On 14/02/2013 19:03, David Rance wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 Sacha wrote:

Don't you think the people who watch the programmes and actually do
garden, are those most qualified to criticise? Certainly, changes
were made to GW because so many people disliked the format of 3 or 4
presenters all pretending to be the best of friends in a shed. And
when plenty was said on here (and elsewhere) about the way Chelsea was
being turned into a celeb slot, that format altered for the better, too.

Of course, you may well be right that the problems start with the
editing and direction, much of which seems to be done by people who
know little about gardening and care less about the target audience! I
think there's a lot of truth in that and the 'talent' doesn't always
get what he or she wants. But if you take this to its conclusion,
there would be no art, theatre or literary critics, merely on the
grounds that they're not professionals. And the people making and
fronting the programmes are paid good salaries to do it, while we pay
to watch (in most cases). Surely the paying customer has a right to
criticise a product that isn't delivering what they think it should? I
don't agree with ripping someone to shreds for the sake of it but I
think criticism that's constructive is a good thing and can be effective.

I completely agree with you, providing that criticism is based on fact.
Of course we have a right to criticise. And if the programme we are
watching doesn't provide us with what we find useful then, fair enough,
let the broadcasters know. And you're right, it has made a difference.

Such a programme is Gardeners' World. The programme makers have tried
different formats in the past to try to appeal to different kinds of
audiences. We know what we want to get out of the programme and so we
are within our rights to complain if we don't get it, if, that is, we
are the target audience. The presenters who have achieved greatest
popularity are those with experience, common sense, and an ability to
impart knowledge without "talking down" to us, people like Percy
Thrower, Geoff Hamilton, etc.

Monty, although not lacking enthusiasm, had not proved to be a very good
presenter of Gardeners' World, mainly, I think, on account of his lack
of experience. He got a lot of stick here and probably deserved it. He
didn't last very long.

But his series on the history of French gardens is a different matter.
He has tried to explain the difference in approach that the French and
the British have to gardening both large and small scale, both formal
and informal. It may not be what urglers want - but you can't please all
of the people all the time.

I suppose what made me cross was that a few people here hadn't watched
the programme properly and, as a result, were making sarcastic
criticisms that were not based on fact, as, for instance, in the matter
of whether the onions were "best" or "sweet". The programme, and Monty,
had their faults. (e.g. saying that the cucumber, because it was
bitter, was unripe. Yes, that was crass.) But on the whole there was a
great deal of very enjoyable content, showing me things that I hadn't
known before and confirming some of the things I did know.

David

But actualy Monty is right, we don't eat ripe cucumbers, we pick them
immature and eat them that way.
Just think about it for a minute.
Hard for some of you to admit it.
BUT HE IS RIGHT.