I first met Konnie Huq when she used to come in and work at Q during her school and university holidays. When she turned up at Blue Peter years later it was because she was capable as well as attractive. Being Asian certainly didn't hurt either. The strange mathematics of television means that an attractive woman presenting a childrens programme will acquire an erotic halo they wouldn't have if they were fronting "Fornication On 4". It's the contrast that appeals to the male imagination.Obviously when she was presenting the programme she wouldn't have been allowed to take up the many offers to pose for so-called glamour pictures. Now that she's on the point of taking up another presenting gig she's been persuaded to do just that for FHM. (Mind you, female TV presenters always claim to have been persuaded. Nobody's candid enough to admit they're flattered.) And, in a major upset to the form book, she finds they've flagged it as a Blue Peter special. "It was so inappropriate," she says, employing the adjective of the day. "I mean, kids can walk into a newsagent and see that and think it is something about the show." Well, that's what's going to happen for the rest of your career, Konnie. Just ask Valerie Singleton or Janet Ellis, both of whom have probably got to the point where they don't mind anymore. Anything that keeps you famous so long is not to be sniffed at.
Has anyone told Dara yet ?
ReplyDeleteWhen the media comments on the media, then you know the show is over.
ReplyDeleteAgain.
"What the Papers Say" was one of British television's longest running non-news programmes before it was axed a couple of years ago.
ReplyDeleteBut if the media commenting on the media really is a new concept to you, David has provided a handy link to Media Guardian.
Commenting on the media is the thing I probably spend most of my time doing. Same applies to most people in the media.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne suspects 10 minutes after the first newspaper hit the coffee houses, london's town criers were huddled together casting doubt on this new upstarts chances of survival.
ReplyDeletePresumably plumbers are also banned from expressing opinions on their colleagues work......
My right to reply:
ReplyDeletejohnlyons121 cites a show that he himself describes as "axed", before referring to the Guardian, whose readers have recently been derided in these posts and comments;
DH confesses to creative drought whilst making absurd claims about 'most people in the media';
and BLTP displays a failure to have mastered English first, and a breath-taking lack of logic second.
Busy day. And tomorrow? Let's look at the papers, shall we? God forbid that we might entertain thought.
I am a lawyer and spend my gossip allocation talking about other lawyers - the implication of this is that people in some other professions do not do that. I would be surprised. It is just that media professionals have the writing skills and outlets to vent their gossip more widely than the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteyeah Andre, I hate it when people disagree with my post too.
ReplyDeleteGiven that David Hepworth is renowned largely as a media figure, it's logical to assume that at least some people visit And Another Thing because they're interested in his thoughts on the day job.
ReplyDeleteSo exactly what is it that brings you here, Andre?
Crikey, I never thought I'd live to see flame wars on the Hepworth blog! I need to sit down with a cup of cocoa.
ReplyDeleteIf the media truly does little else other than comment on itself, what surprise can there be in its reduced importance? Greater breadth and less depth is brilliant in tabloid form, less so outside it. Being interested in DH's thoughts, incidentally, does not imply deference and agreement. (See Clive James on the serious white text/black background debate, or some bloke from The Times who referred to DH as verging on the grumpy, whilst recommending the blog).
ReplyDeleteDo FHM plan to follow this up with a Sarah Greene spread, I wonder?
ReplyDeleteOf course being interested in what David Hepworth has to say doesn't imply deferment and agreement. How do I imply that it does?
ReplyDeleteI think I've bored people enough on this thread now.