"Loose Women is on a break, but a loose talking man has taken over the reins for the Easter hols. James O'Brien is in the hot seat, and I'm thrilled that another debate and audience led show is on the air.
Live interaction gives the good people of Britain the chance to express what they think, either in a studio or on the phone, and some of the comments on the show so far have been a revelation - as has O'Brien, who is sharp witted with a wicked gleam in his eye.
We couldn't have handed over the reins to anyone better. In fact, he could almost be one of us!".
I'm having trouble watching this because the host looks like Chris Morris in Brass Eye! The drugs section will have celebs tell "Da Kids" not to take cake soon. They'll be having celebs against pedophiles tomorrow!
If they absolutely insist on packing the station with right-wing/far-right/UKIP presenters why can't they at least entice proper radio broadcasters like James Whale back in? Or Mike Mendoza even.
Another vote from me for Mendoza to get a show back on LBC
If they absolutely insist on packing the station with right-wing/far-right/UKIP presenters why can't they at least entice proper radio broadcasters like James Whale back in? Or Mike Mendoza even
I trust your tongue is very firmly in your cheek regarding that statement (though I suspect not).
James Whale is a self-confessed Tory, who lost his job at Talksport several years ago when he told his listeners to vote Tory at the Mayoral elections. As for Mendoza, he was a Tory Councillor for Adur District Council and is still a paid-up member of the Conservative Party So no bias then. Despite that Mike Mendoza was a great overnight presenter on LBC (the last really good one) and he kept his uk politics out of it, until he joined TS.
And I also accept that JOB is getting worse, rather than better, but he comes in for enough criticism on here already, and I still maintain that NF and IC are generally worse. It's getting to be a close run thing, these days, though.
Rather than edit my post, I'll add a further thought this way.
Regardless of political positions, the one thing that I still like about JOB and that makes him different from IC, NF, AP, etc, is that he does try to look at detail and challenge people to back up their staunchest views. I may not like how he does it these days, but I still appreciate that he does it at all.
I think other presenters would do well to adopt a more forensic approach from time to time, rather than just banging out the same old prejudices, either without or in the face of the evidence.
Listening to John Stapleton this morning, he tried hard to throw back some of Farage's opinions and the pro-UKIP callers. But when they chose to effectively ignore Stapleton (or worse, try to accuse him of being anti-UKIP just for asking), he didn't really press further.
Thank you, thank you. But as you've just infringed my copyright, please expect a letter from my lawyer very soon ;-);-)
I think it's a technique used by a number of LBC presenters, but I find JOB to not be quite as bad as Ferrari or Ian Collins. That said, and as is oft-repeated here, it could be that it just doesn't stand out as much when the listener agrees with the presenter's point of view.
And I also accept that JOB is getting worse, rather than better, but he comes in for enough criticism on here already, and I still maintain that NF and IC are generally worse. It's getting to be a close run thing, these days, though.
.I agree there are certainly others using similar tactics - maybe they're just a bit calmer and mellow in the way they go about things .Not a fan of IC personally - reminds me of Johnny Vaughan for some unfathomable reason .
I used to love Ian Collins when he did the overnights on TalkRadio with light-hearted topics.
But when it comes to the serious stuff, I couldn't agree more with the above. He berates callers for using hyperbole, but never ceases to use it himself. Rather like Ferrari, when he has an erudite caller who's proving him wrong, he switches to making jokes, diverts the caller from the points they're making, and infantilises the argument.
I don't mind that he's a Tory, but I do mind that he keeps denying it, when it's so bloomin' obvious in just about everything he says and does!
Exactly the same with Brian - current daytime TV doyen of the chavs
" he has an erudite caller who's proving him wrong, he switches to making jokes, diverts the caller from the points they're making, and infantilises the argument. "
Oh, how exactly that describes Brain's technique! I haven't seen (and have no intention of watching) his TV programme, but I've caught him a couple of times on Newsnight and am disturbed by his new image - even more so by a photo in the current Radio Times - as he now looks as if he's been embalmed!
Well, we finally got there! Summed up really rather well. Well done the three of you.
The only difference between the two presenters, Ferrari and O'Brien, is that I expect more from O'Brien (as a few posters keep saying on here) because he is better than the current lousy output he produces these days, day in day out. He knows infantalising the issues makes for poor argument, analysis and understanding - not only does he make such an issue of it in his show; it has become an issue that is his show. And yet ironically, infantalisation is a tool he likes to use when calling out someone on their POVs - i.e. the 'infantalisation' of either the caller or their argument, however preposterous their argument is. When he starts doing that, it undermines both him and his whole show since it is the very thing he and his show despises and set themselves against. Hence the much mockery of him on this thread.
Ferrari, on the other hand, make no pretensions of being and doing otherwise. He is a Sun man through and through - infantalisation is de rigueur as part of the Sun's make-up. Not only does Ferrari take pleasure in it, he practically boasts and wallows in the stuff, and so the employment of 'infantalisation' as a way of discussing the issues is something I now come to expect Ferrari to do and engage in. And yet ironically Ferrari also knows infantalising the issues makes for poor argument, analysis and understanding. The only difference between him and O'Brien is that he doesn't wear that knowledge/awareness on his sleeve or make it a fundamental part of his show so as to make himself look like a hypocritcal idiot.
ETA: I don't listen to Ian Collins so I can't comment on him and/or his show.
There's a write up about J O'B in this week's Radio Times. It says that if his ten shows go well, they could sign him up for longer. I hope not. Despite crtiticising him when I feel it's justified, I think he's an asset to LBC and I would miss him.
I don't see it happening, at least, not daily. I can't see it replacing Loose Women or Jeremy Kyle. And he'd run out of the sort of topics that suit the show's format.
A big difference between the two is that Nick is good-humoured and O'Brien most certainly is not.
Because, unlike the issue he talks about, Ferrari doesn't take himself (too) seriously. James has become too po-faced of late because he takes himself way too seriously, believing himself to be an intellectual heavyweight/colossus, so much so that when he does attempt to be self-deprecating it sounds all rather insincere to my ears.
James is a highly intelligent, analytical and perceptive presenter (probably the best of all the LBC presenters in this regard) but these days he either overestimates the depths of his gift or is rather prideful of it that it goes much into his own ego and/or up his own fundament.:(
There's a write up about J O'B in this week's Radio Times. It says that if his ten shows go well, they could sign him up for longer. I hope not. Despite crtiticising him when I feel it's justified, I think he's an asset to LBC and I would miss him.
I don't see it happening, at least, not daily. I can't see it replacing Loose Women or Jeremy Kyle. And he'd run out of the sort of topics that suit the show's format.
I don't think he would take it. I have watched the shows and it looks like he is struggling not to put forward his view and I think and I'm sure he knows that he is better on LBC. If he did a show where he had guests on and took calls from people (like the Wright Stuff on Channel 5) it might be a bit better.
.I agree there are certainly others using similar tactics - maybe they're just a bit calmer and mellow in the way they go about things ..
I agree about the calm and mellow bit, but in a way, that's maybe why I dislike them more. To me, it comes over as patronising and sarcastic, displaying a massive superiority complex. And that for me is NF and IC all over.
The only difference between the two presenters, Ferrari and O'Brien, is that I expect more from O'Brien (as a few posters keep saying on here) because he is better than the current lousy output he produces these days, day in day out.
James is a highly intelligent, analytical and perceptive presenter (probably the best of all the LBC presenters in this regard) but these days he either overestimates the depths of his gift or is rather prideful of it that it goes much into his own ego and/or up his own fundament.:(
I agree with both those quotes. I suppose, though, that I think Ferrari, etc shouldn't be let off the criticism just because he never even aims higher. For me, that makes him worse, for not even trying.
Because, unlike the issue he talks about, Ferrari doesn't take himself (too) seriously. James has become too po-faced of late because he takes himself way too seriously, believing himself to be an intellectual heavyweight/colossus, so much so that when he does attempt to be self-deprecating it sounds all rather insincere to my ears.
James is a highly intelligent, analytical and perceptive presenter (probably the best of all the LBC presenters in this regard) but these days he either overestimates the depths of his gift or is rather prideful of it that it goes much into his own ego and/or up his own fundament.:(
I'd say he's just a good average and the way he goes about trying to shoe-horn "big" words into his conversation makes me think he's a pretty silly person.
There's a write up about J O'B in this week's Radio Times. It says that if his ten shows go well, they could sign him up for longer. I hope not. Despite crtiticising him when I feel it's justified, I think he's an asset to LBC and I would miss him.
I don't see it happening, at least, not daily. I can't see it replacing Loose Women or Jeremy Kyle. And he'd run out of the sort of topics that suit the show's format.
It looks as though things are not going well for Brian on ITV. From the TV Forum.
I don't think he would take it. I have watched the shows and it looks like he is struggling not to put forward his view and I think and I'm sure he knows that he is better on LBC. If he did a show where he had guests on and took calls from people (like the Wright Stuff on Channel 5) it might be a bit better.
Before LBC came calling, he previously did a show on Channel 5 with Matthew Wright and Kate Silverton. He was really good on it, and I used to enjoy watching it until the showrunners replaced him and Kate. Having not watched his new ITV but going on the comments on here, I wonder if his problem is less to do with the medium as it is to do with the format of the shows he is in/presents.
makaba: I agree that Ferrari isn't above criticism and shouldn't be let off on it. I think my main bugbear with him centres round his engagement with experts who, though being of a different political persuasion, sometimes do have an interesting and insightful perspective of the issues his show discusses. Sometimes, he can be too dismissive of the spirit behind the issue at hand - for instance, teaching sex education in schools. I cannot count how many times people who specialise in this stuff have said that 1) sexual education has to be age-appropriate, 2) there are some lazy and/or ill-equipped/embarrassed parents who just cannot talk to their children on this issue for various reasons, and 3) in light of the many cases of child abuse, probably needs to be addressed anyway and urgently, only to have Ferrari froth at the mouth over it. Whether the dismissiveness/frothing is a deliberate act ('amusing' as it is and I do understand his misgivings), I have no idea, but it can also be a rather dangerous and closed-off if not parochial attitude to adopt as well.
http://www.iqbeats.com/ have the ENTIRE library of beds and jingles of the previous package. The current offering was produced in the Czech Republic but doesn't seem to have a home. Chris Golds is on Twitter @chrisgolds . Seems like a nice boy.
makaba: I agree that Ferrari isn't above criticism and shouldn't be let off on it. I think my main bugbear with him centres round his engagement with experts who, though being of a different political persuasion, sometimes do have an interesting and insightful perspective of the issues his show discusses. Sometimes, he can be too dismissive of the spirit behind the issue at hand - for instance, teaching sex education in schools. ... Whether the dismissiveness/frothing is a deliberate act ('amusing' as it is and I do understand his misgivings), I have no idea, but it can also be a rather dangerous and closed-off if not parochial attitude to adopt as well.
I agree. It's just this dismissiveness that means I hardly listen to him anymore. Whenever I do, it usually takes just minutes for him to make me switch over yet again.
I've said it before, but many moons ago I heard Ferrari change his mind on air, after listening to an excellent caller talking about his experience of racism. It was compelling listening and Ferrari walked us through why he'd changed his mind.
Sadly, it then turned out as if that conversation had never happened. The next time the topic came up, he went right back to the same old tired schtick, which I do indeed find dangerous. Presenters do have some influence and power and to continue to push the same old prejudiced, un-nuanced, tabloid crap is the mark of a nasty piece of work. At the end of the day, it's placing more value on listening figures and therefore revenue than it is on truth or honesty. And that's appalling from an outlet that purports to give us The News. It is anti-journalism.
I also entirely agree with you about the sex education topic, but it is only one of many possible examples. To keep having the same conversations with experts, but take nothing whatsoever on board, to keep peddling the same faux outrage, is the mark of a dangerous fool in my book. And worse, to have the feeling that this is all manufactured for an audience, too.
For all his faults, I generally get the feeling that JOB is passionate and believes in the arguments he makes. I don't get that from Ferrari. I find him fake.
http://www.iqbeats.com/ have the ENTIRE library of beds and jingles of the previous package. The current offering was produced in the Czech Republic but doesn't seem to have a home. Chris Golds is on Twitter @chrisgolds . Seems like a nice boy.
Thanks for that, have you got anymore websites like that?
I also entirely agree with you about the sex education topic, but it is only one of many possible examples. To keep having the same conversations with experts, but take nothing whatsoever on board, to keep peddling the same faux outrage, is the mark of a dangerous fool in my book. And worse, to have the feeling that this is all manufactured for an audience, too.
For all his faults, I generally get the feeling that JOB is passionate and believes in the arguments he makes. I don't get that from Ferrari. I find him fake.
Wow, are you inside my head?:D This is exactly what I find sooo annoying with Ferrari. Well, it used to irritate me until I realised he probably does it more for effect than anything else. Nothing, bar the Sun's headline and narrative content, seems to inform his opinion. Now I just treat his show pretty much the same way I treat The Sun headline: with a bit of a shoulder-shrug and a verbal "ho hum!" His is a morning show that is meant to be the polar opposite to its rival Nicky Campbell/Rachel Burden's Radio 5 show: not taxing on a brain shaking off last night's sleep with its somewhat shallow 'depth'-analysis.
http://www.iqbeats.com/ have the ENTIRE library of beds and jingles of the previous package. The current offering was produced in the Czech Republic but doesn't seem to have a home. Chris Golds is on Twitter @chrisgolds . Seems like a nice boy.
SO much better than the current imaging. Terrible production, it's all indistinct, badly arranged.
And don't get me started on the voice over guy again. Oh, too late.
He can't even say ELL-BC ! We hear a slovenly Ew-BC sound. And when he's trying to sound dramatic, it sounds stupid. " A-thius is Ew-BC"!
And, forgive me, but I thought the Morning News was presented by Lisa Aziz?
Not someone called Liser Raziz, as the voice over says.
SO much better than the current imaging. Terrible production, it's all indistinct, badly arranged.
And don't get me started on the voice over guy again. Oh, too late.
He can't even say ELL-BC ! We hear a slovenly Ew-BC sound. And when he's trying to sound dramatic, it sounds stupid. " A-thius is Ew-BC"!
And, forgive me, but I thought the Morning News was presented by Lisa Aziz?
Not someone called Liser Raziz, as the voice over says.
So terrible.
The 'ew' thing gets right on my nerves every single time I tune in (which isn't often now) - in fact I have annoyingly developed a habit of waiting for him to say it, which makes it worse. I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice.
Don't get me started on news'reader' Linzi Kinghorn - oh, alright then. She's another one incapable of pronouncing 'L'. Wales becomes 'wails'. Anything she says with an 'L' in it is not pronounced correctly.
Comments
Live interaction gives the good people of Britain the chance to express what they think, either in a studio or on the phone, and some of the comments on the show so far have been a revelation - as has O'Brien, who is sharp witted with a wicked gleam in his eye.
We couldn't have handed over the reins to anyone better. In fact, he could almost be one of us!".
I do not know but the show continues to have its problems apparently.
James Whale is a self-confessed Tory, who lost his job at Talksport several years ago when he told his listeners to vote Tory at the Mayoral elections. As for Mendoza, he was a Tory Councillor for Adur District Council and is still a paid-up member of the Conservative Party So no bias then. Despite that Mike Mendoza was a great overnight presenter on LBC (the last really good one) and he kept his uk politics out of it, until he joined TS.
Rather than edit my post, I'll add a further thought this way.
Regardless of political positions, the one thing that I still like about JOB and that makes him different from IC, NF, AP, etc, is that he does try to look at detail and challenge people to back up their staunchest views. I may not like how he does it these days, but I still appreciate that he does it at all.
I think other presenters would do well to adopt a more forensic approach from time to time, rather than just banging out the same old prejudices, either without or in the face of the evidence.
Listening to John Stapleton this morning, he tried hard to throw back some of Farage's opinions and the pro-UKIP callers. But when they chose to effectively ignore Stapleton (or worse, try to accuse him of being anti-UKIP just for asking), he didn't really press further.
Or breastfeeding?
.I agree there are certainly others using similar tactics - maybe they're just a bit calmer and mellow in the way they go about things .Not a fan of IC personally - reminds me of Johnny Vaughan for some unfathomable reason .
Well, we finally got there! Summed up really rather well. Well done the three of you.
The only difference between the two presenters, Ferrari and O'Brien, is that I expect more from O'Brien (as a few posters keep saying on here) because he is better than the current lousy output he produces these days, day in day out. He knows infantalising the issues makes for poor argument, analysis and understanding - not only does he make such an issue of it in his show; it has become an issue that is his show. And yet ironically, infantalisation is a tool he likes to use when calling out someone on their POVs - i.e. the 'infantalisation' of either the caller or their argument, however preposterous their argument is. When he starts doing that, it undermines both him and his whole show since it is the very thing he and his show despises and set themselves against. Hence the much mockery of him on this thread.
Ferrari, on the other hand, make no pretensions of being and doing otherwise. He is a Sun man through and through - infantalisation is de rigueur as part of the Sun's make-up. Not only does Ferrari take pleasure in it, he practically boasts and wallows in the stuff, and so the employment of 'infantalisation' as a way of discussing the issues is something I now come to expect Ferrari to do and engage in. And yet ironically Ferrari also knows infantalising the issues makes for poor argument, analysis and understanding. The only difference between him and O'Brien is that he doesn't wear that knowledge/awareness on his sleeve or make it a fundamental part of his show so as to make himself look like a hypocritcal idiot.
ETA: I don't listen to Ian Collins so I can't comment on him and/or his show.
A big difference between the two is that Nick is good-humoured and O'Brien most certainly is not.
I don't see it happening, at least, not daily. I can't see it replacing Loose Women or Jeremy Kyle. And he'd run out of the sort of topics that suit the show's format.
Because, unlike the issue he talks about, Ferrari doesn't take himself (too) seriously. James has become too po-faced of late because he takes himself way too seriously, believing himself to be an intellectual heavyweight/colossus, so much so that when he does attempt to be self-deprecating it sounds all rather insincere to my ears.
James is a highly intelligent, analytical and perceptive presenter (probably the best of all the LBC presenters in this regard) but these days he either overestimates the depths of his gift or is rather prideful of it that it goes much into his own ego and/or up his own fundament.:(
I agree about the calm and mellow bit, but in a way, that's maybe why I dislike them more. To me, it comes over as patronising and sarcastic, displaying a massive superiority complex. And that for me is NF and IC all over.
I agree with both those quotes. I suppose, though, that I think Ferrari, etc shouldn't be let off the criticism just because he never even aims higher. For me, that makes him worse, for not even trying.
I'd say he's just a good average and the way he goes about trying to shoe-horn "big" words into his conversation makes me think he's a pretty silly person.
I agree, he's certainly arrogant.
It looks as though things are not going well for Brian on ITV. From the TV Forum.
Before LBC came calling, he previously did a show on Channel 5 with Matthew Wright and Kate Silverton. He was really good on it, and I used to enjoy watching it until the showrunners replaced him and Kate. Having not watched his new ITV but going on the comments on here, I wonder if his problem is less to do with the medium as it is to do with the format of the shows he is in/presents.
makaba: I agree that Ferrari isn't above criticism and shouldn't be let off on it. I think my main bugbear with him centres round his engagement with experts who, though being of a different political persuasion, sometimes do have an interesting and insightful perspective of the issues his show discusses. Sometimes, he can be too dismissive of the spirit behind the issue at hand - for instance, teaching sex education in schools. I cannot count how many times people who specialise in this stuff have said that 1) sexual education has to be age-appropriate, 2) there are some lazy and/or ill-equipped/embarrassed parents who just cannot talk to their children on this issue for various reasons, and 3) in light of the many cases of child abuse, probably needs to be addressed anyway and urgently, only to have Ferrari froth at the mouth over it. Whether the dismissiveness/frothing is a deliberate act ('amusing' as it is and I do understand his misgivings), I have no idea, but it can also be a rather dangerous and closed-off if not parochial attitude to adopt as well.
I agree. It's just this dismissiveness that means I hardly listen to him anymore. Whenever I do, it usually takes just minutes for him to make me switch over yet again.
I've said it before, but many moons ago I heard Ferrari change his mind on air, after listening to an excellent caller talking about his experience of racism. It was compelling listening and Ferrari walked us through why he'd changed his mind.
Sadly, it then turned out as if that conversation had never happened. The next time the topic came up, he went right back to the same old tired schtick, which I do indeed find dangerous. Presenters do have some influence and power and to continue to push the same old prejudiced, un-nuanced, tabloid crap is the mark of a nasty piece of work. At the end of the day, it's placing more value on listening figures and therefore revenue than it is on truth or honesty. And that's appalling from an outlet that purports to give us The News. It is anti-journalism.
I also entirely agree with you about the sex education topic, but it is only one of many possible examples. To keep having the same conversations with experts, but take nothing whatsoever on board, to keep peddling the same faux outrage, is the mark of a dangerous fool in my book. And worse, to have the feeling that this is all manufactured for an audience, too.
For all his faults, I generally get the feeling that JOB is passionate and believes in the arguments he makes. I don't get that from Ferrari. I find him fake.
Wow, are you inside my head?:D This is exactly what I find sooo annoying with Ferrari. Well, it used to irritate me until I realised he probably does it more for effect than anything else. Nothing, bar the Sun's headline and narrative content, seems to inform his opinion. Now I just treat his show pretty much the same way I treat The Sun headline: with a bit of a shoulder-shrug and a verbal "ho hum!" His is a morning show that is meant to be the polar opposite to its rival Nicky Campbell/Rachel Burden's Radio 5 show: not taxing on a brain shaking off last night's sleep with its somewhat shallow 'depth'-analysis.
SO much better than the current imaging. Terrible production, it's all indistinct, badly arranged.
And don't get me started on the voice over guy again. Oh, too late.
He can't even say ELL-BC ! We hear a slovenly Ew-BC sound. And when he's trying to sound dramatic, it sounds stupid. " A-thius is Ew-BC"!
And, forgive me, but I thought the Morning News was presented by Lisa Aziz?
Not someone called Liser Raziz, as the voice over says.
So terrible.
Yes, and I've been trying to get out for years! ;-):D
The 'ew' thing gets right on my nerves every single time I tune in (which isn't often now) - in fact I have annoyingly developed a habit of waiting for him to say it, which makes it worse. I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice.
Don't get me started on news'reader' Linzi Kinghorn - oh, alright then. She's another one incapable of pronouncing 'L'. Wales becomes 'wails'. Anything she says with an 'L' in it is not pronounced correctly.
Awful, the pair of them.