite like big brother, though as a proviso i hate myself for it. it is lowest common denominator tv but it also says a lot about the country we live in (most of it we know already, true, but it re-iterates it).

for instance there are 2 people in the house, dean and helen. dean is fairly clever and his tastes are a bit more highbrow than others. he has said that he cannot stand talking about hearsay and other pop culture things. helen is thick as devonshire custard and has no interesting opinions or ideas about anything. she does, however shout a lot and is very animated. dean isnt. he is fairly quite and considered but has a sharp sense of humour.

from watching programs about big brother where people say who they like and dont like in the house it seems that helen is loved by everyone because she is 'fun' and dean is disliked by everyone because he is 'boring'

this seems to show that people hate clever people and think that if they have tastes more highbrow than pets win prizes then they are up themselves. people love stupid people because they are 'innocent' and obviously have no pretentions.

helen will probably win it despite never having said anything remotely interesting apart from the many times she says something incredibly stupid. dean is well liked in the house and so has last to the final 4 but when it comes to the public vote he will probably be out first, despite being the most interesting person in the house with the most to say. last sunday when i was idly watching the live thing on e4 he even explained the ending of 2001, which i have never understood. and people say it isnt educational Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Lord Lopper' on Thu Jul 26 09:41:27 BST 2001:

"he even explained the ending of 2001, which i have never understood. and people say it isnt educational"

Did he really, what was his explanation?

I completely agree with you although you have to say that people watching a show like big brother are looking for and getting simple entertainment (with possibly a bit of shagging) and not anything which is remotely intellectually challenging.
If the tasks required a greater deal of ingenuity (IE the sort of thing that the Great Egg Race demanded of its contestants) then a different (but probably much smaller) audience would build up.
Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Unruly Butler on Thu Jul 26 09:55:33 BST 2001:

I love Big Brother with a rather foolish passion and will be hosting an eviction night party so all my friends can watch the fireworks, searchlights and Davina McCall's bulge from my lounge window, which overlooks Three Mills Island studios.

Detractors of BB seem to think it's about the contestants. "Why would I waste time watching those self obsessed dullards?" But it's not called "Housemates". It's called "Big Brother". It's about the voyeur. It's about you. It's about everyone who's watching. A lot of lowbrow TV does this - since it's cheaper and easier than writing a script everyone will like - they allow your reaction to the show to become more important than the programme's content (Blind Date is a good example, where shouting at the contestants is part of the appeal).

A strange unifying glue develops in a fragmented country when everyone is allowed to watch the same 10 people bickering. The real action of BB happens not in the studio house, but in pubs, offices and schools where people who have nothing in common can all talk about the latest lack-of-goings-on. You know the EastEnders "Everybody's Talking About It" campaign? That's what they're after. Now, I don't watch soap - I hadn't seen an episode of EastEnders until about a year ago - so I understand the kneejerk reaction towards a type of television that tries to build itself entirely from "water cooler moments" - but I've succumbed to the zen appeal of Big Brother. Perhaps because it doesn't ask me to discuss fictional pregnancies and deaths as if they were real.

A major part of why I cracked is that a large proportion of my (intelligent and discerning) friends got really into it. It was great fun to discuss and joke about, so it became a social thing - like following a football team. If everyone I knew hated it, there'd be no point watching. As it is, I sacrifice hours of my time to watch Brian mop surfaces because I know how much pleasure I'll get from discussing it later. It's not the actual programme that's amusing, more the social consequences for me and my friends.

I could go on.

About how people's prejudices and preferences are reflected in their choice of favourite flatmate (all the appeal of chatting about starsigns without the superstitious guff); how some people love the bitchy, soapy elements, while some people (me included) prefer the zen goldfish bowl calm of watching the housemates do nothing; how, although the lowest scraping of the reality TV barrel in some ways, BB also represents a zenith of TV as social observer, as pure television...

For god's sake I stayed up with three friends for 24 hours straight so we could see what it felt like to watch eight people sleep. TV had never allowed me to do that before and it blew my mind. It was astonishing. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By mrdiscopop on Thu Jul 26 10:09:42 BST 2001:

>dean is fairly clever and his tastes are a bit more highbrow than others. he has said that he cannot stand talking about hearsay and other pop culture things


I have to say that this is the moment I really went off Dean. He actually said that he would hate himself for buying a Top 40 record, and that discussing pop culture was beneath him. Then he picks up his guitar and plays Oasis. What a hypocritical tit.

Dean comes across as pompous and disdainful, which are not likable characteristics. He was right to be appaled that Brian didn't know the capital of Russia - but he thinks he is superior to the other contestants.

Brian and Helen, on the other hand, add some light to the proceedings. That's why people like them.

Helen's blossoming love for Paul was genuine, no matter how low her IQ is. Why wouldn't you warm to that instead of some arrogant twat who thinks people should be judged on their level of general knowledge?

I have nothing against intellectualism - why else would I be here (except for the bitch-fights). You will note that Dean is not the world's best guitar player or singer despite what he thinks.

And when he talked in his sleep, he said "I want to be famous".

Brian to win, I say. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Micky' on Thu Jul 26 10:13:15 BST 2001:

Staying up all night to watch them sleep....fuck me, I have been missing out on this "astonishing" programme!
To be honest with BB, and I know this is exactly what they were not trying to achieve, is that it all seems a little fake. Everything they do, you just get the idea that they are doing it for the camera, acting in a low pressure 7 week play if you will. I sometimes just flick it on, and do watch the odd half an hour, but generally it just pisses me off...not only because most of the people in the house are as thick as pig shit but they are people who I would never want to even talk to or listen to in real life (except perhaps the gay guy, he seems alright. I also get the feeling that clever editing is involved in the C4 summaries, they need entertainment, they need villians, they need romance, they need controversey...give the people what they want!
However, it keeps the people happy and avoids any lack on talking point in the pub. And maybe that's the point! I reckon though, that they should make a BB where if you were evicted you were killed live on TV. At least this way it would be 24hr entertainment with they performing for their lives! Or perhaps a TV version of 'Wink Murder'. Where in BB house, there is one fake person, an actor, who every week kills one of the people in the house......and noone knows which one is the murderer!!! Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By mrdiscopop on Thu Jul 26 10:13:38 BST 2001:

PS - I will be watching, taping, and laughing at Brass Eye. Sorry to disappoint. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By TJ on Thu Jul 26 10:16:47 BST 2001:

Regarding Morris' omnipresence in his shows - I see your point, but I think this may stem not from egotism but from the fact that he started out in local radio. Having worked in that field myself, I know that when you create 'characters' you pretty much have to do them yourself, as there isn't really anyone around to do it for you (everyone's in the studio at different times, and are usually too busy pursuing their own ends to do a bit of someone else's work for them). I assume it was just a natural expansion of this into his television work, with him taking the attitude that 'I've created these characters, and I know from experience that I do them best'. And in some ways, his omnipresence isn't too different to that of Kenny Everett. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Unruly Butler on Thu Jul 26 10:36:40 BST 2001:

Morris isn't just a writer, but a writer performer, due to his radio experience.

He has come from a different media background than most comedy auteurs (Linehan and Matthews for example as pure writers, or Steve Coogan as a pure performer) so doesn't fit into the usual format of staying in front of or behind the camera.

And, though I understand the unease at his myth, this always happens if you refuse to do dumb-arsed interviews avery five minutes. By avoiding publicity, it creates itself. Look at Kubrick. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'jayne' on Thu Jul 26 11:56:47 BST 2001:

I didn't watch the first series of BB but I'm hooked on the second one.

The only thing I can't understand is the Helen phenomenon. Why do people want her to win? She is a vacuum.

If I had my way Dean would win but as an anti-Helen vote I'm voting for Brian. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Peter on Thu Jul 26 12:37:23 BST 2001:

I think it's obvious that Brian should win. Helen is clearly too stupid than is strictly nesseccary, but the problem with this is it leaves Elizabeth and Dean feeling as though they are more both clever than they actually are. Just imagine being stuck in a house for nine weeks where certain people don't even know what monogamy is! it's bound to boost your ego to levels uncharted by man thus far, especially if it happens on TV.

Anyway, you can't be two clever if you choose to go on Big Brother. The amount these people who moaned when they knew perfectly well what was ahead of them. And also the underlying motive for being in the house - it's either money or fame (Has Dean been singing any songs with lyrics such as 'sign me record companies, i'm a competent signer/songwriter' then?) or both. And any time when Paul moaned about how he was in for 'the experience' and how he complained that he didn't like Bubble because he was just in it to win, is hypocritical bollocks. Which kind of sums up the man.

But no, i don't like the show, it's for plebs isn't it?, i've got other , more interesting things to be doing... Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By chris hc on Thu Jul 26 12:57:30 BST 2001:

i think helen likes to play dumb, she often winks after piping "ooh i don't know that", but c4 edit those bits out of the live e4 broadcasts. Just so she fits the bill of the stupid welsh tart. She'd displayed some obvious perspicacity and her feigned idiocy is more likely some attention/defence ploy.
Then again, i could be too kind. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Rich' on Thu Jul 26 14:13:54 BST 2001:

>"he even explained the ending of 2001, which i have never understood. and people say it isnt educational"
>
>Did he really, what was his explanation?

apparently it is a lot clearer in the book. it seems that the big baby in space at the end is supposed to be dave being reborn and sent to earth to start the next level of human evolution, like the apes touching the monolith.

as for it not being an intellectual program thats true but it still doesnt explain why people love helen just because she is thick and dislike dean just because his tastes are not the same as everyone elses.

and as for him saying he wants to be famous, whats wrong with that. 99% of people in music and on tv want to be famous. thats why he was in a band and is on the show, the same as all the other contestants.

i think he has been pretty restrained in the face of the intellectual vacuums that are brian and helen. he has been far less patronising than elizabeth. i havent seen him show any contempt or superiority towards them and generally tries to get along with them.

thats said i still like brian because at least he has wit. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'The Lord Privy Toast Rack' on Thu Jul 26 14:27:50 BST 2001:

I was thinking about an analogy with pop stars, Morris being more like a pop star than a typical comedy writer/performer doing a character. All the best pop stars are "in character" but they create that character by exaggerating aspects of their own personality, and they often either use their own real name, or else they invent a new name and eventually become known generally by that name even in their personal life.

But in actual fact, the DJ analogy is much more uncomfortably close to the truth, especially when you consider the Fab FM crowd, Simes, Brookes, Davis, the Hairy Cornflake with his pipe, etc. They thought of themselves as personalities, beloved of the public (and they were right.) Eventually, when they were sacked, this felt to them like their food supply was being cut off, or they were actually being killed outright.

Morris is a half breed, the hideous offspring of a DJ and an extremely intelligent, aware comic writer/performer. This results in not just brilliant DJ-format radio programmes, but also brilliant television comedies, but with the side-effect that he presents the comedies "through an animal" - the animal being his extended persona. This may be unavoidable - maybe this kind of genius is always driven by a strong personality at the centre. Chris Morris, the myth, the creature of legend who uses his comic power to put the world to rights, either by filling a studio with helium or by making prank calls to stop commuters slipping up on their way out of a tube station. (I wonder how either of those stories spread? "Sources close to Morris"?)

Oscar Wilde is another good comparison - his plays were genuinely funny, but he also had another product to sell: his genius, as a distinct thing in itself, and his decedant attitude and epigramatic style is so important to the comedy in his plays that he effectively "appears" in them.

Of course, Morris avoids interviews and appearances on HIGNFY, which at first glance provides a lovely defence against accusations of self-publicising, but that's a red "Richard" herring because random interviews and appearances on HIGNFY are probably the last thing you'd want to do if you wanted a mysterious personality cult to grow around you.

Far better to mong* your voice and say Jam over and over again.

* mong 1. vb. To slow down a sample without altering its pitch. 2. n. (Abrev) Mongrel.

Incidentally I like the way this thread has had, from the outset, two totally unrelated topics. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Steve Berry on Thu Jul 26 14:43:07 BST 2001:

Much as I enjoy 'Big Brother' (I like people-watching), and find Helen, Brian etc. entertaining, I'm not sure that I actually like them enough to contribute towards the £70k one of them is going to get. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Al' on Thu Jul 26 15:14:46 BST 2001:

The thing about Big Brother is that it it *is* to a a large extent watching a bunch of dullards.

It is also an extension of the culture of letting those who have no talent other than wanting to be on television, be on television. I have tried watching it a couple of times but i just don't get it. It seems to celebrate pettiness, nastiness, selfishness - all that is worst about the human condition. Davina McCall is unwatchable, the people in the house are shallow and self-serving. The tasks they are given to do are puerile and embarrassing. Yes, intelligent people I know and love also discuss it. Depressing isn't it? The whole thing is one dreadful circle jerk - people in each others living rooms discussing what a load of other people in another living room think of each other.

But it's worst sin is that it is cheap, unchallenging TV. Perhaps it is entertaining, although I just don't see how, but let's not kid ourselves that it challenges, or provokes thought. Personally, I don't subscribe to the 'dumbing down' theory of culture. I think in a lot of ways, Britain is smarter than it ever was. But Big Brother is not part of this - it is stupid television focusing on stupid people and congratulating them for their stupidity. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Unruly Butler on Thu Jul 26 16:08:11 BST 2001:

It's soap. It's social experiment. it's a test of the tolerance of TV. It's pop psychology for pub fun. You can take from it what you will, because it has, by its definition, no content. That's the joy of it.

Unlike Survivor or Castaway, it's not attempting to simulate something (shipwreck, or survival in the wild) it's just locking people away to do nothing for ten weeks, to see what it does to their minds, and how the mass of the country reacts.

Your reaction to it is mediated by the editing suite, but you can choose to discuss that if you want. I find that part of it fascinating - how are the public (me included) being dragged into the game, manipulated? Shall I believe them, or make up my own mind?

Because it is devoid of direction or content, BB becomes a pure reflection of the viewer. It's hard to articulate, but I love the programme for its utter absence of shape, point or structure. It's ambient TV. EnoVision. Like listening to a single Hammond organ note and detecting overtones and melody in the phasing of the sine wave.

I'm protesting too much. If you don't get it, you never will, but I have found myself hypnotised by this format three times now, and I'm pretty sure it's the effect it has on the populace (again, me included) that I love, not the shenanigans in the house. (EG: Paul and Helen: as boring to watch on screen as any loved up couple, yet terrific to hear people in bars rowing about.) Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Jessica' on Thu Jul 26 16:17:28 BST 2001:

>The whole thing is one dreadful circle jerk - people in each others living rooms discussing what a load of other people in another living room think of each other.

That's human society! We have evolved to be interested in what other people are up to. Just because they are behind a little glass wall - talking about people and what they are getting up to is an essential part of keeping society going. You used to be an English teacher - surely you must have come across some of the anthropological theories that state that language may have evolved to replace grooming as a means of maintaining social cohesion through gossip?

People sat around talking about what other people are up to is not a bad thing, you know. It stops us turning into a bunch of self-interested monsters.

>But it's worst sin is that it is cheap, unchallenging TV. Perhaps it is entertaining, although I just don't see how, but let's not kid ourselves that it challenges, or provokes thought.

It has no plot. An audience that can enjoy a programme with no plot or contrived characters is fairly sophisticated as far as I am concerned. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Jack Welsby' on Thu Jul 26 17:22:41 BST 2001:

>That's human society! We have evolved to be interested in what other people are up to.

Are you sure? There's a big step between that and...

>anthropological theories that state that >language may have evolved to replace >grooming as a means of maintaining social >cohesion through gossip

>An audience that can enjoy a programme with >no plot or contrived characters is fairly >sophisticated as far as I am concerned.

If there was a programme that consisted of fifteen minutes of yellow triangles revolving against a red background, I'm not sure that I would automatically assign sophistication to the people who enjoyed it. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Jessica' on Thu Jul 26 17:48:21 BST 2001:

>>That's human society! We have evolved to be interested in what other people are up to.
>
>Are you sure?

Fairly sure. This isn't the place for an essay and a reading list, but there are very, very few scientists that would consider our social habits as being comparable with those of the (largely solitary) orangutan. Our ancestors that were predisposed to be sociable and able to 'second-guess' the actions of others were far more likely to breed than those that paid little or no attention to the actions of others.


>There's a big step between that and...
>
>>anthropological theories that state that >language may have evolved to replace >grooming as a means of maintaining social >cohesion through gossip

There is a bit step - as I said, I'm not writing scientific articles here. But those theories are emphasising the self-reinforcing role of social cohesion in primate evolution. Even in the evolution of something as unique as language.

>>An audience that can enjoy a programme with >no plot or contrived characters is fairly >sophisticated as far as I am concerned.
>
>If there was a programme that consisted of fifteen minutes of yellow triangles revolving against a red background, I'm not sure that I would automatically assign sophistication to the people who enjoyed it.

Derek Jarman's 'Blue'?

My point is that the audience aren't being spoon-fed entertainment - as Unruly Butler says, they are bringing their own personalities and brains to bear on it. When you read a book or listen to the radio you tend to visualise what's going on. Adding motivations and a plot to something that is both plotless and unplanned can be rewarding, and *yes* rather a sophisticated and creative act.

Anyway, that's my best argument about Big Brother. You can't ruin it! Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Al' on Thu Jul 26 18:23:29 BST 2001:

>My point is that the audience aren't being spoon-fed entertainment - as Unruly Butler says, they are bringing their own personalities and brains to bear on it. When you read a book or listen to the radio you tend to visualise what's going on. Adding motivations and a plot to something that is both plotless and unplanned can be rewarding, and *yes* rather a sophisticated and creative act.
>
>Anyway, that's my best argument about Big Brother. You can't ruin it!

Sounds like a challenge to me....

Really, this is all faintly ridiculous. What you have just said seems eminently reasonable and insightful. Until, that is, you remember that you are applying it to Big Brother. The fact that nothing of consequence happens in Big Brother is not an intellectual challenge. It is simply lazy, uninspired TV.

I would also contest this idea that sitting around talking about other people is the point of human society. It does happen a lot, and its called gossip. Nothing wrong with that of course, but isn't there something sad about people doing it about a load of zeroes on a crap TV show? Besides, there are more stimualting things to discuss like society, ideas, culture, human endeavour, the state of television even. That's what I thought as an English teacher, and I still think so now. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Thu Jul 26 18:39:46 BST 2001:

So could a new idea be a programme just showing people watching Big Brother, and then a programme showing people watching that programme and so on? Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Ian' on Thu Jul 26 18:48:13 BST 2001:

Doesn't it irritate you that shows like Big Brother are referred to as, and not just referred to as but believed to be, reality tv? As if this absolutely and without peer brings the viewer closer to what is essentially human, what we are really like. I think this is rubbish. These shows couldn't be further from what the reality of human life is.

Oscar Wilde: 'the truth of masks', 'the decay of lying' - don't we get nearer to understanding things about ourselves through art, fiction, metaphor? The hideous thing about Big Brother and all the rest is that these people are performing - but performing themselves. In mundane, domestic settings. At least actors get the chance to expand by trying on the clothes (not the literal clothes - well yes, those too) of a character. It's obscene and debasing this lie. Do you really think you've come to an understanding about the people in Big Brother?

So what - what's that got to do with it? Okay, but let's just have it plain: BB is gossip writ large. Don't you come away from watching it feeling soiled in some way, just as you do when you've oiled the wheels of your social car (dreadful) with something nasty?

Does anybody see my point? cos I've sort of lost it... Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Tom Adams on Thu Jul 26 18:56:23 BST 2001:

Of course, like Butler says, the people on BB aren't good telly. I'd be proud to make rubbish viewing.

I don't agree with his reasoning, though. The naming of the programme is just plain laziness. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Tom Adams on Thu Jul 26 18:57:02 BST 2001:

But it does work..nobody says 'Did you see that thing with them people in that house all day?', do they. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Peter on Thu Jul 26 19:26:33 BST 2001:

The main problem i have with this arguement is the insitence that the show has no plot - which is not entirely true. The program is edited to highlight characteristics of the contestant that suit the makers of the show (Stuart is evil, Helen is enderingly stupid), the force the contestants to play games every week, the give them topics to discuss a lot of the time, and you never know when the next suprise will happen. Look how all the focus was on Paul and Helen's relationship, which may or may not be as exciting as the program (and the papers) made out. And these are all the things that bore and irritate me most about the show. I want to be able to make my own mind up on the people. Perhaps it would be more interesting if it was just people locked in a house with nothing to do. But unfortuantly is isn't.
And the term reality tv always seems nonsensical to me? After all, what is reality (actually probably best if you ignore that last bit) Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'ollie' on Thu Jul 26 21:16:29 BST 2001:

i'm glad to see i'm not the only one who likes big brother. obviously everyone is sick of discussing chris morris (90 mins to go). Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'The Lord Privy Toast Rack' on Thu Jul 26 21:56:54 BST 2001:

Yes, the Morris wavelength of this thread is being drowned out. There's some interference though - Oscar Wilde somehow sneaked across to the Big Brother wavelength. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Jessica' on Fri Jul 27 12:24:01 BST 2001:

It's nice and quiet in this thread, isn't it?

>Really, this is all faintly ridiculous. What you have just said seems eminently reasonable and insightful. Until, that is, you remember that you are applying it to Big Brother.

That's a non-argument. How does this argument work for some things and not for Big Brother?

You can't keep saying 'Yes, but it's BIG BROTHER!' as you have here and to Unruly Butler's arguments earlier. Elaborate!

>The fact that nothing of consequence happens in Big Brother is not an intellectual challenge.

It's not an *intellectual* challenge, no. That's not the only worthwhile kind of challenge, you know. It's a starting point for the viewer to engage themselves, to bring their own ideas and conceptions to what they are watching. How is that bad?

>It is simply lazy, uninspired TV.

Lazy does not necessarily equal bad. Unless you want to invoke the protestant work ethic in judging TV quality, you can't use that as an argument. Peter Cook was quite lazy in his way. BB is *not* Peter Cook, but it proves my point - laziness is not necessarily bad.

Uninspired... maybe. But as Unruly Butler was saying, the effects on the viewer are more important than the show itself. I feel that BB has justified itself by its effects on viewers, but I know you disagree with this.

>I would also contest this idea that sitting around talking about other people is the point of human society.

I didn't say that it was the *point* of human society. To say that would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. It is rather an essential factor in the maintenance of human society - and yes, gossip is a part of that. Of course it isn't all that people talk about, but it has a vital function in maintaining social groups. Talking about people rather than 'ideas' is something that a misogynistic acquaintance of mine once accused myself and my female friends of doing. We can do both, and in fact it is healthier to do both.

>It does happen a lot, and its called gossip. Nothing wrong with that of course, but isn't there something sad about people doing it about a load of zeroes on a crap TV show?

It isn't 'sad', I find it quite heartwarming. It shows that we still value human relationships. I'd hesitate to call them zeroes as well - you don't watch it, so you're not in a position to judge their personalities. I am suspicious of anyone who wants to go on something like BB, but then I'm suspicious of anyone who spends more time with videos than out of the house. It doesn't mean that they are 'zeroes'. That smacks of the worst kind of snobbery.

>Besides, there are more stimualting things to discuss like society, ideas, culture, human endeavour, the state of television even.

That's all very well, but to pretend that talking about those things is superior to talking about other people is misguided. They are different - they serve different purposes. As I said above, you need both.

I find both very stimulating. A mysogynist might say that was because I am female - women love to prattle on about each other, while the men discuss the important things, don't they?

>That's what I thought as an English teacher, and I still think so now.

I still think (as I said in old debates) that good fiction is about people, and through those people you make the fiction about ideas. This goes back to our science fiction arguments, of course! Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Al' on Fri Jul 27 13:29:21 BST 2001:

>>Really, this is all faintly ridiculous. What you have just said seems eminently reasonable and insightful. Until, that is, you remember that you are applying it to Big Brother.
>
>That's a non-argument. How does this argument work for some things and not for Big Brother?

What I was trying to imply was that by using this kind of language you're 'blinding us with science' - i.e. wrapping something of no consequence up in critical language which takes us so far away from the subject (i.e. BB) that we forget how bad it is.
>
>You can't keep saying 'Yes, but it's BIG BROTHER!' as you have here and to Unruly Butler's arguments earlier. Elaborate!

That is not what I'm saying at all. (And indeed have never said outright - though I am somewhat incredulous that two people as clever and you and Butler enjoy such twaddle) You can't keep breaking into what I say, and temporarily ignore my reasons (which you then deal with later on in your response) whilst earlier pretending I don't have any. If you see what I mean.
>
>>The fact that nothing of consequence happens in Big Brother is not an intellectual challenge.
>
>It's not an *intellectual* challenge, no. That's not the only worthwhile kind of challenge, you know.
No. But you are implying IT IS. Do you see?

>It's a starting point for the viewer to engage themselves, to bring their own ideas and conceptions to what they are watching. How is that bad?
You could say that about anything on television, even the test card.

>>It is simply lazy, uninspired TV.
>
>Lazy does not necessarily equal bad. Unless you want to invoke the protestant work ethic in judging TV quality, you can't use that as an argument. Peter Cook was quite lazy in his way. BB is *not* Peter Cook, but it proves my point - laziness is not necessarily bad.

This is highly tricksy. Peter Cook was 'lazy' in one way, but immensely talented. You know damn well what I meant by lazy - a lack of ideas, creativity, imagination, effort. I can use it as an argument. Bad TV is not always lazy, but lazy TV is always bad because it is made by people who don't care about what they're doing or their audience.

>Uninspired... maybe. But as Unruly Butler was saying, the effects on the viewer are more important than the show itself. I feel that BB has justified itself by its effects on viewers, but I know you disagree with this.

Yes. This 'effect' you talk up is nothing. Who's going to remember Paul and Helen in six weeks, months, years? It adds up to absolutely nothing.

>I didn't say that it was the *point* of human society. To say that would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. It is rather an essential factor in the maintenance of human society - and yes, gossip is a part of that.

Fair enough. I misquoted you, but I did originally concede exactly what you say - there's nothing wrong with gossip.

>Of course it isn't all that people talk about, but it has a vital function in maintaining social groups. Talking about people rather than 'ideas' is something that a misogynistic acquaintance of mine once accused myself and my female friends of doing. We can do both, and in fact it is healthier to do both.

Of course we can (as I said). However, my point is that we gossip among people we know about people we know. What is the point of gossiping about people we do not know, who are deemed 'real' but are actually just people who desperately want to be on TV and have no talent. It's all rather depressing.

>It isn't 'sad', I find it quite heartwarming. It shows that we still value human relationships.

But we DON'T. We are 'valuing' (for about two weeks) pseudo relationships between shameless glory seekers.

> I'd hesitate to call them zeroes as well - you don't watch it, so you're not in a position to judge their personalities. I am suspicious of anyone who wants to go on something like BB, but then I'm suspicious of anyone who spends more time with videos than out of the house. It doesn't mean that they are 'zeroes'. That smacks of the worst kind of snobbery.

Ah. I see what you're doing there. Look, they are the worst kind of wannabes. They are not doing anything noble or worthwhile or even entertaining. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. (BTW Would you feel the same about someone who spent all their time reading books, rather than watching videos, than they do out of the house..?)
>>Besides, there are more stimualting things to discuss like society, ideas, culture, human endeavour, the state of television even.
>
>That's all very well, but to pretend that talking about those things is superior to talking about other people is misguided. They are different - they serve different purposes. As I said above, you need both.

Again, not what I said. I said that there is nothing wrong with gossip. It does have a social function. But I do not need TV to provide it. I have my own circle of friends with their own quirks and idiosyncracies. What TV should stimulate is ideas, it should provide us with challenges tha Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Al' on Fri Jul 27 13:35:05 BST 2001:

Oops...

>Again, not what I said. I said that there is nothing wrong with gossip. It does have a social function. But I do not need TV to provide it. I have my own circle of friends with their own quirks and idiosyncracies. What TV should stimulate is ideas, it should provide us with challenges, ideas and images that real life cannot provide. Otherwise what is the point of TV at all?

Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Al' on Fri Jul 27 13:38:17 BST 2001:

>I find both very stimulating. A mysogynist might say that was because I am female - women love to prattle on about each other, while the men discuss the important things, don't they?

Get out of it. That's not what I'm saying and you know it.

>>That's what I thought as an English teacher, and I still think so now.
>
>I still think (as I said in old debates) that good fiction is about people, and through those people you make the fiction about ideas. This goes back to our science fiction arguments, of course!

Even if I were to agree with that, do you really believe that BB is about 'people' and thence progresses to 'ideas'? Isn't just part of the tendency of people to seek celebrity status despite the fact that they have no talent? Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Radiator Head Child on Sat Jul 28 08:52:55 BST 2001:

I don't like Big Brother simply because you need an awful lot of time to watch it. On the other hand TV is supposed to be an escape from reality, hell even the news is entertaining, exaggerated, dynamic, (Ooh is that a Brass Eye comment...sorry), and I simply can't bring myself to watch something I could do myself, i.e. sit around eating toast and playing guitar badly.

There's my forty-three cents. Thanks to all involved, my keyboard was sponsered by McVites. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Unruly Butler on Sat Jul 28 10:11:37 BST 2001:

Hungover now.

Just had an evction night party that drew together loads of people, fans and non fans, Helenists, Brianites (and me bringing up the rear in my "Vote Dean" charabanc). The whole evening proved my point about participant TV better than I could ever argue. And the fireworks looked great.

What a brilliant night.

I love Big Brother if only because it allows me to host parties like that. A bunch of strangers being televised for ten weeks brought me closer to all my dear friends. How pure and lovely is that? What a smashing motive for fun, disposable television. "Everyone's Talking About It" indeed. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Al' on Sat Jul 28 15:05:50 BST 2001:

Couldn't you have just had the party anyway? I went to something similar based around the Eurovision song contest a few years ago. It was a great party - but that doesn't make the Eurovision exciting, ground-breaking TV, it just happened to be a very good party. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Steve Berry on Sat Jul 28 20:31:16 BST 2001:

>You know damn well what I meant by lazy - a lack of ideas, creativity, imagination, effort. I can use it as an argument. Bad TV is not always lazy, but lazy TV is always bad because it is made by people who don't care about what they're doing or their audience.

Well, I know the people who made Big Brother and they care a lot about what they're doing and their audience. FYI, they also care a lot about the people who were in the house and discuss the programme around the watercooler just like many others around the country. Accuse them of being misguided in their efforts if you must, but don't accuse them of a lack of effort.

As for the "lack of imagination" trope, pretty much everyone I've met in the media and new media (pah!) industries has said that BB was exactly the sort of programme that they would've wanted to make (for about five years now) but that Endemol got there first 'cos they were the ones prepared to back up the idea with cash. Everyone wanted to make this show, or a similar one (see Bravo's Dolls' House), because they thought it was a good idea.

This constant insistence by certain forum members that they "know" the motivations, efforts and "attitude" of people in the media without any actual proof, is beginning to grate. Oh, yes, I forgot, the programmes themselves are the proof, aren't they? 'Cos watching them immediately gives you insight into the state of mind of the producers, the commissioning processes behind them, the budgetary and legal wranglings and every other mediated step that TV shows have to go through before they even get to air.

This is not intended directly at you, Al, but I'm sick and tired of people acting like they have some kind of divine intelligence about how people in TV approach their work just because they've got a big ole video collection.

If you seriously think that the TV (and/or media industry) needs help and you know what to do about it, do a Robin Hood and get behind the hallowed walls of the meeja and work your magic from the inside. Standing outside the fortress and wringing your hands will do no-one any good.

And whoever it was who told me to resign in disgust at E4's new acquired programming: fuck right off. I'm coming round to your office on Monday to tell you how to do your job.

Hey, swearing can be fun! I understand why Justing does it now.

Cheerio Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Justin on Sat Jul 28 20:52:09 BST 2001:

So what you're saying is if we wanted to make Big Brother, TV companies would be falling over themselves to let us in.

But what if we didn't? What then?

Count my swearing in the Brass Eye thread.

Oh yes, and my reply to the Exciting E4 thread is in Old Topics, just in case anyone wants to bother to read it.

Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Steve Berry on Sat Jul 28 21:03:52 BST 2001:

>So what you're saying is if we wanted to make Big Brother, TV companies would be falling over themselves to let us in.

I think it's perfectly clear to any reasonable person what I'm saying, Justin. I have nothing to add and I don't think your 2+2=5 summation at the top there is useful.

>But what if we didn't? What then?

I'm saying fight for it. Make it work. Persevere. Five years ago, Justin, I was delivering stationary in a merchant bank. ("You should still be there" - Smart Arsed Respondee.) It isn't impossible to change things if you can actually be arsed to do something about it and are any good. Or, alternatively, you could just keep posting here and being picky and petty about people's arguments, like:

>Count my swearing in the Brass Eye thread.

The choice, as they say, is yours.

Cheerio Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Peter O'Toasterblast' on Sat Jul 28 21:21:22 BST 2001:

You should still be th-

D'oh.
Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Justin on Sat Jul 28 22:25:57 BST 2001:

>>So what you're saying is if we wanted to make Big Brother, TV companies would be falling over themselves to let us in.
>
>I think it's perfectly clear to any reasonable person what I'm saying, Justin. I have nothing to add and I don't think your 2+2=5 summation at the top there is useful.

I really wanted to let this go, but seeing as you can't resist continuing this spat, you are only interested in the arguments that you can end with the words "and I work in television so I should know". That is not an argument. Now would you like to answer my points on the Exciting E4 thread? I thought not.
>
>>But what if we didn't? What then?

>I'm saying fight for it. Make it work. Persevere.

I meant hypothetically speaking. Your argument translates as "You do better then!".

You make amazing assumptions for whatever ambitions I might have.

> Five years ago, Justin, I was delivering stationary in a merchant bank. ("You should still be there" - Smart Arsed Respondee.)

'Stationary' means standing still. You mean stationery with an 'e', I presume. At least spell that former job title correctly.

> It isn't impossible to change things if you can actually be arsed to do something about it and are any good. Or, alternatively, you could just keep posting here and being picky and petty about people's arguments, like:
>
>>Count my swearing in the Brass Eye thread.

That wasn't the point. I resent being described as someone who can't string two words together without developing Tourette's.
That was a reference to your even pettier little snipe at how much I supposedly like swearing. Not half as much as the little urchins lurking on here who've been squealing "Fight fight fight" every time they smell the slightest bit of disagreement. You all know who you are.

Steve, I appreciate you coming on here and all that, but for God's sake, do try and make your points without constantly trying to be so condescending. Al posted a perfectly reasonable message just up there, and your patronising response has made me baulk. You make no attempt to hide the fact that C4 and E4 is not interested in new writing or anything fictional, and your way of tackling arguments is selective to the point of rudeness.

There we are, not one rude word.

Apart from that, it's great to have you back. How *are* things at Horseferry Road?
Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Justin on Sat Jul 28 22:40:15 BST 2001:

Oh, and...


>As for the "lack of imagination" trope, pretty much everyone I've met in the media and new media (pah!) industries has said that BB was exactly the sort of programme that they would've wanted to make (for about five years now) but that Endemol got there first 'cos they were the ones prepared to back up the idea with cash. Everyone wanted to make this show, or a similar one (see Bravo's Dolls' House), because they thought it was a good idea.

But all that shows is that everyone's wandering round with the *same idea*. Are you all that tedious and unindividual that you have the same thought? What's wrong with the media world? Is no-one allowed to have a thought of their own? That suggests they aren't. I've never met anyone who thought it would be a good idea to make Big Brother. I've met loads of people who wanted to write or direct films, write comedies, act and so on. Where are all these people in the media now? Are they just surplus to requirements?

>This constant insistence by certain forum members that they "know" the motivations, efforts and "attitude" of people in the media without any actual proof, is beginning to grate. Oh, yes, I forgot, the programmes themselves are the proof, aren't they?

That discounts all your viewers then. Nice of you.
Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Steve Berry on Sat Jul 28 22:50:01 BST 2001:

>I really wanted to let this go, but seeing as you can't resist continuing this spat, you are only interested in the arguments that you can end with the words "and I work in television so I should know". That is not an argument. Now would you like to answer my points on the Exciting E4 thread? I thought not.

What were my exact words again? "I'm sick and tired of people acting like they have some kind of divine intelligence about how people in TV approach their work just because they've got a big ole video collection". In actual fact, Justin, I'm not interested in continuing this spat (contradiction in terms, posting that, I know). I only argue when I know I can do so from the standpoint of having some knowledge on the subject. I will now develop an interest in arguing about things I can't address.

>I meant hypothetically speaking. Your argument translates as "You do better then!".

No. It amounts to "you'll get nowhere complaining on this forum".

>You make amazing assumptions for whatever ambitions I might have.

Not at all. I made no such assumptions. I was speaking to the general audience, as you were.

>'Stationary' means standing still. You mean stationery with an 'e', I presume. At least spell that former job title correctly.

I cannot believe that you actually picked up on that in the same post that you accuse me of being petty in! But I'm glad you did.

>That wasn't the point. I resent being described as someone who can't string two words together without developing Tourette's.

Brilliantly wild exaggeration of my point. You have (elsewhere on this forum) been accused of becoming aggressive and abusive in your posts. And, to be honest, it did feel good to tell someone to fuck off instead of addressing them in an intelligent way.

>Not half as much as the little urchins lurking on here who've been squealing "Fight fight fight" every time they smell the slightest bit of disagreement. You all know who you are.

It's one of those forums that does attract butters-in, I'll grant you that.

>Steve, I appreciate you coming on here and all that, but for God's sake, do try and make your points without constantly trying to be so condescending.

Hey, I don't try. It comes naturally to me.

>Al posted a perfectly reasonable message just up there, and your patronising response has made me baulk.

Yeah, and I was a bit upset at his unfounded assertions aimed at the BB2 producers. But, my further points, as pointed out in that mail, were aimed at a wider audience.

>You make no attempt to hide the fact that C4 and E4 is not interested in new writing or anything fictional,

Wha? I can't even begin to imagine where you acquired this wide-of-the-mark nugget.
Seriously, this makes me wonder exactly how I'm coming across in text.
>and your way of tackling arguments is selective to the point of rudeness.

Well, I tend not to respond to stuff I a) know nothing about, or b) agree with. It'd be nice if a few more people round here did that too.

>Apart from that, it's great to have you back. How *are* things at Horseferry Road?

Bomb threats, bomb threats, bomb threats. It's good to be back.

Cheerio

P.S. I thought the E4 thread was over and done with. ISTR you said something about being fed up with the discussion... "rejoice" or somesuch. I only caught it in passing. I didn't have anything to add really. I don't think you've got a point. I respect your right to an opinion, but I don't share your opinions. I'll go back and look at it to see if I should change my mind. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Steve Berry on Sat Jul 28 22:59:23 BST 2001:

>>This constant insistence by certain forum members that they "know" the motivations, efforts and "attitude" of people in the media without any actual proof, is beginning to grate. Oh, yes, I forgot, the programmes themselves are the proof, aren't they?
>
>That discounts all your viewers then. Nice of you.

No. I respect and give time to those viewers who say "here's my opinion on the work" not "here's my opinion on the attitude and motivations of the people who produce the work". For example, there's a world of difference between "Brass Eye Special looked rushed" and "Brass Eye Special looked rushed because all that the people who work in TV are lazy" or words to that effect. Of course, out there in the real world it'd be more like "Brass Eye Special looked like the work of sick perverts". Which is nonsense. Both are nonsense.

You're just as guilty of selective quoting in your responses, Justin. In fact, when I was accused of same before I stayed in work for the whole bloody night to address all of TJ's points one-by-one. Which was stupid of me; it's become clear that there is no point in trying to change your (and TJ's) opinions. Which I said before, and was accused of telling everyone to stop arguing with me.

Perhaps *I* should just try to stop justifying the company I work for and not rise to the bait. But, y'know, I'm proud of C4's output, on the whole. I do have misgivings about some of the programmes but, until I'm in a position to do something about it, I'm not going to waste my energy berating anyone loosely connected with them.

Cheerio Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Steve Berry on Sat Jul 28 23:27:58 BST 2001:

>Oh yes, and my reply to the Exciting E4 thread is in Old Topics, just in case anyone wants to bother to read it.

The wish-list of the types of programmes C4 should be making? In your opinion. I agree with some of them, and not others. The C4 remit doesn't specify in that amount of detail particular types of programme (and/or formats) that have to be made.

I can get the contact names of the people in the various departments who head up each area you specify, if you think that addressing them direct is a more productive manoeuvre. Actually, I think you can find out for yourself on the C4 web site.

Cheerio Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Steve Berry on Sat Jul 28 23:33:58 BST 2001:

>But all that shows is that everyone's wandering round with the *same idea*.

Yeah? And what's the big deal with that?

>Are you all that tedious and unindividual that you have the same thought? What's wrong with the media world? Is no-one allowed to have a thought of their own?

What on earth are you prattling on about? Are you suggesting that my comment implied that this was the *only* idea people were having? Er, not my point. And a strange inference.

>That suggests they aren't. I've never met anyone who thought it would be a good idea to make Big Brother.

Never heard anyone say "What a great programme! I wish I'd been a part of it." or similar? Fair enough.

>I've met loads of people who wanted to write or direct films, write comedies, act and so on. Where are all these people in the media now? Are they just surplus to requirements?

No. There are plenty of them. I'm not sure what your point is. In fact, if you know people who want to write/produce comedy for the web, send 'em my way. If they're any good, I'd want to work with them.

Why do I keep replying to these posts, I ask myself.

Cheerio Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Steve Berry on Sat Jul 28 23:34:43 BST 2001:

>Why do I keep replying to these posts, I ask myself.

Oh, I know. It's so I can see my name repeated in the thread! Ego-a-go-go. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'ollie' on Sat Jul 28 23:37:46 BST 2001:

>And whoever it was who told me to resign in disgust at E4's new acquired programming: fuck right off. I'm coming round to your office on Monday to tell you how to do your job.

ah, if only i had a job. then i wouldn't hang around here all day.
Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Justin on Sun Jul 29 09:06:11 BST 2001:

Steve:

You set yourself up as representative for all of C4 when Mike4SOTCAA quite rightly said weeks ago that the Brass Eye repeat did not change Channel 4's ethos one iota. He did not call you a fuckwit personally, and I don't think anyone else has. (I, on the other hand, have been called a wanker personally several times by anons this week. Is it my fault? Ah, that'll be my opinion...)

I am now in the position (as are a few others) of barely daring to mention a programme on Channel 4 just in case the usual trouble flares up again - an innocent dismissal of Metrosexuality I made on some thread was seen as a dig at you. Which it wasn't - you almost certainly had no involvement in its making, and besides, I'm not on this forum to make enemies. Really, I'm not. But I'm here to say what I think, and whether it changes anything or not is not the issue.

And I'm sorry, but a lot of what you say on here is pure defensiveness. You do assume we don't know what we're talking about far too often. But I'm absolutely buggered if I'm going to pretend to like something on Channel 4 simply because it might ruin your day if I said something negative. Actually, maybe I'll write to Right To Reply and complain. Oops, the marvellous Channel 4 axed it, didn't it? Oh well, I'm sure they had their reasons.

Why is negative opinion considered so much more damaging than positive opinion? I've been to the Reach4 site and even people complaining about the Brass Eye special being below-par rather than offensive has led to "Huh, Mr Sad" type responses. (Yes, I did leave a message, yes it was a bit like the trillion messages I've left on here about it, so no-one need bother looking for it.) The thing is, if I said Channel 4 was a marvellous station in the 21st century, no-one would be asking for factual evidence then. Funny, that.

Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Tom Adams on Sun Jul 29 09:25:31 BST 2001:

>I am now in the position (as are a few others) of barely daring to mention a programme on Channel 4 just in case the usual trouble flares up again - an innocent dismissal of Metrosexuality I made on some thread was seen as a dig at you. Which it wasn't - you almost certainly had no involvement in its making, and besides, I'm not on this forum to make enemies. Really, I'm not. But I'm here to say what I think, and whether it changes anything or not is not the issue.


That was me. And it was a joke. I don't know if you remember the parallel, Steve, but I said that I don't defend the NHS, and openly admit that it's rubbish. Now, nobody's sayign Channel 4's rubbish, obviously. But a little flexibility mgiht just give your comments more credibility.

Don't get me wrong (and credibility was entirely the wrong word to use), but it does at times appaer that you're putting the official line forward at times. Obviously, you don't love everything C4 or E4 put out. It does seem that way sometimes.

You did have the good form to criticise Metrosexuality, though. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Tom Adams on Sun Jul 29 09:35:29 BST 2001:

Not an attack, in case it seemed that way. Sorry if it did. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Al' on Sun Jul 29 14:27:31 BST 2001:

>Well, I know the people who made Big Brother and they care a lot about what they're doing and their audience. FYI, they also care a lot about the people who were in the house and discuss the programme around the watercooler just like many others around the country. Accuse them of being misguided in their efforts if you must, but don't accuse them of a lack of effort.

Of course they care about the people in the house - it's their cash cow. Don't try and kid me that anyone with an ounce of compassion or respect for humanity could have concocted or maintained Big Brother. I'm sure the producers are all very nice people personally, but that is not the point. The lack of effort is not in physical work, but in thought and creativity. The only possible reason anyone could have been enthusiastic about BB is that it is generated publicity for C4. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but it is a problem when its the only purpose of the show. And please - knock it on the head with all this 'watercooler' nonsense. This is meeja speak at its worst.

>As for the "lack of imagination" trope... Everyone wanted to make this show, or a similar one (see Bravo's Dolls' House), because they thought it was a good idea.

As Justin said, this does not prove anything, other than that loads of people had the same sentationalist, life-cheapening, piss-poor idea. Big Brother is a show that displays no imagination, creativity or challenge whatsoever. If it's just crass, shallow populist brightly coloured rubbish, fine, but admit it is so, don't make it out to be something it is not (as Michael Jackson laughably did in The Observer today).

>Oh, yes, I forgot, the programmes themselves are the proof, aren't they? 'Cos watching them immediately gives you insight into the state of mind of the producers, the commissioning processes behind them, the budgetary and legal wranglings and every other mediated step that TV shows have to go through before they even get to air.
You may not like it, but as we don't get to hang out with the producers and editors of these shows, then the programmes *are* the proof. And why not? If I produced something crass and stupid to make money, I wouldn't get very far by protesting that actually I work very hard, and I'm a really decent bloke who you'd probably like if you met me socially. I am not denying that actual physical work goes on to make progs like Big Brother, but that the conception of these shows is steeped in cynicism and a lack of interest in genuinely exciting television.

>This is not intended directly at you, Al, but I'm sick and tired of people acting like they have some kind of divine intelligence about how people in TV approach their work just because they've got a big ole video collection.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. People like Justin and myself are viewers. C4 is there to serve us, not the other way round. If I think what they're doing is lamentable then I'll damn well say so, and I have every right to do so. It's nothing to do with having a big video collection.
>If you seriously think that the TV (and/or media industry) needs help and you know what to do about it, do a Robin Hood and get behind the hallowed walls of the meeja and work your magic from the inside. Standing outside the fortress and wringing your hands will do no-one any good.

Rubbish. This is such a non argument. If you are treated badly by a plumber you do not go and train to be a plumber. If a hospital screws up your operation you do not become a doctor. As a viewer, I have a right to complain, and expect better from C4. Whatever you say, shows like Big Brother do not form part of C4's remit. If it was on once a week (like Treasure Hunt!) then it might not be so bad, but the wall to wall treatment (it even got on C4 news for Christ's sake) is unforgivable
Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Al' on Sun Jul 29 14:44:30 BST 2001:

... and is it just me, or is it spectaculalry cock-eyed that on this thread the 'sceptics' are those who think BB is fantastic and those dissenting are seen as spouting received opinion? Funny, because if you have read a newspaper at all over the last few weeks you'd think exactly the opposite...

It all smacks a little of those articles in the right-wing press that claim we live in some kind of poitically correct dictatorship and that white, middle-class men are an oppressed minority. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Justin on Sun Jul 29 14:50:37 BST 2001:

The way I look at it, if you love a programme and all that it stands for, there are countless forums on which you can squeak about its excellence. People won't shut up about BB anywhere else, and I object to the idea that I have to keep my views to myself on this forum. If I clogged up the E4 or Reach4 Forums with vitriol, you might have a point, Steve, but I don't. I'm a far more regular contributor to this forum than you are, and a lot of the snipers that are chuckling in your wake.

They are my opinions and will remain so, whatever you or anyone else thinks. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By TJ on Sun Jul 29 15:12:14 BST 2001:

Steve:

Am I involved in this debate? No.

So why drag my name into it?

As it happens I have plenty to say about Big Brother, but I have opted to stay out of this and use my postings to talk about The Goodies and XTC instead while the risk exists that my big shouty voice might make a few people cry.

So until such time as I throw my views into the arena, please leave me out of it. Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Mogwai on Sun Jul 29 15:29:44 BST 2001:

> Everyone wanted to make this show, or a similar one (see Bravo's Dolls' House), because they thought it was a good idea.

"But your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think about whether they SHOULD."

-- Dr Ian Malcolm Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'Peter O'Toasterblast' on Sun Jul 29 16:04:33 BST 2001:

"All the housemates in Big Brother 2002 are female."
Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By 'ollie' on Sun Jul 29 19:01:10 BST 2001:

i didn't intend it to be a big brother thread, it just seemed that everyone on SOTCAA liked chris morris and hated big brother, obviously thats not true. i love both by the way.

>... and is it just me, or is it spectaculalry cock-eyed that on this thread the 'sceptics' are those who think BB is fantastic and those dissenting are seen as spouting received opinion? Funny, because if you have read a newspaper at all over the last few weeks you'd think exactly the opposite...
>
>It all smacks a little of those articles in the right-wing press that claim we live in some kind of poitically correct dictatorship and that white, middle-class men are an oppressed minority.

Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By Steve Berry on Sun Jul 29 21:24:23 BST 2001:

>So until such time as I throw my views into the arena, please leave me out of it.

Ah, but come on, now. It worked , didn't it?
Subject: Re: sceptics of the world unite!
Posted By TJ on Sun Jul 29 21:29:34 BST 2001:

>>So until such time as I throw my views into the arena, please leave me out of it.
>
>Ah, but come on, now. It worked , didn't it?

Boom boom.