[mrblank]

its the BBCs fault for giving her a presenting job at the pagent her place is on itv 2 to do silly interviews with the likes of peaches geldorf

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by OnDatKryptonite

The best thing she has done is wear a swimsuit to help raise money on the radio.

Now, I'd get into how pointless it is to promise to wear a swimsuit while hosting a radio programme and expecting to be paid to do so but I myself have access to lots of adult material and as such cannot understand the mentality of spending money to hear a woman dressed to go to the beach or watching said woman on a dodgy webcam feed.

As for nepotism in entertainment... may I also present Liza Tarbuck, George Lamb and Melissa Rivers? I can't recall any of them doing anything particularly culturally enriching but it certainly hasn't hurt them to be the progeny of successful performers.

She's done plenty of good work as a presenter IMO.

I haven't heard of George Lamb, and, while I've heard of Melissa Rivers, I've never seen her perform, so I can't cmment on them. But Liza Tarbuck is very personable and a competent enough actress and presenter. Being Tarbie's daughter probably helped open doors, but I maintain that she too wouldn't have maintained her career unless she could do her job. Bear in mind also that the relationship in Tarbucks case was much closer than with the Cottons.

[gpk]

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

She's done plenty of good work as a presenter IMO.

I haven't heard of George Lamb, and, while I've heard of Melissa Rivers, I've never seen her perform, so I can't cmment on them. But Liza Tarbuck is very personable and a competent enough actress and presenter. Being Tarbie's daughter probably helped open doors, but I maintain that she too wouldn't have maintained her career unless she could do her job. Bear in mind also that the relationship in Tarbucks case was much closer than with the Cottons.

i was going to comment on this about liza, i too found that comment a bit harsh. sure, her connection did her no harm at all, but to categorise along with george and melissa is a bit unfair in my opinion. she has been in the business over 2 decades now and she is well respected in her own right. i used to think she was great on the big breakfast and she was always a welcome stand in host on radio 2. i didn't surprise me when they give her a show of her own eventually.

[s15859]

Wow she needs to understand the difference between bullying and giving criticism!

[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

Correct. It's legitimate opinion. Wrong opinion, as far as I'm concerned, but then that too is opinion.

I do have to ask though, those of you who keep bringing up her family connections, do you really think they'd keep employing her because of that if they thought she was no good? I can accept that they might give her a leg-up, so to speak, but to go on employing for years and years in such high profile roles because a distant family connection with dead men, well, to me it defies all credibility and I have to wonder at those who claim this.

How would you quantify how a presenter is 'good'.
Television viewing is normally a passive action where it's a one way stream of information being fired at the viewer.
It's all one way.

The internet negates the passivity of the action of watching television and turns it into a two way exchange of information where the viewer has the opportunity to send information back and has a means to reply back.

So who quantifies what being a good presenter is and defines what's good or what isn't?
The TV channel or the viewer?

[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by OnDatKryptonite

The best thing she has done is wear a swimsuit to help raise money on the radio.

Now, I'd get into how pointless it is to promise to wear a swimsuit while hosting a radio programme and expecting to be paid to do so but I myself have access to lots of adult material and as such cannot understand the mentality of spending money to hear a woman dressed to go to the beach or watching said woman on a dodgy webcam feed.

As for nepotism in entertainment... may I also present Liza Tarbuck, George Lamb and Melissa Rivers? I can't recall any of them doing anything particularly culturally enriching but it certainly hasn't hurt them to be the progeny of successful performers.

I know that this is all subjective but I think Liza Tarbuck is very good and isn't on television nearly enough as I think she deserves to be.

[clara28]

Originally Posted by Alrightmate

I know that this is all subjective but I think Liza Tarbuck is very good and isn't on television nearly enough as I think she deserves to be.

I'm another fan of Liza Tarbucks! She has a way about her that is both wry and warm.

[QWERTYOP]

She's thirty years old! She has the mentallity and personality of a 19 year old.

She just needs to grow the Hell up.

[Jason C]

Originally Posted by Alrightmate

So who quantifies what being a good presenter is and defines what's good or what isn't?
The TV channel or the viewer?

The viewer, obviously, as that's the person the presenter is working to serve and connect with.

[Loz_Fraggle]

I have to say I find Liza Tarbuck very entertaining, and great as an actress and presenter. I would lump her in with George Lamb, she was great in Watching, as Pamela aka the Bootle Bouncer! Also brilliant in Linda Green.

[johartuk]

Originally Posted by Alrightmate

How would you quantify how a presenter is 'good'.

For me, it's being likeable, confident, knowing what they're talking about and being able to deal with unexpected glitches or gaffes (especially important on live TV and when the presenter is interacting with the studio audience/guests/random members of the public).

[elnombre]

Originally Posted by johartuk

For me, it's being likeable, confident, knowing what they're talking about and being able to deal with unexpected glitches or gaffes (especially important on live TV and when the presenter is interacting with the studio audience/guests/random members of the public).

Agreed. It's easier to dissect a bad presenter's flaws than single out the traits that make for a good one, because a good presenter should come off as natural and effortless.

Fearne's poor command of English, inability to think on her feet, failure to properly engage with guests and habit of seemingly not listening to or understanding the responses her guests give make her in many people's opinion, a very bad presenter.

Agreed on Liza Tarbuck by the way, she is good. Natural, effusive, intelligent and often funny.

[Sloopy]

Liza Tarbuck is very good.

She seems to keep quite a low profile though and probably doesn't fit the mould of the pouting, posing Holly Willoughbys and Fearne Cottons of the TV world.

[AoibheannRose]

Just wanted to add my voice to the love for Liza. I don't get to hear her much on R2, but she was brilliant on The Big Breakfast with Vaughan back in the day, so naturally witty, warm, and engaging. I wish she was still around on the tv, as I'd rather see her on my telly than Davina, Holly, or Fearne any day.

[The Prumeister]

Fearne is 'WIKKID MAN'.

[M@nterik]

Originally Posted by The Prumeister

Fearne is 'WIKKID MAN'.

Not only that, but she is a class warrior too.

"I’m from a working-class family and have worked hard to get to where I am today. "

Big up the Class Warrior who is also down wiv da kidz.

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by Alrightmate

How would you quantify how a presenter is 'good'.
Television viewing is normally a passive action where it's a one way stream of information being fired at the viewer.
It's all one way.

The internet negates the passivity of the action of watching television and turns it into a two way exchange of information where the viewer has the opportunity to send information back and has a means to reply back.

So who quantifies what being a good presenter is and defines what's good or what isn't?
The TV channel or the viewer?

Producers will make their own assessments of how good a presenter is. Obviously the viewers opinions will also have a major impact as measured through ratings and satisfaction index. Complaints might be a factor, but producers and executives will be aware that viewers are more likely to complain about things they didn't like than to praise what they liked, and that unsolicited viewer feedback may therefore by highly unrepresentative.

[PacinoFan]

Originally Posted by Vodka_Drinka

The BBC's coverage of the Jubilee was an absolute mess. They got it so wrong! I mean WTF made them think it was a good idea to have people like Matt Baker, Fern and John Barrowman hosting it?

Dont get me started.......!

[Honestweegie]

Tess Daly is worse

[Jason C]

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

Producers will make their own assessments of how good a presenter is. Obviously the viewers opinions will also have a major impact

This is the BBC we're talking about here.

[Joop&Lynx]

Originally Posted by s15859

Wow she needs to understand the difference between bullying and giving criticism!

But most of the criticism wasn't justified, the majority was personal attacks against herself, and now look at the reaction she is getting for daring to stand up to them.

Seems women in the public eye, can't do right for doing wrong these days.

[artlesschaos]

Originally Posted by Joop&Lynx

But most of the criticism wasn't justified, the majority was personal attacks against herself, and now look at the reaction she is getting for daring to stand up to them.

Seems women in the public eye, can't do right for doing wrong these days.

I'm not sure complaining about Fern and her 'mazingly banal interviewing technique and brainless presenting style is a feminist issue.

[s.castle]

Originally Posted by Newcastle

I've always liked her but she, along with many others, was the wrong choice for jubilee coverage. She is making light of real bullying by likening the criticisms of the coverage to bullying.

There are different ways of phrasing criticism and there is a point where criticism becomes bullying.

[s.castle]

Originally Posted by johartuk

For me, it's being likeable, confident, knowing what they're talking about and being able to deal with unexpected glitches or gaffes (especially important on live TV and when the presenter is interacting with the studio audience/guests/random members of the public).

There's also the ability to take a boring subject, talk about it at length, and make it sound vaguely interesting. The then TV critic of the Evening Standard, Victor Lewis-Smith reckoned the presenters on QVC were amongst the most talented in the business. That actually makes sense. They are able to take the most banal items and persuade people to buy them, often for more than in the shops.

[Nyota]

Originally Posted by M@nterik

Not only that, but she is a class warrior too.

"I’m from a working-class family and have worked hard to get to where I am today. "

Big up the Class Warrior who is also down wiv da kidz.

Class Warrior's are among the most annoying types of people in existence. I'm from a working class background and I'm completely sick of being patronised by not just the media, but by "my own" as well. It's a ridiculous, out of date, and totally meaningless attitude to maintain in 2012.