Winklepedia
Claudia Winkleman's promotion to host Film 2010 isn't the end of the world. It really isn't. It's just a programme about films, not Election Night bloody Special, and you need someone with mainstream appeal, who can do celebrity interviews, and who knows a bit - but not necessarily everything - about the movies.
Jonathan Ross was hardly a deadpan heavyweight, let's not forget. And Barry Norman wasn't AJP Taylor either - but it was his light touch and gentle humour, grumbling away about the England cricket team as an aside during links for example, that made his style watchable, even when the films weren't much cop. So is it really dumbing down to bring in Winkleman? I don't think so.
Today's Mail carries an article by Georgina Littlejohn, which to be fair plays the appointment of Winkleman straight down the line. It mentions that she is to be the first female host of the programme (Joan Bakewell did it back in the 1970s) but it's not written snidely, so you think to yourself, that's fair play; at least this decision isn't going to result in a nasty whiff of lady-bashing. Well you might think that.
But, reader, I made a terrible error of judgement. I looked 'below the line'. I swear there should be a warning that says "Here be dragons" whenever you get to the bottom of an article online. Did you ever read about the 'wisdom of crowds' and think it made sense? Well, I'm here to prove you wrong. A lot of commenters talk about 'dumbing down', which is ironic when you see what they come up with:
A lot of comments are about her appearance (and fringe, more precisely) and you have to wonder: would it all be about that if the new presenter were a man? If it were Kermode would we be having endless conversations about his quiff? I'm not so sure we would.
Again, all about the appearance. And having a go at someone for getting a job just because they have a famous parent, under an article written by Georgina Littlejohn? Hmm.
I like Chris's thinking. "Mariella Frostrup would have been better, but I'm not keen on her". Brilliant. The implication being, of course, that the ultra-PC BBC decided it had to be a woman because of political correctness, or something.
Again, the implication is the female = vacuous and she only got the job because of a famous parent. Same again.
I CRINGE WHEN SHE PRESENT 'STRICTLY' SHOW... thanks for the non-'mindless' comments, Hazel.
Yes, it was the feminist behemoth of Auntie that made her get the job... it must the the only reason. Because what do women know about films or motorcycling? It's not as if they're allowed to do either.
How did that slip through? To be fair there are a handful of these type of comments, but they're in the minority.
It's becoming a familiar theme... she only got the job because of her mother, etc etc. Not so sure that's true really, but that's the theme. A woman presenting a proper job? Must be due to feminism, or PC, or a famous parent... can't be because she's actually good enough!
Not really. She doesn't look like a disembodied hand to me. Do you mean Cousin It? 2/10.
Eh? Eh? Fringe! Scary eyes!
Because she didn't apply for the job?
Yes, women who comment on everything are awful, Jennifer. And what exactly are you doing right now...? Oh, I see. But 'men a dying breed as presnters'? I don't think that's quite the case, is it? Those pesky feminists! Why you'd think 50% of the population was female, or something!
Women don't possess gravitas and shouldn't comment on sport, or films, or anything, according to Peter. That's the kind of attitude lurking beneath a lot of these grumpy attacks on Winkleman. If you ever linger under the idea that we've moved on since the 1970s, these threads bring you back down to earth.
"If the BBC had to go for a female presenter..." - but they didn't. I imagine it wasn't some diversity exercise about ticking boxes; I am pretty sure it was about getting the best presenter for the job, which they thought was Winkleman. Now we can disagree about whether she's any good or not, but can't we do that on her relative merits or otherwise, without assuming she just got the job because she's a woman, or because of her mother, or anything like that?
Apparently not. As ever, the Mail gives you a whiff of something unpleasant, but it's worth reading, because people there are more nakedly obvious about their views than elsewhere. Perhaps a lot of people do think this, but just mask it better.
Related posts:
Switch site
About Me
Donate
Recent Posts
- They must’ve done it…
- Tarts and hookers
- A pal said…
- Rooneygate and more news about dicks
- August’s top posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Miranda Fox on Tarts and hookers
- septicisle on Tarts and hookers
- English Pensioner on They must’ve done it…
- sianushka on Tarts and hookers
- paula on They must’ve done it…
Blogroll
- A Very Public Sociologist
- Akela's Diary
- Andy Worthington
- Anna Raccoon
- Bleeding Heart Show
- Bloggerheads
- Bristol Evening Post Watch
- Buff The Banana With Paul Dacre
- Chicken Yoghurt
- Crooked Timber
- Daily Quail
- David Neiwert
- Discoriggall
- Eric the Fish
- Felix Farley's Bristol Journal
- Five Chinese Crackers
- Greenman's Occasional
- If you like it so much…
- Jacinthsong
- Jimbo Grumbles
- Last Year's Girl
- Left Wing Criminologist
- Lenin's Tomb
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Loonwatch
- Ministry of Truth
- My thoughts on…
- Never Trust A Hippy
- News Corpse
- Newshounds
- Obsolete
- Our Man in Newcastle
- Paperhouse
- Pickled Poltiics
- Pigdogfucker
- Ponderboxes
- Popular Front for the Liberation of Discordia
- Punkscience
- Rhetorically Speaking
- Sadie's Tavern
- Stumbling and Mumbling
- Tabloid Watch
- Tampon Teabag
- The Bleeding Heart Show
- The Cynical Dragon
- The Daily (Maybe)
- The Last Strawman
- The Sharpener
- The Sun Lies
- Tory Troll
- Tygerland
- Why That's Delightful
- Yorksher Gob
- Yorkshire Ranter
Writers
- George Monbiot
- Johann Hari
- John Pilger
- Michael Moore
- Naomi Klein
- Nick Davies
- Noam Chomsky
- Oliver James
- Paul Foot
- Richard Dawkins
- Robert Fisk
- Salman Rushdie
Media and Miscellany
- 257 show
- B3ta
- Bad Science
- Churner Prize
- Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
- James Randi Educational Foundation
- Mailwatch
- Media Lens
- Photoshop Disasters
- Skeptical Science
- The Daily Mail Really Are A Bunch Of Fucking Twats
- The Flying Fiasco Brothers
March 30th, 2010 - 09:20
What was that MotoGP comment about? Suzi Perry knew more about the sport than Charlie Cox does and he’s still presenting. Jennie Gow, Suzi’s replacement for 2010, seems to really know her stuff, too, yet we’ve still got gormless Charlie.
Oh, sorry, this isn’t about the bikes, it’s about Film 2010. I’ll get my coat.
March 30th, 2010 - 10:14
Yebbut Charlie Cox and Steve Parrish are one of TV’s great double acts, but anyway…
I’d have thought that being related to Eve Pollard would make most members of the BBC’s lefty liberal PC conspiracy file your application in the bin immediately.
March 30th, 2010 - 09:30
Great article!
March 30th, 2010 - 09:31
Heck, I didn’t even know she was the daughter of Eve Pollard.
I DID know she was the sister of Big Suze from Peep Show.
March 30th, 2010 - 09:31
The most infuriating thing about all the commenters who were wailing about Mark Kermode not getting the job is that he said repeatedly that he didn’t want it. What was the BBC supposed to do – tell him that refusal wasn’t an option? Have a production assistant hold a gun to his back during every piece to camera?
And I realise this is personal opinion clouding my feelings, but as for the commenter who seems to think Edith Bowman would be preferable – dear God, please, no.
March 30th, 2010 - 09:33
That’s your piece – not the Daily Mail’s. Sorry – I’ve not slept much!
March 30th, 2010 - 11:44
Thanks! Sleeping’s overrated, anyway.
March 30th, 2010 - 09:38
To paraphrase @richchat78 who put it succinctly on Twitter: “They appear to have mistaken Film 2010 for ‘The Culture Show’”
Less succinctly, Film 2010, in the times I’ve bothered to watch it recently, isn’t much more than those puff piece “The Making of…” programmes you get on ITV on a Saturday afternoon where they whack up the Electronic Press Kits.
Jonathan Ross couldn’t be unbiased about his reviews because he was also the presenter of the channel’s flagship chat show which is used by the stars to plug those very same films. He slags off Robert De Niro’s latest, he doesn’t get Robert De Niro.
Yes, yes Mark Kermode should’ve got the gig (even though he hates ‘Star Wars’) but he’s probably quite happy on the Culture Show asking interesting questions of interesting artists. I quite like Claudia. She’s very aware of the public’s perception of her, she’s smart and she’s funny.
I have no opinion on her fringe.
March 30th, 2010 - 13:00
They’ve only gone and put a woman on the Culture Show as well! Enough of this PC madness!
March 30th, 2010 - 09:38
It’s ‘elf & safety gawn mad
March 30th, 2010 - 09:46
Oh and “Not a patch on Ray Stubbs”?
Awesome. Simply awesome.
March 30th, 2010 - 10:04
Funny thing about this story. Both women involved got their starts at L!VE TV, the pisspoor Janet St Porter operation. Claudia was a presenter from the very start in her first job, and her proud mama was present on launch day, watching on admiringly with her pal Nick Ferrari, who was Janet’s deputy. Georgina Littlejohn however, was a lowly researcher like all the other first-jobbers there. She went on to serve a long apprenticeship on Metro for many years, she’s not been getting bylines in the Mail for very long at all. They both started work in TV 15 years ago. Accusing G. Littlejohn of being the recipient of favours because of her father’s fame is pretty unfair, she’s grafted.
March 30th, 2010 - 11:42
I hear she works so hard that the C and V keys on her keyboard have to be replaced daily.
March 30th, 2010 - 11:25
I think the comments say more about Daily Mail readers than anything else.
March 30th, 2010 - 11:43
i like to think george in hong kong rubs his nipples and gets out the lotion when he hears mark kermode on internet radio.
wait, scratch that, i don’t like to.
March 30th, 2010 - 11:46
You’ve said it now!
March 30th, 2010 - 13:28
I don’t want to lower myself to their level, but I’m going to; Claudia Winkleman is properly fit. Of course I realise that has no bearing on her ability to host Film 2010. However I will probably watch it now because she’s on it. Am I better or worse than the screeching harpies on the Mail site? I’m so confused.
March 30th, 2010 - 14:32
Perhaps it’s possible to be both better and worse. Who knows?
March 30th, 2010 - 13:55
I’m glad it’s Winkleman, mainly because when I first saw the photo I thought they’d given the job to eye-catchingly-titled-yet-ultimately-tedious-’documentary’-'maker’ Dawn Porter.
“The film tells the story of a man who tries to lift his house into the sky by attaching balloons to it. But how realistic was it? Does the plot stay true to life? There was only one way to find out; I, Dawn Porter, would have to try and make my house float. First, I’d need to write down some some rules for my mission on a needlessly large A1 sheet of cardboard. Next, I’d need to speak to someone who knows all about making things float, so I found Dr Adam Twatt, head of the Department of Staving Off Employment at Rutland’s prestigious Bumhole University”
March 31st, 2010 - 09:52
James, you are a Bad Man, run a Bad Railway and owe me a keyboard.
On a purely personal and bitchy level I’m glad it’s not Kermode. He’s been persona non grata round these parts ever since he dissed Dr Larrington on national radio.
March 30th, 2010 - 16:19
Hang on, hang on… when Carol Thatcher became part of The One Show team, no one kicked up a fuss by the fact she was the daughter of Conservative Prime Minister….Oh. Of course, silly me.
I forgot that Daily Mail saying: “If it’s blue or conservative it’s dandy but if it’s red or labour then it needs a good spanking.*”
*Made this shit up. In true Daily Mail spirit.
March 30th, 2010 - 22:05
The delightful comments by the Daily Mail readers made me a little bit sick in my mouth.
Thing is, maybe they do find her immensely irritating. Fine. They’re perfectly allowed not to like her – it’s the fact that they can’t express this dislike without also dribbling a lot of sexist rubbish. It makes me wonder which comes first – do they dislike her because she’s a woman? Or do they dislike her, and then frame their criticisms of her in a sexist way because that’s the only way they know to go on the attack?
I’m probably overthinking this.
(Also, Hazel Dean’s post *has* to be a piss-take, surely… “SHE HASN’T TALLENT SHE HAS TO WROK AT BEING STUPID ALL THE TIME”. I think it takes tallent to be as stupid as Hazel, personally. Although I’m sure she wroks at it.)
March 31st, 2010 - 08:12
I particularly liked the comment that “I’m surprised they didn’t shoe-horn in Mrs Ross”. That would be Hugo Award winning screenwriter Jane Goldman. Yes, I can see that having her host a film programme would be utterly ridiculous.
March 31st, 2010 - 10:17
“Littlejohn” vs. “Winkleman”?
Heheheheheh.
Andrew.
… lowering the tone since 19-something-something …
March 31st, 2010 - 21:23
Obviously take the point about criticism of her appearance, but it’s surely a valid point that a hell of a lot of people in the media do get a significant hand up from their family connections.