The Mail's investigative work has been even more impressive this time around.

That is insanely bad, it has to be on purpose to provoke comments/hits.

I have noticed over the years how articles on online news sites are more geared towards inviting hits/comments and people to link the pieces elsewhere, all at the expense of genuine journalistic pieces.

The Daily Mail have this down to a fine art.
They have worked out how to get a slice of the online forum pie so to speak.

The Mail does famously miss the point quite often. I remember when Seth MacFarlane hosted the 2013 Oscars - he did a comedy section where he showed a 'parallel universe' awards where he had sung a really rude song and offended all the female stars in the audience.

The Mail reporter didn't realise it was a comedy sketch and wrote an entire article stating how he had been the worst oscars host ever and actually had sung that offensive song and offended all the female stars in the audience. They even illustrated the article with photographs of the 'offended' actresses sitting in the audience looking really angry and upset, not realising the actresses were in on the joke and where actually just, well, acting.

The thing is The Mail knows it key audience more than people give it credit for, and what knows what makes their blood boil, i.e faux outrage. I've no doubt that the writer of the piece you mentioned knew it was all a set up. BUT..Mr. and Mrs. Outraged from Surrey and Mr. or Mrs. Dumb Knee Jerk will have not seen the actual performance and take The Mail at its word every time...que post in comments section. JOB done, web site hits, advertisers happy.

More and more online news sites that require hits for advertisement revenue are coming round to this form of 'journalism'

On the subject of fan's and how much notice execs should take of them, it's interesting that the creators of SHIELD seem to take the opposing view and seem very keen to listen to them:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/s22...-everyone.html

(although having watched the first few episodes I guess it couldn't get much worse, only in my humble opinion of course)

Early reviews seem to indicate this is the case already

If it is the case I will love Moff forever (or at least until the next time he writes a duff episode.).

The Guardian has apparently celebrated by spoiling the episode in some way. Cast & Crew are warning to avoid it

I'm not sure how concerned I should about the Moff's comments about Sherlock here:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s129/...ys-moffat.html

Particularly with reference to starving people of episodes and increased ratings!

If you are avoiding spoilers don't look at the Sherlock thread, the digital spy teasers and the radio times as well.

Yes, that worried me a bit, too.

I hope it was just a joke and not a policy statement.

I think its a reflection of what he already did to Who.

We've not had to wait two years for three episodes of Doctor Who, though.

Not yet.

I hope you touched wood when you said that!

From today's Popbitch email:

>> Bag it up <<
Hitting out at Twitter
The new series of Sherlock has been drawing mixed reviews on social media. It's not escaped the notice of the people who worked on the series. One of them has been spotted at his gym taking out his frustrations on the punchbag. He calls the punchbag "Twitter".

On an unrelated note, my partner commented during the wedding episode how buff Mark Gattis was looking on that treadmill . . .

Not gonna lie, that's a pretty stupid way of phrasing. I mean, yes the ratings are good, but using the term starvation isn't the best thing to put in an interview. In fact, it's probably near the bottom in terms of phrases he could have used to address the gap. >_<