"10 O'Clock Live" Response to the Response to the Twitter Response

Don’t get me wrong with this blog, because I find the article given as a source below a refreshing and reasonably sensible article. However, there are few things I would like to address.

For the sheer joy of confusion I’m going to start with the last paragraph of the article.

The writer says:

10 O’Clock Live gives politics a vibrancy that simply just doesn’t exist on any other political programme

I was in many occasions under the impression a great deal of excitement concerning politics often lay in the subject or in the situation the economy is in. Granted, the credit crisis is the least sexy crisis I have ever experienced. However the current status Great Britain is in is an interesting one. Just like in many other countries due to the credit crisis. I’ve never been more interested in hearing whatever politicians cooked up this time, if only to see if the current Government, be it the British one or the Dutch one, can work it out and keeps standing. That’s why I’m watching and listening more closely than I ever have.

Beside that, what 10 O’Clock Live is trying, I’m using the word ‘trying’ deliberately because it doesn’t quite work yet, is not new. Political comedy shows are as old as TV is, almost. The writer should have realized that with all the comparisons which are made. For instance, the most obvious one, the Daily Show, is one and happens to have come up more than once or twice. So to say they’re trying something completely new is not completely true.

One paragraph earlier the writer talks about how people were complaining about the ‘left wing’ leanings. I agree a lot of the things said were simply sensible and should have a positive response, though there’s no need to cheer and whoop on every occasion a silence or no silence occurs. The audience was a bit too happy for my liking and they put off the presenters a few times which resulted in awkwardness. Even David Mitchell himself referenced to the atmosphere as ‘panto’, which was, I think, not necessarily a positive note. Also, I happen to know for the Alternative Election Night show the audience was selected on political conviction. But that was another show all together in another situation, so let’s not bring that up.

Then the third paragraph from the bottom. Here the writer assumes all tweeters are “people with increasingly short attention spans” and with “dull brains”. That’s not completely fair. I followed tweets all night long when the show was on. What I saw often was that people were actually disappointed certain subjects weren’t explored any deeper and that people were wishing they weren’t skipping through subjects so quickly. What I remember is that people were excited about David Mitchell’s interview with MP David Willetts about the tuition fees. To say that Twitter’s discontent had to do with their short attention spans is a downright lie.

The fourth and fifth paragraph from the bottom lead up to the third paragraph from the bottom. Here it’s quite obvious the writer based thoughts about the average tweeter on 1 tweet. One tweet hardly represents a whole population where every single member has a voice. Please do a proper research before spewing your impressions and opinions into the world or at least phrase them with more care the next time.

What I think the writer misinterpreted is why the tweeters generally weren’t happy with the show. The tweeters applauded the idea, just not the execution of the idea. With that said I have to agree the average tweeter was unnecessary harsh since they were complaining about a new show which is also live. Where I think a great deal of the twitter society went wrong is; their own patience. The word ‘fruition’ doesn’t seem to exist in their book.

Someone on twitter said (paraphrased): “Charlie Brooker could probably fill a whole episode of Screenwipe about this show”. He probably could, but I think if he hadn’t been involved, he would have had the decency to let the show run for a while before shooting it down and he would only shoot it down if the show didn’t improve after the first run. Twitter made me wish Charlie would make a Screenwipe. Not about how bad 10 O’Clock Live is, but about how hard it is to put a new (live) show on its feet.

Source: ATV Networks 10 O’Clock Live: The Twitter Response

"10 O'Clock Live" According to Online Community

This is not an actual review, because I didn’t watch it. What I did during the whole run of the show and now at work is working through as many comments and reviews as I can to get a bit of an idea how the online community feels after the first 10 O’Clock Live news broadcast. I think it should give a good idea of what people liked and disliked and I think it could even make clear where the show went well and where improvement is (desperately) needed.

I like to kick off with noting it was a first run of a new show with at least 3 out of the 4 hosts with minimal (just 1 show) live presenting experience. Of course the show wasn’t going to get to its feet and run off. Just like any baby it fell flat on its face a couple of times, but got up and made a new attempt. What I’ve been saying is, give them a chance to get used to this new vehicle of entertainment; there’s definitely a promise of a good show.


I read Twitter throughout the whole run of the show. The show was reported every second by someone giving the reader a clear view of what happened and how people (not in the studio) experienced it.

The start of the show was very wobbly and not appreciated much and downright disliked by many. I don’t think I read 1 positive comment about Jimmy Carr’s standup routine, if you can call it that. Can I call it that? From that point on people were complaining about how unfunny it was. About how wooden it seemed and how no subject was given enough time to be properly explored. This went on for 30 minutes. It wasn’t all negativity; some Mitchell and Brooker action spawned some positive reactions, but it couldn’t hold the attention of many. Unfortunately, the show only turned around somewhat around the 30 minutes mark; unfortunately because many viewers had just left around the 20 minutes mark to turn over to bbcq (not sure what that is).

Around the 30 minutes mark the C-bomb fell. From that point on suddenly everything started to speed up again (on twitter that is; the pace in the show had finally settled I believe) opposed to the slow down from 10 minutes into the show to the 30 minutes mark. Both Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell did something, I don’t know what. Because Twitter feed sped up it was harder to keep up and to remember what was said; I only know it definitely felt like the turning point. I think, if I remember right, Mitchell did quite good in his interview with MP David Willetts. Brooker did something good, but I honestly can’t remember what, because at that point I was getting excited again. Something about a monologue he did?

All in all, I went to bed a pretty contented little twitter sniffer, thanks to the 30 minutes turning point. It has to be said though, Twitter (and that is people who tweet) tend to exaggerate; when things don’t go as expected it’s called “shite” and when something better happens it’s a “show saver”. I’m not sure how much value I should give it. The reviews seemed milder.

Remarkable Observations as in that everybody seems to agree with the below points:
1. Jimmy Carr’s standup routine was not found successful due to the feeling he was doing jokes that had been circling on Twitter for the past few hours. It also felt like he was trying too hard to show he followed the news.

2. There was no cohesion in the show since the format kept jumping around between the 4(?) hosts.

3. No time was taken (in the first half) to explore a subject properly. Too many subjects were too old to be called news in the week that was. Too many subjects were introduced for a more in depth and informative show.

4. Even in the longer subject handling not enough time was taken; they kept having to cut because time was up.

5. Lauren Laverne was terribly underused. If you want her on the show, give her something of substantial to do.

6. There was too much audience. They were too loud, too frantic and eager to laugh hysterically at anything (probably drunk?) and too many (view) cuts to the audience.


Those were the 6 main negative points I see returning in almost all comments and reviews.

Overall not a bad start for a live show with 3 inexperienced presenters and the token female who doesn’t get much to do, but be the token female. There’s definitely a promise.

Online reviews
1. The First Post
2. The Guardian
3. The Independent
4. Beehivecity
5. New Statesman
6. the Telegraph
7. publicservice.co.uk

"10 O'Clock Live" New C4 Show

A lot of noise has been made about this new program that will be broadcast live on C4 this evening. Especially, since it hasn’t been on air yet. It is described as “a fresh and unashamedly intelligent take on current affairs from a young perspective.” A series of 15 episodes of an hour long over 15 weeks is planned for this show, and it’s live.

The show has its origins during the British Election Night last year. That evening it ran for 4 hours and was presented as “the Alternative Election Night”. The show proved such a success; soon rumours were going around about a series sprouting from the show. Only now not just politics will be subject, but other interesting things as well like “How Wayne Rooney looks like a potato”.

There will be interviews, discussions and critical and satirical elements. It has been reported politicians have already agreed to be guests. All in all an exciting outlook; though still expectations are mixed.

Many times this new show has been compared to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and it will be up against Newsweek and Question Time. It has yet to be unfolded how things will go down for this new satirical news program.

The show is a production by Zeppotron, an Endemol company and is commissioned by C4’s Darren Smith, the lead commissioner for this series.

It will be presented by the same group of hosts that presented the Alternative Election Night, namely Jimmy Carr, David Mitchell, Lauren Laverne and Charlie Brooker. And it’s called “10 O’Clock Live”.

The first broadcast will be this evening.

<>

Okay, that was really just an exercise in writing. I suppose not too bad, but not exactly great either. Reading back I realize it’s really a mishmash of facts and other nonsense. All true however and some free advert for the show.

I won’t be watching; I don’t receive C4.

The Most Depressing Day of the Year

Today it was brought to my attention someone declared this day, January 17th, the most depressing day of the year. Apparently that was news, because it was something that could be read in a paper.

I do agree this is not the most cheerful day I’ve ever experienced. It’s dark and misty outside. It’s also a Monday, which never helps, apparently. And all the festivities have come to an end for a while.

I must admit, I have felt better. I have experienced days without a headache and with floods of sunshine and days that are not Mondays or days on which we are celebrating something. And yet, I have the feeling we can’t yet say this is the most depressing day of the year. I’m even sure more depressing days are ahead of us. Maybe not for you, but certainly for a lot of other people. Fact is, no one can tell yet, unless they have the ability to look into the future which they don’t.

Why is that news anyway? If you don’t have anything worthwhile to say, why do you feel the need to air a depressing unfact? Who even put energy in justifying why this is the most depressing day of the year? You don’t know and nor does anybody else. Why depressing yourself and everybody who was unfortunate enough to read it or come across it in some way?

This been an irritating day, to me. Yes, it could have been better. It also could have been worse. Overall, this was not a too bad day. I was stuck at work, like so many other days, and tried to wrestle my way through incomprehensible problems. No, not the most inspiring or motivating way to spend a day, but at least I’ve got some work done. Actually, I’m pretty contented with how today things went (apart from the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’).

Today I brought a few bags of candy to work, which resulted in hilarity. I had some funny and rather tense relieving conversations with a colleague. I handed in a few documents which I could tick off as finished (for now). Also a few incomprehensible problems turned out to be not as incomprehensible as expected, which was good.

So, I’ll be going home with an OK feeling about today. Nothing more, nothing less.

Good day!

WHAT NOT TO SAY - the Alarm Clock (Britain) Affair

Good Morning!

Yes, a good morning to you ‘Alarm Clock’ people. As if...

This morning I had the misfortune to wake up to two, yes two, ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ columns respectively by two of my favourite columnists/comedians. Unfortunately too, I am not a member of ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ and even if I was, this whole ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ affair leaves me incredibly baffled. I suppose that was the point of both columns; so they certainly didn’t miss their points.

Neither did Nick Clegg, the cause of the whole consternation. They, CB and DM, wrote about it. I am writing about it. Unfortunately (it’s a real unfortunate choice of words resulting in an unfortunate situation), he misses his goal. What the hell or rather who the hell is he talking about? I can only conclude this is the start of the apocalypse.

I am not willing to discuss the choice of words any further. Go read Charlie Brooker’s and David Mitchell’s columns for that; they said it all.
Sources:
1. David Mitchell's column and
2. Charlie Brooker's column

I am going to be sarcastic about it though.

I woke up, sort of, to my alarm clock. Like on every Sunday evening I set my alarm clock to 7 am. Not with the intention to wake up or something, rather with the intention to pretend I’m going to be a good girl and get up at the first sounds of a blaring alarm. I don’t think my zombie kind of state qualifies as getting up. Beside that, the only thing I do as a reaction to the alarm is turning it off for another blissful 9 minutes to repeat the procedure. Around 8 am thoughts start to form in my head that I really should get up or I’ll be fantastically late at work.

This morning was an exceptional sleepy affair. Unlike many other mornings my mind registered the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’. For good measure I’m now going to explain what an ‘Alarm Clock Affair’ is.

An Alarm Clock Affair is the affair of reaching some level of consciousness, due to a blaring alarm clock, and getting into an upward position out of the bed to make my way to the alarm clock and turn it off for 9 more minutes, then I return to the bed. This procedure is repeated till 8 o’clock am. This whole procedure, from 7 am to 8 am, is the ‘Alarm Clock Affair’.

Anyway, registered but not as much as awake. I realized I needed to clean out my cats’ lavatory (or lavalibdem in this case *snigger* ergh...) which meant I needed some extra time before leaving the house for work.
Only now I reached a higher level of being awake. Nothing special, but I was very quickly aware of the dodgy state of mind of this day.

Does that make me an ‘Alarm Clock’ person? I suppose it does, yet I feel it has nothing to do with me. Not only because I’m not British, but also whenever Mr. Clegg uses that phrase I feel strangely alienated from whatever he’s trying to express. I wish he knew what he was talking about; I have the daunting suspicion he doesn’t, like no one seems to know.

I now go laugh/cry/scream in a corner.

If I had said something like ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ at work I would have received my resignation letter.

This whole 'Alarm Clock' Affair made me angrier than I should have become! That's why half of the title is in capitols.

I did however edit this piece a mere 7 times for your enjoyment. Not that I was actually counting.

Hello Charlie

There are quite a few new programs aligned to get broadcast this year. All in all quite exciting, especially since Charlie Brooker is involved. I wanted to say “people I like”, but I quickly realized it really mainly were Charlie Brooker “projects”.

However, it seems the Bubble is not going to return, because David Mitchell choose the 10 O’Clock Live live thing over the Bubble. Maybe a shame, but I was not that big a fan of the Bubble. I felt it would get boring quite quickly with all the (fake) reports. Also, how many more times can you put the same people in a house for a week while they have busy schedules?

Look how ably I steered this blog post away from Charlie Brooker and “new programs”. I’m almost proud of myself, but this lame paragraph shot my pride in the eye and now it’s dying.

For the first time in a long time I’m excited about what’s coming to us on the airwaves of television. Right while I’m at the point of losing the ability to watch TV at all. My ex wants the TV and I get almost anything else. And even though I really want “anything else”, I’m really going to miss the TV in this time and age. Not that I was able to watch 10 O’Clock Live as it is happening live; I don’t receive C4. Another Brooker project is going out on BBC2, which I do receive. So yeah, that sort of sucks. Or I have to buy a new TV which I think I’m going to, because I really don’t want to be without at this point in this spring.

I’m still a bit deflated over my friends not liking Charlie. As usual, in my direct surroundings, no one likes him or knows him which leaves me alone to celebrate and it’s a lonely party this way.

Here’s a piece I wrote earlier, but didn’t post because it doesn’t really reflect my feelings and I felt Charlie didn’t deserved to be shouted at for handing over the Screen Burn Column. I just like the flow of words.

Hello Charlie

For years you observed the (TV) world and described it in bold capital letters, scolding people and breaking down programs, games and news items alike to the core of what things were and had become. Not in it to make friends, but to point and groan. Maybe pointing out all that is wrong and went bad made you wary and despising mankind even more than you did.

Soon people thought of you as profane, rude, crude, angry and maybe even aggressive. You started to feel bad for some people you gave a beating. You became confused by how people saw you. You thought it all went slightly worse with your own contribution, so you decided to stop.

Turns out the worse thing you’ve done so far.

Extra instructions:
Ignore the spelling and grammar mistakes.

Grace Dent took over the Screen Burn Column; Go Read It!
Screen Burn
Loads of Screen Burns of Grace Dent and Charlie Brooker alike. (scroll down for Grace)

And some more randomness:
Could have gone on Twitter (yes yes, I have a Twitter account)

I See

So that is how it all works?

And another one for Twitter?

Holla

For a while now, I have been wanting to fly.

And...

He stops Screen Burning and I saw that as the perfect sign to start following him. Bollocks!!! Another regular fixture down the drain. What am I supposed to do on Monday mornings now?

The last one is actually too big for Twitter. And Charlie-related...like I'm not, WAHahahe..ehumm...

Right. That's said.

the Online Society

This has to be said.

I am one of the many people inhabiting this online society. I have met many people online since I've been born on here. Some are good people, some are bad apples. Isn't that just how life works?

I remember hearing and reading several fame inflicted people complaining about the comments sections on YouTube or below paper articles and columns. I suppose the advice not read it still stands for them famous people. However, I have to stand up for the occasional normal person with some intellect and the ones with wit. Even though I believe a lot of those comedians operate on a high level, I do also know I have laughed sometimes even harder at online comments.

It's there. Just like I endure some (self acclaimed) artists to get to the good bits, I do endure the many stupid comments to get to the good ones. Thing is, it's all there and like with everything good in life you have to search for it and it never lasts very long. But it's there and I wouldn't want to miss it.

What does scare me about those online comments is; These all come from people living somewhere in real society. Isn't that frightening?

Just a pet peeve. *off soapbox*