You know how easy it is to go back on your New Year resolutions. I vividly remember one year digging around in the snow to find a packet of Marlboro Lights I had triumphantly thrown away just hours before. It's not easy to give something up, especially if you enjoy it... and to be honest, I do enjoy wading through the torrent of turd that makes up the marvellous magical mechanical Mail-organ. Sometimes I just sit there breathless at the sheer shitness of it all, wondering to myself whether this isn't just all some giant joke on me designed to make me chortle at the sheer hatefulness of it all... but no. No, it isn't, I assure myself, as I start to get under the surface and read the madness. It's a wondrous, scary and entertaining thing. Obviously it's a thing written by cunts and largely read by cunts, with childishly idiotic views that even the most right-wing of numpties would surely balk at, but there you are. People seem to still like it.
But stuff like this, honestly. Look at it. Look at it! Where to begin, oh where to begin...? How to do justice to something so appallingly shit, something so lacking in skill and insight, something almost self-parodically despicable? Is it gently poking fun at the Mail and their woefully antiquated views on the Telly Box, the Evil BBC of Bastards and women in general? What is it that makes it so awful? There are a few things going on here.
The joke's on Kate Garraway as she falls victim to Vic Reeves' tasteless sex simulation sketch
Right, a couple of things to mention here for a kickoff. Why is 'Kate Garraway' called 'Kate Garraway' in the headline? As you probably already know, you clever people, it's to optimise searchability on Google and elsewhere, so any dribbling bastard having a wank with one hand and typing in 'Kate Garraway sex' with the other will be handily directed to this Mail article via the headline.
Secondly, since when did 'something happened on telly yesterday' become newsworthy? Sure, I know it's in the 'Celebrities and Shit' section of the Mail's website, but all the fucking same. TV reviews have always been a staple of newspapers and websites, of course, and some of them are very good - that bloke who used to do The Times, Joe Joseph, was excellent, not sure if he still does it - but simply writing a story about something that happened on TV is beyond barrel-scraping. Is this what we've come to in the 24-7 world of web news - writing shit stories about things happening on telly? Can't we include the regular beatings that the Mail gets at the hands of TV presenters, panel show guests and comedians in there... no? Oh, only works one way, does it? That figures.
Yes I know, there's an attempt at watercoolerness*, but this is lame in the extreme. Look, it's got a bylined journalist writing the fucking thing! Do you think she ran home to her nearest and dearest and said: "I've finally done it! I've got an article in a national newspaper... well on the website, but that counts!"
"That's wonderful, what did you do?"
"I wrote some shit about what was on the telly last night."
"You did a TV review? Wow, that's great!"
"Er, no. I just kind of wrote a completely bullshit story about how there was some man trying to make the sex with someone off GMTV, but it wasn't really true at all. But it'll get good traffic from people searching for Kate Garraway and sex, so that's good."
"You look like you're slowly dying inside."
"I am. I am. Would you pass the Luger."
Thirdly, as I just alluded to, it's fucking nonsense - but the important thing to remember is that most Mailies won't have an inkling about that. As if they'd dare to watch these new-fangled 'alternative' comedians and their so-called Dadaist postmodern gameshows!
So with that in mind, you can say what you like. You can imply, wrongly, that the joke involved Vic Reeves pretending to skullfuck Kate Garraway from behind. Do you know, I watched that programme and the thought didn't enter my head once. Largely because it wouldn't be physically possible to do that, and because even if the joke revolved around frotting his cock against her, it still would have been a bit rubbish. Oh, and the fact that it didn't really happen. I thought it just looked silly... kind of the point of a lot of Vic & Bob... it just looks silly, therefore, there it is. There's really not much of a deeper meaning to it than that. He looked like he was having a piggyback more than anything. Was it really sexual? Am I that naive? No, I don't think so. Was Dizzee Rascal going two's up on her for more cranium-frotting action, this time with - gasp - a black man daring to go near her? Er, no, I don't think it was like that at all. And yet:
The tasteless appearance saw the All New Shooting Stars presenter Vic Reeves and guest Dizzee Rascal stand behind GMTV presenter Garraway and simulate sex with their legs apparently over her shoulders, making thrusting hip movements.
What kind of sex is this? Bloody hell, I thought I was broad-minded but the Mail sees sex in a fake pair of legs sitting on someone's shoulders. Really? Christ, there's a whole world of sex out there I never knew anything about. You know those geezers who pore over pictures of ice cubes in adverts for a glimpse of what looks like a blurry cock, and insist it's subliminal sex? It's a bit like that. If you're looking for it, it's there. If not, it's not. If you see sex everywhere, what does that say about you...?
The studio audience at the BBC show broke into laughter as Reeves told her: 'Indulge me for a moment, just sit down and relax. I'm just going to creep down behind you if I may.'
He then mimed smoking a cigar as he moved the false legs backwards and forwards.
Is that really it? Was that really sex? Because it doesn't seem like sex at all to me. Maybe I am just touchingly naive on these matters, and it takes the all-seeing eyes of the Mail to enlighten me. Or maybe they don't give a shit about what really happens when there's a deadline looming and you need to crack out a few hundred words on some celebrity shit.
As ever with the 'Celebrity Shit' section - unlike the Littlejohn column, for example, where comments are strictly filtered - negative comments make it through en masse, and are voted to the top, while numbskull views are beaten down:
Great show, great to see it back. People need to lighten up a bit!
Her hunger for popularity has backfired. Fiona would never have placed herself in the firing line of humiliation.
More BBC bad taste. You wouldnt get Brucie doing this.
Im not psying my license fee for this tripe. We should campin against it
Rating -137 Jacqui Weems, Southampton, 31/12/2008 14:35
The real Jacqui? Who knows.
I watched shooting stars last night, it was hardly a sexual act???? If you go on shooting stars you know what to expect and Kate Garraway was game for a laugh she didnt look uncomfortable to me.
I love this programme, harmless fun, I hope there are more.
Well, exactly. But we all turned up on the story in the first place, didn't we? So there's the sadness, right there. It's mission accomplished for the Mail, unfortunately. Sure, it's a load of shit, but if you click on it - hooray!
* Search engine optimisation tip: Make up a whole new word and you'll be the first result on Google - woohoo! Only trouble being, of course, that no bastard will ever be looking for a word which only you know. Apart from that, it's an absolute winner, I guarantee it.
Buy my book, it’s great
- A paper-thin defence of Mr Ratchett
- A thing about the Mail and Miliband
- CGI Babar makes me sad
- Tabula rasa
- On depression and sadness
Most Commented On
- In Praise of Flouncing on Tabula rasa
- Vashti on CGI Babar makes me sad
- Rayya on On depression and sadness
- Shauna on Tabula rasa
- MFR on Tabula rasa
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.