26/1/02

The Late Review

BBC 2

The Late Review is supposedly a highly-reputed BBC Arts programme chaired mostly by Mark Lawson.

Every week, a panel of three art 'experts' are brought together to discuss with Mr Lawson some of the topical events taking place in the art world; books, films, fine art, modern art, theatre, TV, and so on.

In this evening's programme, the panel reviewed the film In The Bedroom. 

According to Bonnie Greer, the film was 'misogynistic' and she hotly lambasted it for portraying women in a negative light.

You see, the panelists on the The Late Review seem always unable to consider any piece worthy of note unless it portrays women in a positive light. And this reference to something or other being 'misogynistic' has gone on, and on, and on, and on, for at least the seven or eight years that I have been forced to watch the programme because the missus likes it so much.

And what irritates me is this.

I have YET to see ANYONE on the programme describe the piece under discussion as being 'misandric' - or in any way 'men-hating', or 'male-bashing'.

SEVEN YEARS!???

And ALL that they can EVER see is misogyny!

Never. Ever. Ever - a single case of misandry.

NOT ONE!

How can this possibly be so?

1. Is it the case that the panelists can NEVER see any misandry or evidence of man-hating in the pieces under discussion? 

Well, if this is the case then they must be well and truly BLIND. 

They are not nearly as clever nor as perceptive as they clearly think themselves to be.

They are not nearly as clever nor as perceptive as they clearly think themselves to be.

Men are portrayed across the board in the media as child abusers, wife beaters, sexual harassers, thugs, fraudsters, paedophiles, rapists, gangsters - together with many other things - and NOT ONE of the panelists IN SEVEN YEARS has EVER made ANY mention of it - despite forever noticing misogyny in the most trivial of circumstances.

So, why is the BBC wasting the taxpayer's money, year after year, paying BLIND panelists with little perceptive ability to masquerade as intellectuals who are supposedly able to penetrate, and to elucidate to us all, the mysteries of the pieces under discussion?

They clearly are not capable of it.

Indeed, given the many years that the programme has run, this would actually suggest that the panelists may even be selected by the BBC for their glaring intellectual deficiencies.

2. On the other hand, perhaps the panelists can, indeed, see the misandry in many of the pieces that they discuss.

But, if this is the case, then why do they NEVER mention it? 

And I do mean NEVER.

And, if this is the case, then it must mean that Mark Lawson and his panelists are, quite simply, intellectual FRAUDS.

They are not really there to elucidate any truths or to discuss the arts openly and seriously. They are simply there to play politics and disseminate feminist and politically-correct propaganda.

Now, the BBC's Charter requires the BBC to be impartial when it comes to politics and gender issues. 

And the LAW requires it to follow its charter.

And so if the panelists are refusing to, or are prevented from, talking about aspects that are decidedly misandric in nature, then this would be clear evidence not only of them being deceitful, but also that the BBC is KNOWINGLY breaking its Charter - and hence the law.

3. Another possibility is that no 'misandric' material is ever discussed in the Late Review. The BBC (presumably through Mark Lawson) simply never discusses pieces that are 'misandric'. 

When it comes to gender bashing items, the BBC only allows 'misogynistic' material to be discussed in its programmes.

But, if this is true, then, again, the BBC must be in breach of its Charter - which requires it to be impartial and fair toward the genders.

And, of course, the panelists themselves are implicated in all of this; either, unknowingly, because they are BLIND, and they have been selected for their blinkered views, or, knowingly, in which case they are FRAUDS.

And, most likely, BOTH!

In summary, the people involved with this programme either ...

... NEVER notice any misandry, 

or

... notice it but NEVER mention it,

or

... are NEVER allowed to review material that is misandric in nature.

The Late Review is clearly little more than a feminist-controlled piece of BBC television, masquerading as a serious arts review programme

In other words, whichever way you look at it, The Late Review is clearly little more than a feminist-controlled piece of BBC television, masquerading as a serious arts review programme, and presenting its panelists as being of high-intellect and integrity, when, in fact, they are, knowingly or otherwise, little more than mouthpieces for political-correctness and the feminist movement.

The whole thing is a FRAUD.

And the BBC is breaking the law by continuing to put it on the air.

What makes this programme particularly insidious is the fact that it is very strongly associated with Newsnight, which is a BBC 'flagship' NEWS programme. (The Late Review comes right after Newsnight, in the same studio and, often, with the same presenter.)

As such, one must assume that the information presented in the Newsnight programme itself - the flagship BBC News programme - is just as biased and deceitful as The Late Review.

Well. The BBC once had a very strong reputation for providing people with the news in the most objective way possible. And many millions of people throughout the world still believe this to be the case. Indeed, many people rely very heavily upon the information and ideas that emanate from the BBC - especially when their own news sources are absent or suspect.

And so important is the BBC considered to be, that it is even funded by a licence fee which just about everyone in the UK (even the blind!) is forced to pay if they happen to own a television set. (This means that it doesn't have to compete financially with all the other channels.)

Indeed, the BBC is, allegedly, an important public 'service'! 

But here is The Late Review (and, indeed, Newsnight itself) letting down the whole organisation, ruining its hard-earned reputation for objective journalism, and jeopardising the futures and credibility of BBC journalists, simply in order to appease the feminists and the politically correct - and without even, it would seem, much in the way of giving any proper regard to the social consequences of what it is doing.

As such, the BBC is now less of a public service and more of a public liability.

Also see AH's Women actually shown behaving badly by the BBC!

22/11/02 

Tom Paulin - 'A Fraud'

When I was at Oxford, I had lunch with Tom Paulin at Hertford College, after having a drink with him in his rooms. He struck me then, as I know he struck many of his undergraduate tutorial students who were my friends at the time, as a second-rater and a phony. John Bradley

Tom Paulin is a regular panelist on the Late Review. 

And the word 'phony' just about seems to sum him up.

Totally politically-corrected to the point of imbecility.

Stupid. Unintelligent. Totally politically-corrected to the point of imbecility. And a pseudo-intellectual of immense proportions. These are the words that describe his character even more appropriately, in my view.

But who am I to criticise this stomach-churning little twerp, eh?

After all, I am only a humble viewer -  a viewer who pays him some exorbitant amount for his vomit-inducing appearances through the government-imposed TV License Fee.

2005

The Late Review has had a quiet revamp - a major one. The politically-corrected presenter Mark Lawson has now been replaced, the word 'misogyny' has almost disappeared from use, and the panelists have changed - considerably for the better - with the fabulous Mark Kermode being a regular high spot for me and the missus.

The only fly in the ointment is that the programme is occasionally presented by the overtly misandric, deeply smug, self-satisfied, over-paid Kirsty Wark. And the equally irritating Bonnie Greer occasionally appears as a panelist - presumably because she is black.

(Take it from me, it's hard to think of any other reason for her nauseating presence.)

I have a sudden urge to blow up the Houses of Parliament

And when these two whining women are on together, it's worse than scraping your big toenail along the sides of an old tin bathtub. My flesh begins to crawl, and I have a sudden urge to blow up the Houses of Parliament with these two women tied to the explosives.

Never mind. At last, we have an Arts programme that is sometimes worth watching.

Also see, ...

Kirsty Wark Glows