10 O'Clock Live - Season 3

Hello...

Yes...

I have not seen any episode from 10 O'Clock Live season 3. I haven't even finished watching season 2, from last year. I just don't have the courage, especially after finding out it's still all the same faces. Obviously, I have no problem with David Mitchell or Charlie Brooker and I can even accept Jimmy Carr. The Laverne woman still mystifies me, though. From what I've read so far, still nobody is sure what she's doing there. And still, nobody thinks she's particularly funny, but she's not the straight..eh..woman either; her attempts at humour are still too many for that.

Will I find the courage to watch an episode from season 3? I might, I am still curious. But right now I find my muesli more interesting.

Still all the same faces...God knows why..

There, my duty done, I said something about 10 O'Clock Live season 3.

10 O'Clock Live - S2E2 Pre-review

Reading some tweets. It seems it's again Charlie who's going to snatch the points. Apparently he's going to rap? A Sun Poem? Hmmm...

10 O'Clock Live - Season 2, Episode 1

So, it’s been a week since the first episode of season 2 aired and it’s already been a few hours since the second episode aired and I haven’t even said anything about the first episode. I have to admit that my attention was taking up by other things, but I have already watched the first episode and I am now waiting for the second episode to surface on YouTube.

I didn’t do an exhaustive research. I didn’t even check Twitter to see what the reactions were. So, what follows are my view on the show only.

First thing that actually popped in my head just now was that the audience wasn’t half as annoying as last year; I didn’t even really notice them. That’s definitely a plus, though the lack of responses might have had something to do with the tepid start of the season.

No-one stood out.

The only thing I remember Jimmy Carr doing is a dreadful sketch; so that they didn’t take out. Shame. He must have done a ‘Week that’s been’, but I can’t remember a single word of it, so it probably wasn’t very impressive.

Charlie Brooker wasn’t impressive either; forgot his piece as well. No, hold on, I do remember him wearing an incubator. Okay, so minor points for impressiveness.

David Mitchell lost his speech segment of which I forgot the title; he now only did an interview. I forgot what the subject was. Not really impressive I guess. What I do remember about the interview is that someone on YouTube said the interviewees were annoying talking over David. So yeah, no points there. I said it last year and I keep saying it: “David should get some education about interviewing techniques”.

Then we have…uh…thingie…Oh, Lauren Laverne. She’s the ringleader, like last season, which means she has not much to do.

In one sentence, I found the first episode rather boring. At least last season the audience gave us something to grumble about.

Points:
Charlie Brooker, hesitantly 1 for doing something vaguely memorable.
Jimmy Carr, David Mitchell & Lauren Laverne, 0 for failing to make any impression at all.

"10 O'Clock Live" - They're Back!...Nearly.

Coming Wednesday will see the start of season 2 of "10 O'Clock Live". They said they learnt from last year; it's shorter... Yes...

I feel I ought to get back into the swing of things and start reviewing. Well, not quite yet. I'm probably gonna be way behind, because my internet connection at home has been reduced to my phone and the show will now be on on Wednesdays. Hardly a convenient day for me to dedicate myself to other things than work. Also, only thinking about it makes me feel exhausted.

Anyhoo, they were on to something, so maybe they really did learn. Also they had a nice break, a lengthy one in which a lot of reflection could take place. I'm curious how this season will work out. Eventhough things didn't go as perfect as hoped, I still think this could become something great. Let's just wait and see.

"10 O'Clock Live"'s - Future

evanrobertmarshall says:…

Something else I didn’t really read (Take Us Seriously by Steven Howe on Suit101.com)

chicalolita

"10 O'Clock Live" - the Last Episode

Tonight will see the last episode of ‘10 O’Clock Live’. It’s been an interesting run if only to read all the criticism and some well meant advice. I’m guessing not many people will miss the show when it’s all over, and I’m guessing not many people are interested in discussing the possibilities for a second series. But looking back at the last few episodes, I think there is a promise we shouldn’t ignore.

It took long for the show to find its feet, if it has in the 15 episodes run at all. From start to finish the makers of the show have been trying things out, moving pieces around and pretty much stumbled to the finish line. It’s unfair to say it has been a total fail; there has been improvement and especially Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell have grown into their roles of live presenters.

You’d also think they must have learned something over the course of 15 weeks. It would be a waste of all that knowledge to evaporate. Also, a new series gives the opportunity to rebuild the show considerably giving it a new start. Maybe a personnel change could help too. They get almost a whole year to research and tweak the concept. Or for the first few months give it a rest and then return to look at it with fresh views.

Even though there are many reasons to not commission ‘10 O’Clock Live’ a second series, there are also a lot of reasons to commission a second series. If a second series is commissioned, a lot of work needs to be done, but it could grow out to be something good.

Looking back at the passed 14 weeks we saw a few things:
 What does the show want to be? A discussion program, a commentady (commentary/comedy) show or a sketch show?
 BTW, the sketches; what’s up with that?
 Why are they trying to cover the whole world every week; there are too many items in there? I don’t think we were ever granted the opportunity to enjoy a conclusive discussion, or to breathe at all.
 What’s the point of Lauren Laverne?
 It’s a lefty, Guardian writers and readers fest.
 And it’s not really a full fletched laugh out loud show, is it?

Improvements over the weeks:
 Charlie Brooker.
 David Mitchell is growing into his role of interviewer, be it very slowly.
 They shut up the audiences for an important great deal of the show.
 Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell have found their feet in the live format of the show; they’re less nervous than they used to be, or they now just think ‘Bollocks to them all’.

We’re still missing:
 A nice pace, especially for the interviews;
 Edgy comedy or if you will satire;
 The promised unashamed intelligence;
 A team that work well Together.

To conclude my ‘10 O’Clock Live’ rants series (I don’t think I will write a review for this evening’s show unless something remarkable happens which I don’t expect) I want to do a last rating of the presenters:
1. Charlie Brooker, because he’s the one who grew into it considerably and offers the most thought provoking and funny material.
2. David Mitchell, because he’s been from the start the most consistent even though his growth isn’t as notable as CB’s.
3. Jimmy Carr, because he sometimes says something intelligent at the table and he did at least 1 or 2 funny sketches, though overall he’s been sort of insufferable.
4. Lauren Laverne; just lost in translation. Such a shame.

"10 O'Clock Live" - General Progress

What number episode was it last night, 13? I must admit that I’m not following very strictly anymore. I do remember every Friday to read up on what happened and so far every week at least something happened that made me make a note to find the episode online and watch it, though I have to admit that I’m now 2 episodes behind (that’s including last night’s episode).

It seems I’m not the only one who ran out of steam concerning well meant analysis and advice. At the start of the run and 3 weeks in, there was so much to read I could easily fill a whole Friday reading up. There was also a lot to say about it, because everything they tried to do was new to them and for us, with our viewer excellence, expertise, knowledge and experience, a good reason to dump a shit-load of advice on them. After a good 10 weeks, after only minor improvements, there’s nothing new to say; you can only repeat so many times. Besides that, most people have lost interest and stopped watching all together.

Even though the show seems weaker than many a soul expected it to be, it’s been a run with fair quality, maybe even enough to have a 2nd series commissioned. I certainly hope a 2nd series will get commissioned, if only to give it the chance to let it mature. You’d think after 1 season they now have the experience under their belt to make it better, though that’s what we’ve been thinking after the 10th week as well. Just keep in mind it took ‘the Daily Show’ a few years to properly settle in as well. Maybe a change of personnel good do some good.

Two more weeks to go (I just counted and I was right; last night’s was episode 13) and then we and they will have about 7 months to breath and reflect.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Response to Mr. Smith

I have to address this, because this is too funny to ignore it.

1. BCG
2. Chortle
3. There’s also an article on Digital Spy which I cannot access at work.

First it is admitted that all means, illegal viewing maybe too, have to be included to be able to say a reasonable amount of viewers watch the show. I can tell you why we don’t watch it live; because we can’t be bothered.

Then it is said that’s the reason why the show is broadcast live. My belly aches from laughing and my cheeks are wet with tears. Yes, Mr. Smith, it’s very exciting to watch them stumble and fluffing lines and the spontaneity, especially of the fucking audience, is very much appreciated. I really wanted to see on a weekly basis all the bits, which in a pre-record get cut out for good reasons. It’s such a shame most of the spontaneity makes me and a lot of other people cringe beyond reason. And I’m not even watching it live. What’s the point?

Can you imagine how cheated I feel? I'm watching a recorded piece and it's shit. Exaggerating here

"10 O'Clock Live" - Response to Review

Read this piece first before reading the text below.

It’s funny how different people have different views of the same thing. This is the first time though, I found someone thinking this was becoming ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. Most criticisms have been that there’s not nearly enough Charlie Brooker. I don’t agree with either.

Charlie’s contributions have not been more or less than that it is now. Charlie’s contributions haven’t been more or less than the contributions from the others, except for Laverne’s. I think it’s also not fair to say that Charlie’s contributions have been more (or less) in quality compared to the others. When Charlie’s on about technical stuff like the Ipad or Twitter, he’s spot on. He’s not so much spot on when it comes to pure political analysis; that seems to be more David Mitchell’s area and sometimes Jimmy Carr says something sensible. (I’m just completely going to ignore Laverne for now).

David Mitchell, even though not a natural interviewer, has been quality wise quite strong. He’s learning too (Why do I seem to be the only one who sees that?). He stepped out of his comfort zone to do something new; Charlie hasn’t. He doesn’t even seem to be attempting to. Even Carr has stepped out of his comfort zone with doing these sketches (which I still absolutely hate, though I feel it is getting a bit better).

I don’t think this is turning into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show. I also suspect that after Charlie did his thing, he mentally logs off. Around the table Laverne has to drag him into the discussions which usually only seem to go on between Mitchell and Carr. Even when they’re doing the headlines for the next days Laverne has to poke him in the ribs to lift up his cardboard fake of a front page. A few times she even lunged, grabbed and held the cardboard up herself (which made me laugh, to be honest).

Charlie Brooker is not naturally interested in politics and it shows, very clearly (lazily leaning cheek/chin in hand while not participating in discussions). That’s why ‘10 O’Clock Live’ will never turn into ‘the Charlie Brooker’ show as long it wants to be a ‘current affairs’ show.

Also people have to really use the correct name; it's '10 O'Clock LIVE', not the '10 O'Clock show'. Or are they trying to tell the producers of the show something?

"10 O'Clock Live" - Some Praise...

Ironically, this here article goes to show how '10 O'Clock Live' attracts the young(ish) people with no brain cells.



To be fair, I can't directly reference dumbness from this writer's piece. It's just unfortunate she recognizes smartness and intelligence where it's only available in sparse quantities. This in contrary to her not recognizing why most people don't like '10 O'Clock Live' me included. If they want my attention, I need more substance and with substance I mean political observations and analysis, not just what people look like.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Last Advice

This is the last advice I’m going to write to/about ‘10 O’Clock Live’.

Pre-record the show and take your cut advantages. Let Charlie Brooker do another series of Newswipe, Lauren Laverne present some straight faced show and Jimmy Carr whatever else he can screw up I won’t be able to watch and let David Mitchell tackle the news on his own maybe with contributions from others. He can still do his interviews, but he has to learn to do interviews more impartial and let the interviewees actually talk. He has to learn what a more professional approach of interviewing is. And also give the show a different name and get rid of this damn awful audience.

In short dump this pathetic foetus of an abortion and try to develop something that might live up to the expectations you created for this show.

And please stop tormenting us.

24 Panel People and a bit of 10 O'Clock Live

Last weekend I spend a great deal watching the live internet feed of 24 Panel People for Red Nose day. David Walliams set up to stay up for 24 hours playing old and current panel shows. I'm not a big fan of David Walliams. I do love watching a panel show. For me 24 hours of panel show fun, setting up new stages and warming up the audience included, was a treat to me. Yesterday I calculated I watched nearly 15 hours of the telethon.

The whole event wasn't exactly advertised very well. I found out by chance, because I was doing my 10 O'Clock Live preresearch. At work I checked if I could watch it, but I got the regular 'this is not available in your area' notification. Thanks for that. This meant, on Saturday, I was watching old episodes of WILTY (Would I Lie To You) eefectively missing the start of the telethon with, you guessed it, yes David Walliams, d'oh! I was actually going to say WILTY. I was gutted when I found out, even though the schedules told me that wasn't what happened, but I happened to know that it did happened. I was quickly distracted by the somewhat underwhelming appearance of Charlie Brooker on It's Only TV.

Catching up with the last episode of 10 O'Clock Live was pushed back to Sunday evening. Overall a level we grew used to in this show. I've already forgotten what happened, and I even tried rewatching it yesterday, but I fell asleep and now I still don't remember what happened.

Anyway, the whole purpose of this blog is to end up here, at the end of the blog to direct you to this link and say: "Imagine being not quite awake at work behind your desk wondering and dreading the things you have to do that day and being confronted by this head." I love Charlie Brooker, but seeing his name popping up everywhere makes me think: "When did he become all Mister Big Shot?" Somehow it seems weird and he seems out of place. Can't stop loving him though, which is quite annoying.

Oh, btw, How TV Ruined Your Life tonight on BBC2.

"10 O'Clock Live" - an alternative (comedy) view

I wish they at least do the round table pieces like described in this alternative (comedy) view.

I pasted the whole thing here, because I don't want to lose it to corrupt links:



Lauren Laverne: It's 10 o'clock. We're live on Channel 4. Welcome to 10 o'Clock Live! This is one of the few times you'll see me this evening, so make the most of it. Get a load of my funky outfit and check out what hair and make-up have done with my look tonight!

(Cue opening credits)

LL, DAVID MITCHELL, CHARLIE BROOKER and JIMMY CARR sitting round a table, looking uncomfortable

LL: Well guys, this is the bit where you talk about all the exciting things you'll be doing tonight, and I try not to look like a spare part.

CB: I'll tell you which news item of the week I'll be having a rant about in a carefully pre-prepared segment. Actually, I could be saying burble, bibble, booble right now and you wouldn't care. You're just wondering if my quiff is higher or lower than last week, aren't you?

JC: I'll make a nervous joke because you big bullies make me go first every week and my nerves are shredded.

DM: I'm the only one of us the producers actually trust with hard news, so yet again this week I'll be talking to some Mildly Important People about Very Important Issues and getting cut off just as things get interesting.

LL: I'm off to fetch you hard-working men some tea and biscuits! Here's Jimmy with a review of the news.

JC: Yes, this is the part of the show people on Twitter love to slag off because some of the news I review is more than 24 hours old. Nobody ever says that about the BBC's "special reports", do they? Anyway, these are the stories I can be funny about. So long as I don't get too nervous and screw up my timing, that is. And so long as the audience aren't too dense or too liberal to leave big, awkward silences after the dodgier cracks. David.

DM: Thanks, Jimmy. (Clears throat) And welcome to the studio, Mildly Important Person. I'm now going to ask you a series of questions the producers have written down for me on cue cards. Which is a bit of a pain, to be honest, because it means everyone at home can see my hands trembling, so they and you know how nervous I am. (Clears throat) Also, things go so much better when I put the cards down and interject with a thought of my own. Oh, sorry, we've got to leave it there. It's time for a vaguely amusing sketch before the interval.

(Vaguely amusing sketch; during which LL brings the boys refreshments and introduces the ad break)

CB: (Waves unenthusiastically) Hello. This week, something really funny, odd and/or offensive happened. I'm here to tell you, in much the same acerbic style as my acerbic newspaper columns and acerbic TV shows, how that thing is just the tip of a hyperbolic iceberg! And now, it's time for Listen to Mitchell!

DM: I love this bit. It's just like my iPhone app, David Mitchell's Soapbox, so it's the one part of the show where I don't look like a deer caught in headlights. I get to perch on a stool and have a bit of a rant. Which is just what the audience needs after Charlie's rant. Jimmy.

JC: I also have a degree from Cambridge but I only get to interview sweet, decent, second-string guests and make fun of what they say. Well, there's no point in taking any of it seriously, is there? As soon as a guest makes a hint of a challenging statement, we have to cut to one of those excruciating sketches the producers are hell-bent on shoehorning in. Speaking of which, here's a sketch that's marginally less funny than the last one - this time starring Lauren Laverne! Well, she's being paid, she might as well do something…

(Marginally less funny sketch starring Lauren Laverne; ad break)

DM: (Clears throat) Welcome back. Joining me to discuss one of the Major Issues of the day are a Tory, a non-Tory and a token woman. No, not Lauren Laverne. Though I see what you did there. (Clears throat) Mr Tory, give us your opinion of the Major Issue, please.

TORY: Good evening. My take on all this is…

LIBERAL AUDIENCE: Boo! Hiss! (Mocking laughter)

NON-TORY: I completely disagree with everything you just said. Including "Good evening."

LIBERAL AUDIENCE: (Liberal applause)

TORY: But I didn't get to say anyth-

LIBERAL AUDIENCE: Boo! Hiss!

DM: Token woman, would you like to have your say before a pundit gets lynched or the floor manager tells us we have to "leave it there"? Oh, I'm sorry. We have to leave it there. Time for one more sketch before we go. Come on, people, don't groan. The hour's nearly up.

Final sketch (we hope)

LL, CB, DM and JC sitting round a table, looking relieved

LL: So, why don't you clever boys tell me how work was?

JC: Well, I hope some of the jokes I told tonight made some of my Twitter haters laugh. Even if they'll never admit it.

CB: I think I might have pulled my over-exaggeration muscle.

DM: I have a nice, middle-of-the-road opinion on today's Major Issue. Oh, why can't people just take the time to talk, and then listen to each other? The world would be -

LL: I'm sorry, David, I have to stop you there. And I'm afraid the extra three seconds we gave you to wind up your interview with the Mildly Important Person means we've no time to preview tomorrow's front pages. Tune in next week to see if we've ditched those godawful sketches, if David can get through an intro without clearing his throat, and if the producers finally find something useful for me to do. Good night, everyone!

(Cue closing credits)

"10 O'Clock Live" - Ed Miliband / Peep Show Piece

The f-yeah-CB site is quick; they already have the piece up. Yeah, was funny; I cracked a smile.

I'll see if I can find a YT-vid for it.

*A few seconds later* Nope,nope, no such luck.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 6

You might have noticed I didn’t do a preview, but if you insist on reading a preview, still, you can go here. I can tell you, you’re not going to get a Twitter review from me. Yesterday around “10 O’Clock Live” time, I went to bed and played a game or two on my mobile phone.

I did however read up this morning, just to check how the show yesterday was received. So far just dark clouds and a bit of rain. Sure no sunshine. Apparently, yesterday was not much good, like last week’s show. Episode 5 (from last week), I didn’t even find in the usual places giving me the impression most people have given up on the show. I’m afraid it’ll go the same for episode 6.

The only review you can find is the Metro review. All the others have given up. Even talk on the forums are slowly drying up. Most discussion can be found on CaB and some on the BCG forum.

By the sounds of it, they narrowed their demographic down to 18-25; that’s definitely not me. I think from now on I will rest happily in my bed when the show is on. Not caring at the ill executed half-baked jokes they unashamedly dare call intelligent. I just don’t feel the need to get disappointed any more.

I will try to find the Miliband/Peep show piece. From what I read, that was ‘ace’.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Sexism?

The article given as a source for this blog tickled my fingers to explain why all the criticism isn’t sexist, but a reflection on how she has handled her role within the team.

What I think happens here is that the program makers felt that next to all the testosterone and comedy skills they needed 1) a female and 2) someone with actual presenting (live) shows skills. They figured it would be easiest to find a female with said skills; as it were a 2 in 1. That left them with the problem that she wasn’t as “funny” as the males, that she was female and that they didn’t quite know how they wanted to apply her skills to the overly comedy format. As with a lot of things, Laverne’s involvement of the show and how she is perceived has to suffer under the sum of the mentioned problems.

I have to explain, the ‘being a female’ problem has not much to do with misconceptions that females are more stupid or less “funny” and less skilled than males, but rather that the question of sexism and the phrase ‘token female’ would soon raise its ugly heads.

They really tried to give Laverne a good sensible and fleshed out part in the show. It turned out she wasn’t very funny. It turned out she wasn’t as quick and witty as the guys and she had trouble with the delivery overall, which I think has much to do with the pressure of the word ‘comedy’; Laverne seems to feel the pressure to be moderately funny. Maybe if she stops trying so desperately, she might actually make an impression; not as a funny person, but with the skills she obviously has. Her contributions so far haven’t given any reason to extent her contributions to the show.

Even the criticism I read from reviewers and bloggers alike; the point of Laverne is missed. What was missed was a clear role for Laverne. With the missing of that clear role, her skills drowned in the things she wasn’t very good at. That didn’t reflect well on her. It had not much to do with sexism, because we really wanted her to do well.

In some cases it might have been a bit of sexism, of a perceived and expected sexism, because that is what we tend to expect, isn’t it? The combination of Laverne with the gentlemen was always an odd one. It didn’t help the perception she was only there to be pretty. I think if someone else, maybe less attractive and funnier, the question of sexism wouldn’t have been raised by so many. Keeping that in mind, it does look like sexism in Laverne’s case, but is it really? I’ve seen the question raised more often than the statement; “Is Lauren Laverne the token girl?”

It’s not to say the failing of the show so far has been her fault entirely; it hasn’t. She didn’t help to raise the bar though. When we compare her contributions to the ones of the gentlemen we can safely say David Mitchell has a clear and strong contribution, as has Charlie Brooker in a lesser extent. It is also noted that Jimmy Carr’s contribution hasn’t been very successful, but he did make a few ‘ok’ jokes and a few good points around the table during discussions. Laverne has not done any of that. Not because she’s the token female, but because she simply hasn’t, whatever the reasons.

I still come away with the impression she’s a fairly intelligent person with good presentation skills. I have these impressions because of what people have said about her online. Many people have said that. That doesn’t sound like sexism, does it?
Of course there have been people making sexist remarks, but you’ll always have those, especially on a medium that is as open as the Internet. But to say most criticism towards Laverne has been sexist, I think is not true.

Though I agree, describing Lauren Laverne as ‘the token woman’ isn’t very good journalism, but so far she hasn’t done anything to get rid of that title. A lot of us just expected more from her.

Source: Sexism in Disguise?

"10 O'Clock Live" vs "De Wereld Draait Door"

Today I tuned in to one of my favourite Dutch programs and I realized they are actually doing what those Brits with the "10 O'Clock Live" show are trying to do. "De Wereld Draait Door" or in short DWDD is a Dutch current affairs program that goes out every work day and is live for 45 minutes, and has been very succesful for the last nearly 10 years. They're not suffering from most of the stuff "10 O'Clock Live" suffers from. They're entertaining, amusing, informative and actually intelligent. The only thing they do also suffer from is the main left wing leaning. Still, though not as annyong as on "10 O'Clock Live".

I'd like to suggest the "10 O'Clock Live" makers should take a look at that. It might give them ideas. I'm even willing to translate.

DWDD's wiki page. The page is in Dutch, but once again, I am willing to translate. And the official website.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 5 Review

Nope nope, I definately lost some interest in '10 O'Clock Live'. This afternoon I decided I should watch episode 5 again to form a full opinion of my own. Concentration wise I managed to get through Jimmy Carr's News round; then I lost concentration.

I can say a few things concerning the News round. Jimmy Carr seemed even less comfortable and confident about his round this week. He stumbled through the jokes. He allowed too long pauses waiting for laughs that didn't come and even tried egging the audience on to laugh after almost every failed joke. I'm guessing the reason the audience wasn't laughing was because the jokes weren't funny and not even remotely smart.

Then on to Charlie Brooker's (first) monologue (I know I witnessed 2 CB monologues, but I can't even remember the first monologue). The one I can remember, slightly is the Berlusconi monologue, which was an easy target with even easier jokes. I'm less impressed with CB each week, it seems. Hmmm....

After CB it's David Mitchell's turn to turn my interest off. I honestly don't remember anything of his rant except that it was slightly better than CB's.

It seems Lauren Laverne's role has been even further reduced to linking a bit and spouting out unane things. However, this week she and Jimmy Carr hosted an interview with a 'Freakoconomics'. Laverne taking the lead with Carr backing her up. That was where I left off playing with the cats to write down my first impressions of ep 5.

So I blew it. I only have a very vague idea of what 'freakonomics' is. What I do know is that they let the guy talk with minimum (joke) interuptions. I did like that. Then I lost interest again.

While watching I did make some more notes, but I couldn't be arsed to write them down or remember them. The only thing I remember is that I absolutely hate the sketches. I think Carr did two and Laverne did well. So there you got it.


The ranking I did this afternoon (or a few blogs earlier) was mainly a rating based on episode 4. I'm not sure I can say anything sensible about the ratings drawn from my own experience of episode 5. But this will be it:
1) David Mitchell
2) Charlie Brooker
3) Jimmy Carr (my gawd, he was stumbling last thursday)
4) Lauren Laverne

Nearly 10 O'Clock Live related

While I count the dust and cat hairs in my food while listening with a half ear to 10 O'Clock Live, other people write crap like this when the show is on.

"10 O'Clock Live" - Quick points and Survey results

There’s a notable lack of articles about ’10 O’Clock Live’ on this blog since last week, sort of. Obviously, that’s not entirely true; even though I was sick I did manage to worm out a few words about the show and about how I did not catch it.

I am now up-to-date; someone very kindly uploaded the whole episode on YouTube and I watched it, somewhere in between sips of hot soup. I must admit I have already forgotten what happened. The negative sounds from the forums had left me suspicious, uninspired and uninterested. My cold might have had a stake in that state of mind as well. So, I did watch it, but I can’t yet say much sensible about it. There are a few points though:

 I get increasingly the feeling this show is not aimed at me, which leaves me feeling left out and suspicious with the current students’ level of intellectuality;
 The unbalanced political leanings are getting on my tits;
 The audience’s whooping and cheering is getting seriously on my tits;

And on a more positive note:
 They didn’t swear as much as in other episodes;

And another negative note:
 Less swearing, but more jizz jokes; Oh haha….

My dying interest results in me not as interested in rating anymore as I used to be. However, I’ve had contact with the very kind people of “Survation Ltd” who did the survey on the show. I linked you to the results of the survey last week, I think. As an answer to my questions about the respondents they very kindly sent me the full summary of the survey results. Another inquiry has provided me with permission to publish some interesting results on the question how funny the respondents found the 4 presenters.

Three measures are given; 1) the mean (average) score – adding up their ratings and divided by the number of respondents. 2) Then they looked at the extremes – those rating the presenters a ‘5’ and 3) Those rating the presenters a ‘1’. They expressed the results as a % of the whole.

In the results you can see Mitchell and Brooker can argue about who is the funniest depending on the method.
Only 3% of respondents rate Laverne a ‘5’. Carr is notably far less funny than the other males.

I absolutely loved these results and the different ways you can look at it, especially concerning Brooker and Mitchell.

Yeah all right; “I’m a complete nerd!”

So here's my rating:
1) David Mitchell: Because he stepped way more out of his comfort zone with the interviews than Brooker has. In episode 4 he even (almost) impressed me with his handling the round table discussion about 'the Big Society'. Kudos for that to Mr. Mitchell. Well done!

2) Charlie Brooker: He's just funny, though I wish he pulled his level of quality up. Not too much swearing, and not all the jizz jokes (or maybe just not talking about Berlusconi; a bit too easy a target.)

3) Jimmy Carr: Because he does more than Laverne, is less funny than Brooker and Mitchell, but never really manages to up his game to make a (positive) impression.

4) Lauren Laverne: I'm feeling increasingly more sorry for her. I never understood her presence along the three gentlemen.

Credit: Survation Ltd.
Link: Survey results