"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
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:

The BBC charter still contains the statement of purpose "to inform,
educate and entertain".

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).


didn't know that about the BBC, interesting.


[...]
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.

Well, interestingly enough, Charlie and Tommy don't design the gardens, teh
home owners do. At least here anyway. And I'm not so sure you have right
answer. The truth is it depends on who you are, what you have done, how you
grew up and what your influences were. I don't know much about farming in
the UK, but I grew up on and off of farms. My grandfather sold produce off
the back of a wagon. I'm only 30. Not all gardening is done for Country
Home Gardens.

I've sold quite a few garden designs in my husbands company. I have no
degree. I have no specialised field (although I AM learning pond
installation with boulders and foundation laying). I do NOT disagree that
it takes experience and time to learn these things, but what if they are
something you grew up with?

Just a debateable point...... )

[...]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).


Yea, thats really irritating. I liked Clinton, but truth be told, most of
my friends voted for him because he was on MTV, was cool, and was cute. We
all wondered about his wife though...

Then his girlfriend.

Then his other girlfriend (who beat them in looks hands down....)

Sigh.

Trai

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).


didn't know that about the BBC, interesting.


[...]
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.

Well, interestingly enough, Charlie and Tommy don't design the gardens, teh
home owners do. At least here anyway. And I'm not so sure you have right
answer. The truth is it depends on who you are, what you have done, how you
grew up and what your influences were. I don't know much about farming in
the UK, but I grew up on and off of farms. My grandfather sold produce off
the back of a wagon. I'm only 30. Not all gardening is done for Country
Home Gardens.

I've sold quite a few garden designs in my husbands company. I have no
degree. I have no specialised field (although I AM learning pond
installation with boulders and foundation laying). I do NOT disagree that
it takes experience and time to learn these things, but what if they are
something you grew up with?

Just a debateable point...... )

[...]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).


Yea, thats really irritating. I liked Clinton, but truth be told, most of
my friends voted for him because he was on MTV, was cool, and was cute. We
all wondered about his wife though...

Then his girlfriend.

Then his other girlfriend (who beat them in looks hands down....)

Sigh.

Trai

(snip)


You might, but you live in the land of trash TV and don't speak for
me. I prefer to be interested and stimulated.

I live in the land of trash tv???????? ooook. I think I was speaking of
BBC - is this trash tv? Am I missing something? I wasn't talking about
Mtv? Are we on the same page? Can you not be entertained, interested, and
stimulated at the same time? I just watched a lovely show about lightening.
Very educational but the truth is, I watched it to be ENTERTAINED. If I
wanted to stimulate my brain I would read a book or do a puzzle.

Not to be rude or anything - but you go to the library or school to be
educated.
You're mistaken there. Not to be rude or anything, but don't you know
that libraries include a vast range of literature, poetry and culture
which is entertaining and exciting?

Grrr.. OK. Breath Tracie. Ok. Who, may I ask, said that being educated
ISN'T and SHOULDN'T be entertaining and exciting????? I was just pointing
out that the main point behind a library or school is to educate. Whether
that education is in poetry, or reading "My Sister Carrie" or checking out a
DIY book, it's still education. Children learn from reading fiction. They
can "experience" things they would never in their life ever have a chance
to.


There IS no ulterior motive other than learning with schools and
educational halls.

No? What about social, physical and intellectual experiment and
development?

Is that not "learning" in bigger words??????

With television, there's only the bottom line: Money. And the truth is,
sex sells.

Prostitutes and pornographers certainly think so; but many people
don't find that kind of sex (or television) either stimulating or
satisfying.

Well, yes. I can agree here. I'm just saying that whether or not we agree,
that's what producers these days think.


In other words, you agree with me that a presenters career should not
depend upon their looks.

Janet.

YES. And they should not be discounted as trivial, stupid, vapid, or
anythign else if they happen to be attractive. That was my whole point. I"m
all for tossing out "looks" as a requirement or a deterrent.

Trai

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Culturalenigma" contains these words:

Lost sight of whose saying what! But, whoever said:

I'm only interested in how well presenters know their topic and how
clearly they can communicate to viewers and to anyone else in the
studio. When TV was new, and presenters were mostly drawn from radio,
they were not selected for their looks.

I would agree with this because in media communication is *very* important!

I not only do I get fed up with botox injected and liposuctioned female on
TV, and the emphasis on young presenters , I am also fed up with the very
thick accents and lisps these people have.

I am not against accents. I have one myself, but some of these speech
impediments and accents are so strong they detract from the presenters
ability ot communicate!
Dairmud gavin for example - I cannt understand what he says!
Joe Swift , Beardshaw and others have varying degrees of lisp! Again I find
myself so concentrated on the way they are saying things , trying to
decipher them, I cant hear what they actually say.

And Any and Dec , although not gardeners, come into this category.

AT had an accent, but you can listen and *hear* him because his accent was
not intrusive.
Monty Don is similar.

Subject: new thread alan titchmarsh subject
From: Kay Easton
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 08:27:04 +0100

In article , Culturalenigma
writes

Janet B wrote:

I don't agree; imho it's socially exclusive and boring. It's also
insidiously detrimental when TV continually dins in the ghastly message
that "looking nice" is more important than effort, skill or character.

Socially exclusive of whom? Unattractive people?

Older women for a start.
We have progresses. I remember when it was considered that women did not
have sufficient gravitas to read the news. Now the news is read by young
men, older men, and young women.

Depends what you call 'young', but isn't Anna Ford who does the BBC 6:00pm News
almost 60? Not what I call young, and she seems an attractive person.


Not to be rude or anything - but you go to the library or school to be
educated.

Sorry, but I think that is wide of the mark. Although one may watch/listen to
a particular programme to learn something, or read a book, education is much
more than that. It means taking an interest in almost anything that you know
nothing/little about, and thus increasing one's knowledge. Of course many
TV/radio progs are principally to attract viewers/listeners. ITV want to
attract advertisers. The BBC have to compete. If it became a narrow elistist
group how long before Murdoch would get into the arena? Even the works of
Shakespeare were written as pot-boilers.

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.

Most good presenters know how to explain their subject to a wide audiance, or
to enthuse thenm wirth some their passion forn the subject. If they are
'attractive' then so much the better. Would you call Fred Dibnah 'attractive'?

I think the truth is that many people think they are demonstrating some sort of
superiority by rubbishing the latest range of presenters. The fact is, you
can't please everybody, and most people like them. You will always get most
comment from those who do not like something.

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?

Many would say that the current incumbent proves the point admirably.

I am mainly a lurker on this NG. However, I have noticed that there are always
more posting about topics with only a vague relationship with gardening. Many
of these posts are to complain that there is not enough gardening!! This topic
started of by an innocent post from somebody who was starting an AT fan club,
an look at the furore it has generated. Don't ell me about those wonderful,
caring, understanding gardening folk.

AT and all the others should take solace in the saying that goes something like
'disgree, criticise, etc but what you do, don't ignore me!'. Or perhaps 'all
publicity is good publicity'.


Peter Bridge

In article , BridgeP
writes
Subject: new thread alan titchmarsh subject
From: Kay Easton


We have progresses. I remember when it was considered that women did not
have sufficient gravitas to read the news. Now the news is read by young
men, older men, and young women.

Depends what you call 'young', but isn't Anna Ford who does the BBC 6:00pm News
almost 60? Not what I call young, and she seems an attractive person.

She is a rare exception, and you notice she has worked hard to stay
looking young - I don't for a minute think theat hair colour is natural.
Ditto Joan bakewell and Anne Robinson, two other oldies.


Most good presenters know how to explain their subject to a wide audiance, or
to enthuse thenm wirth some their passion forn the subject. If they are
'attractive' then so much the better. Would you call Fred Dibnah 'attractive'?

Until recently, a woman of comparable attractiveness to Fred Dibnah
would have been almost impossible to see as a presenter. (Someone is
about to say 'two fat ladies')


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

(BridgeP) wrote in message ...
[...]
I think the truth is that many people think they are demonstrating some sort of
superiority by rubbishing the latest range of presenters. The fact is, you
can't please everybody, and most people like them. You will always get most
comment from those who do not like something.

Well, who wants to read a newsgroup where every post says "You are so
right"? You're disagreeing yourself, after all.

[...]
I am mainly a lurker on this NG. However, I have noticed that there are always
more posting about topics with only a vague relationship with gardening. Many
of these posts are to complain that there is not enough gardening!! This topic
started of by an innocent post from somebody who was starting an AT fan club,
an look at the furore it has generated. Don't ell me about those wonderful,
caring, understanding gardening folk.

What's the problem with discussion? that's what I come here for. This
isn't a mutual support group for the insecure who need to be told
positive things all the time!

AT and all the others should take solace in the saying that goes something like
'disgree, criticise, etc but what you do, don't ignore me!'. Or perhaps 'all
publicity is good publicity'.

Well, yes. And I doubt very much if AT gives a flying one. But in this
thread I haven't noticed many messages which didn't give reasons for
what the posters thought. And in fairness, the discussion has *not*
been irrelevant to gardening: are we content to have the public
informed about gardening by people whose prime qualification may not
be their gardening experience? Do we want programmes that tell us
something we didn't know already? I think that's perfectly relevant.
You also seem a bit unfair in suggesting that most urg discussions
aren't about gardening: I reckon people here stick to the point pretty
well.

Mike.

snip

I am mainly a lurker on this NG. However, I have noticed that there are
always
more posting about topics with only a vague relationship with gardening.
Many
of these posts are to complain that there is not enough gardening!! This
topic
started of by an innocent post from somebody who was starting an AT fan
club,
an look at the furore it has generated. Don't ell me about those
wonderful,
caring, understanding gardening folk.

AT and all the others should take solace in the saying that goes something
like
'disgree, criticise, etc but what you do, don't ignore me!'. Or perhaps
'all
publicity is good publicity'.


Peter Bridge

Well, it's good to have you Peter. I"m that someone that started a fan
club. I have gotten slammed quite heavily by some posters here, but I have
also received very warm welcomes from A LOT of others. My opinions may not
be mainstream, but that's ok. I don't mind if everyone else is mis-informed
;o) LOL, just kidding!!!

Thanks a bunch -
Trai

Kay Easton wrote in message ...
In article , BridgeP
writes
[...]
Would you call Fred Dibnah 'attractive'?

Until recently, a woman of comparable attractiveness to Fred Dibnah
would have been almost impossible to see as a presenter. (Someone is
about to say 'two fat ladies')

I remember my father telling me that El Al did some research on what
people wanted air stewardesses to be like and a significant number
said they favoured the motherly type rather than the dolly-bird
cultivar.

Our culture is artificially skewed: we take gardening advice from our
mothers, after all.

Mike.

Kay Easton wrote in message ...
In article , BridgeP
writes
[...]
Would you call Fred Dibnah 'attractive'?

Until recently, a woman of comparable attractiveness to Fred Dibnah
would have been almost impossible to see as a presenter. (Someone is
about to say 'two fat ladies')

I remember my father telling me that El Al did some research on what
people wanted air stewardesses to be like and a significant number
said they favoured the motherly type rather than the dolly-bird
cultivar.

Our culture is artificially skewed: we take gardening advice from our
mothers, after all.

Mike.

In article , Mike Lyle
writes
Kay Easton wrote in message news:1yvccaFWXfW$Ewg5@sc
arboro.demon.co.uk...
In article , BridgeP
writes
[...]
Would you call Fred Dibnah 'attractive'?

Until recently, a woman of comparable attractiveness to Fred Dibnah
would have been almost impossible to see as a presenter. (Someone is
about to say 'two fat ladies')

I remember my father telling me that El Al did some research on what
people wanted air stewardesses to be like and a significant number
said they favoured the motherly type rather than the dolly-bird
cultivar.

Our culture is artificially skewed: we take gardening advice from our
mothers, after all.


And not our fathers? Interesting - my experience is that the women are
the plantswomen (famous male examples notwithstanding) and the men are
trusted with areas like lawns where they can't go too disastrously wrong
;-)

And now I'm going to be yelled at by all the knowledgeable male
gardeners on this group!

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Kay Easton wrote in message ...
In article , Mike Lyle
writes
[...]
Our culture is artificially skewed: we take gardening advice from our
mothers, after all.


And not our fathers? Interesting - my experience is that the women are
the plantswomen (famous male examples notwithstanding) and the men are
trusted with areas like lawns where they can't go too disastrously wrong
[...]

Well, I mentioned only mothers because we were talking about women.
You may be right, but I haven't really noticed much difference between
the gardening skills of the sexes. Though I admit that when I was a
boy my father was indeed thevegetable and tree parent, while my mother
was the ornamentals one. We kids had to do the hedges and lawns.

Mike.

In article , "Culturalenigma"
writes:

Subject: new thread alan titchmarsh subject
From: "Culturalenigma"
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:13:21 -0400

snip

I am mainly a lurker on this NG. However, I have noticed that there are
always
more posting about topics with only a vague relationship with gardening.
Many
of these posts are to complain that there is not enough gardening!! This
topic
started of by an innocent post from somebody who was starting an AT fan
club,
an look at the furore it has generated. Don't ell me about those
wonderful,
caring, understanding gardening folk.

AT and all the others should take solace in the saying that goes something
like
'disgree, criticise, etc but what you do, don't ignore me!'. Or perhaps
'all
publicity is good publicity'.


Peter Bridge

Well, it's good to have you Peter. I"m that someone that started a fan
club. I have gotten slammed quite heavily by some posters here, but I have
also received very warm welcomes from A LOT of others. My opinions may not
be mainstream, but that's ok. I don't mind if everyone else is mis-informed
;o) LOL, just kidding!!!

Thanks a bunch -
Trai

Hi Trai

I wish you every success. I am not particularly an AT fan but I support fully
those who are, and equally those who are not. Provided nobody tries to force
their opinions on me I don't really care. My local public house (to reopen
soon) is called the Live and Let Live. A good motto I think.

Peter Bridge

In article ,
(Mike Lyle) writes:

Subject: new thread alan titchmarsh subject
From: (Mike Lyle)
Date: 6 Sep 2003 11:20:35 -0700

(BridgeP) wrote in message
...
[...]
I think the truth is that many people think they are demonstrating some
sort of
superiority by rubbishing the latest range of presenters. The fact is, you
can't please everybody, and most people like them. You will always get
most
comment from those who do not like something.

Well, who wants to read a newsgroup where every post says "You are so
right"? You're disagreeing yourself, after all.

I don't either. The point I was making was that many (mostly the objectors)
create these long threads, which are mostly mild flames.


I am mainly a lurker on this NG. However, I have noticed that there are
always
more posting about topics with only a vague relationship with gardening.
Many
of these posts are to complain that there is not enough gardening!! This
topic
started of by an innocent post from somebody who was starting an AT fan
club,
an look at the furore it has generated. Don't ell me about those
wonderful,
caring, understanding gardening folk.

What's the problem with discussion? that's what I come here for. This
isn't a mutual support group for the insecure who need to be told
positive things all the time!

I absolutely agree. Nothing at all wrong with discussion, but frankly whether
one likes the current range of garden presenters or not (a very sweeping
condemnation IMO) is rather beside the point. Do you imagine that BBC/ITV, etc
are so stupoid as to use unpopular presenters? This NG is obviously a VERY
small % of people interested in gardening, but most of the general public do.
Rightly or wrongly there is a public obsesion with 'celebrity'.

Most 'gardening' progs are actually 'design' progs. I think that if we are
honest there will be VERY few of us who have watched such a prog and not seen
something that we may like to copy, or has given us a few ideas that hitherto
had not ocured to us. IMO the only real gardening prog is GW, and even that
can stray from the straight and narrow at times.

Peter Bridge


AT and all the others should take solace in the saying that goes something
like
'disgree, criticise, etc but what you do, don't ignore me!'. Or perhaps
'all
publicity is good publicity'.

Well, yes. And I doubt very much if AT gives a flying one. But in this
thread I haven't noticed many messages which didn't give reasons for
what the posters thought. And in fairness, the discussion has *not*
been irrelevant to gardening: are we content to have the public
informed about gardening by people whose prime qualification may not
be their gardening experience?

Sorry, but where does that come from. I don't know in detail what the
qualifications of the curent crop of presenteres but I think they have rather
more than most of us. This thread started of about AT. He is very experienced
I think.

Do we want programmes that tell us
something we didn't know already? I think that's perfectly relevant.

The national media, they will always be telling somebodies granny how to suck
eggs. You only need to read any gardening magazine. Every year there are the
same topics, often for the beginner of which there will hopefully be many.


You also seem a bit unfair in suggesting that most urg discussions
aren't about gardening: I reckon people here stick to the point pretty
well.

I didn't suggest that, only that the the OT topics are often the most popular.

Mike.