Kay Easton wrote in message ...
In article , Culturalenigma
writes
[...]
Not to be rude or anything - but you go to the library or school to be
educated. There IS no ulterior motive other than learning with schools and
educational halls. With television, there's only the bottom line: Money.

That's why Britain has an independent (-ish) broadcaster paid for by a
trifling public levy. The BBC isn't a money-making organisation, it's
a break-even organisation. And, yes, we *do* expect to be educated by
radio and TV: even commercial TV makes a few token gestures to the
brain cells, especially when their licences are nearly due for renewal
(there's a quality requirement in the British licensing process).

[...]
Attractiveness sells. So What? IF they honestly know their stuff, should
they be automatically tossed aside BECAUSE they are attractive? That sounds
like it's "exclusive" to me.

But young gardeners just *don't* know their stuff, except perhaps in
some narrow specialist field: it takes years to be knowledgeable
enough to give useful advice to average gardeners. Look at the
embarrassingly vulgar un-gardens turned out by Charlie Dimwit and good
ol' brickie Tommy Walsh: they're out of their depth.

[...]I think what Janet is querying is the
stereotype given by our TV programmes that the only people worth
listening to are those who are attractive. I don't know if it is still
true, but about 10 years ago, every US presidential campaign since about
the beginning of the 20th century had been won by the taller candidate.
Do you really think taller people have more of the characteristics
needed to make a good president?

And it's getting that way here, too. When there's a party leadership
contest, the pundits often now mention the candidates' looks -- Robin
Cook looks like a gnome, Haig and Duncan-Smith are bald, etc: I
personally find this deeply insulting (to me).

Mike.