Let's face it, there are few ways this could have worked with a happy ending. The ending we did get, was anti-climatic but perhaps one of the best ways it could have worked out. Let's look at the options (from their suggestions): Laura- no way. Amanda- possibility. Ziggy- I feel it would have been a poisoned chalice for him. I was surprised they didn't deliberate more, but Liam was a non offensive choice, and I don't think people will turn against him. He's such a bore though- YAWN. Buy a new baseball cap. They WILL turn against Carole, Seany and Jonathan, however. I would have maybe given it to Tracey. I want Gerry to win, and he couldn't have won with that money hanging over him.
Aside from the loser-at-the-Oscars smiles, Charley's 'what reason did you choose him for?' summed her up to a tee. As if they were going to give it to you, you grasping mare.
All in all it seems a big fat waste of 100K that they could have spent on making the show a bit better. They literally must have money to burn.
In other news, Carole ruined the whole moment by monaing about a towel for the thousandth time. Why would ANYONE want to keep her in? I'm sick of looking at her sour face. I want to punch it, to be honest with you. Dear God, please release her.
Anyway, I won't be here to see it, as I'm off to Glastonbury tomorrow. Pray for sun and look out for me, I'll be the one with the frog umbrella. Good luck with that.
I will be Sky-Plussing and will catch up next week. Keep Seany in! I know he put a condom on Gerry's bear but he didn't mean it and I'm sure he's sorry!
2 comments:
This is an extract from Tony Blairs recent speech. The one about 'feral media'. Drag yourself away from that box in the corner (with the moving pictures) for two minutes and see if you can spot the potential implications for bloggers such as yourself:
“They need to re-assert their own selling point: the distinction between news and comment.
And there is inevitably change on its way.
The regulatory framework at some point will need revision. The PCC is for traditional newspaper publishing. OFCOM regulate broadcasting, except for the BBC, which largely has its own system of regulation. But under the new European regulations all television streamed over the internet may be covered by OFCOM. As the technology blurs the distinction between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can be differentiated in the old way.
How this is done is an open question and, of course, the distinction between balance required of broadcasters but not of papers remains valid. But at some point the system is going to change and the importance of accuracy will not diminish, whilst the freedom to comment remains.
It is sometimes said that the media is accountable daily through the choice of readers and viewers. That is true up to a point. But the reality is that the viewers or readers have no objective yardstick to measure what they are being told. In every other walk of life in our society that exercises power, there are external forms of accountability, not least through the media itself. So it is true politicians are accountable through the ballot box every few years. But they are also profoundly accountable, daily, through the media, which is why a free press is so important.
I am not in a position to determine this one way or another. But a way needs to be found.”
(No, it isn't succinct.)
And yes, you might be right, if you managed to drag yourself away from jaded television for a whole two minutes. I applaud your attention span.
Did he imply that we need proper regulation of internet media (including bloggers, as in the distinction between comment and news)? You’d better hope not, because that might be far more important that big f’ing brother.
Or to the point, it might actually be big f’ing brother.
What do I know? Admittedly less than you, but only with regard to insignificant topics.
What's worse: someone who enjoys watching and commentating on television, or someone who reads someone's comments and deems them insignificant? I do get out of the house on occasion, but mostly it's a bit scary.
As for your other point, I'm sure the internet will become more regulated in future. But freedom of speech will always find a way. At the moment it's a free for all, and long may that continue.
Post a Comment