Home› UK TV Shows
Click here to check out Digital Spy's TV section for the latest news, previews and reviews of your favourite shows.
Options

Victory for real women presenters

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,242
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in UK TV Shows #1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12161045

As I was talking about real women on TV recently I was very pleased to see this. Thought the BBC reaction to it was also very mature. (No pun intended)

Still waiting for Liza Tarbuck to get her own show.
«134

Comments

  • Options
    PizzatheactionPizzatheaction Posts: 20,157
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    A victory in some respects, but is it going to make broadcasters more reluctant to take on mature presenters in the first place, if it's going to be impossible to sideline them at any point in the future?
  • Options
    John DoughJohn Dough Posts: 146,778
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #3
    They're far less likely to be employed in the first place. Why is it so totally different in America a country that worships youth and beauty but has far more 'older women' in high profile tv jobs?:confused:
  • Options
    doom&gloomdoom&gloom Posts: 9,051
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #4
    What a ridiculous ruling, the TV and film industry employs people based on looks because people want to see young attractive people on the screen, once again this shows the human rights act is an absolute joke.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    doom&gloom wrote: »
    What a ridiculous ruling, the TV and film industry employs people based on looks because people want to see young attractive people on the screen, once again this shows the human rights act is an absolute joke.

    I must have missed that memo.
  • Options
    Timothy BryceTimothy Bryce Posts: 1,733
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    suzzle wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12161045

    As I was talking about real women on TV recently I was very pleased to see this. Thought the BBC reaction to it was also very mature. (No pun intended)

    Still waiting for Liza Tarbuck to get her own show.

    What makes them real?
  • Options
    domedome Posts: 55,878
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    doom&gloom wrote: »
    What a ridiculous ruling, the TV and film industry employs people based on looks because people want to see young attractive people on the screen, once again this shows the human rights act is an absolute joke.

    Not everyone is seduced by a ' young pretty face'

    I prefer intelligence to breathless giggling.
  • Options
    TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    People like to see a range of faces on screen, TV bosses don't.

    Hard to understand why. But the modern TV executive gets everything wrong so this is just one more thing out of many.
  • Options
    jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #9
    John Dough wrote: »
    They're far less likely to be employed in the first place. Why is it so totally different in America a country that worships youth and beauty but has far more 'older women' in high profile tv jobs?:confused:

    You mean like Diane Sawyer [especially] and Katie Couric.
    Both botoxed to within an inch of their lives.
  • Options
    doom&gloomdoom&gloom Posts: 9,051
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #10
    But do you want every show to be Last of the Summer Wine because that's what could happen.
  • Options
    jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #11
    Tassium wrote: »
    . But the modern TV executive gets everything wrong so this is just one more thing out of many.

    While you always get it so right:D
  • Options
    John DoughJohn Dough Posts: 146,778
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #12
    And Barbara Walters, even Oprah is 'over 50!'.:eek:
  • Options
    Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #13
    doom&gloom wrote: »
    But do you want every show to be Last of the Summer Wine because that's what could happen.

    That's a "feast or famine" alternative. It doesn't have to be like that.
  • Options
    mimicolemimicole Posts: 51,038
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #14
    Timothy Bryce wrote: »
    What makes them real?

    ^ my thoughts exactly.
  • Options
    1fab1fab Posts: 20,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    Isn't it a bit ageist suggesting that young, pretty women aren't "real?"
  • Options
    currykevcurrykev Posts: 1,577
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    suzzle wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12161045

    As I was talking about real women on TV recently I was very pleased to see this. Thought the BBC reaction to it was also very mature. (No pun intended)

    Still waiting for Liza Tarbuck to get her own show.

    I'd have prefered you to actually say something than just show a link.
  • Options
    GneissGneiss Posts: 14,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #17
    Phyllis Stein wrote: »
    I must have missed that memo.
    Well I for one don't want to look at a bunch of saggy old people who should have been put out to grass years ago every time I switch on the TV...

    The TV is there for entertainment and escapism and if I wanted ugly reality 24/7 then I'd go and live in a supermarket!
  • Options
    doom&gloomdoom&gloom Posts: 9,051
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #18
    Gneiss wrote: »
    Well I for one don't want to look at a bunch of saggy old people who should have been put out to grass years ago every time I switch on the TV...

    The TV is there for entertainment and escapism and if I wanted ugly reality 24/7 then I'd go and live in a supermarket!

    I would spend my evenings staring in the mirror rather than watching the TV.

    Don't forget we've got HD now which will show up every wrinkle, liver spot and spider vein.
  • Options
    GneissGneiss Posts: 14,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #19
    doom&gloom wrote: »
    Don't forget we've got HD now.

    I'll be avoiding it after this ridiculous ruling...

    Lots of careers have limited longevity people in them normally have the brains to realise it.
  • Options
    DavetheScotDavetheScot Posts: 16,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #20
    1fab wrote: »
    Isn't it a bit ageist suggesting that young, pretty women aren't "real?"

    Yes, it is.
  • Options
    lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #21
    doom&gloom wrote: »
    But do you want every show to be Last of the Summer Wine because that's what could happen.

    Perhaps if the series had not ended someone should have accused it of being ageist by not employing enough young actors.

    I notice quite a few older presenters are not agreeing with her case.

    As usual the BBC answer is "more training"! So some poor managers will have to go on a boring one day course and a training company will make lots of money out of the BBC.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,442
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #22
    suzzle wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12161045

    As I was talking about real women on TV recently I was very pleased to see this. Thought the BBC reaction to it was also very mature. (No pun intended)

    Still waiting for Liza Tarbuck to get her own show.

    Liza Tarbuck had her own show - it was a Sky thing about animals or pets or something. I am sure this is true, although I might have had a fever induced dream once.

    To be honest I would rather that she doesn't get another show as she isn't the best example for "real women on TV"
  • Options
    pocatellopocatello Posts: 8,813
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #23
    Bizarre, no one is entitled to such cushy jobs, really ...a presenter? Looks are part of the job description, it is merely entertainment. This is in effect just selective job protectionism. If audiences cared so much about a presenter they would stop watching if they were removed, this is rarely the case.
  • Options
    GneissGneiss Posts: 14,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #24
    pocatello wrote: »
    Bizarre, no one is entitled to such cushy jobs, really ...a presenter? Looks are part of the job description, it is merely entertainment.
    Exactly...
    pocatello wrote: »
    If audiences cared so much about a presenter they would stop watching if they were removed, this is rarely the case.
    It's not as if it's a new Dr Who or something :D I expect most people don't care once they are used to the change.
  • Options
    domedome Posts: 55,878
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #25
    pocatello wrote: »
    Bizarre, no one is entitled to such cushy jobs, really ...a presenter? Looks are part of the job description, it is merely entertainment. This is in effect just selective job protectionism. If audiences cared so much about a presenter they would stop watching if they were removed, this is rarely the case.

    If looks are such a part of it, why can men become wrinkly and keep their jobs but women are not?
  • Options
    petelypetely Posts: 2,994
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #26
    dome wrote: »
    If looks are such a part of it, why can men become wrinkly and keep their jobs but women are not?
    This was discussed on Newsnight last night. Briefly, they hauled in a coven of "older" women who are influential in TV policy (at least, in their own minds) such as the controller of some part of BBC1, Ester Rantzen and someone else. The discussion was hosted by Emily Maitliss - you can look up her age yourself, if it's that important to you.
    The thing is, while they all agreed that if the decision had been made based on the skin colour of the person in question, that would be despicable. However Maitliss pointed out that the main reason "front of camera" people get paid so much more than all the other workers on a programme is because they have a shorter "shelf life".

    The other thing that struck me while watching the piece was that although all the women were in the 40-70 bracket, there wasn't a single grey hair among them and the sort of silky smooth skin that you associate with cosmetic procedures and trowelled on makeup.

    So while they were all saying how shocking it was that women should be passed over for reasons of looking old, none of them displayed the courage of their own convictions and they were all trying to look as young as they possibly could.

    The difference between older men on TV and older women is that fewer old men try to conceal their age. Maybe one reason why they are less criticised for the crime of growing old is because they don't display such a double standard of saying that age doesn't matter, yet all the time showing that they don't really believe that by trying to look younger?
Sign In or Register to comment.