Is this the worst Sam Wollaston "review" ever?

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Do you know why the director/producer credit lines haven't disappeared from Radio Times? I'm obviously glad they're still there, but how come they haven't been ditched in a 'Let's face it, most of our readers don't care'-style purge?

[Lfbarfe]

Do you know why the director/producer credit lines haven't disappeared from Radio Times? I'm obviously glad they're still there, but how come they haven't been ditched in a 'Let's face it, most of our readers don't care'-style purge?

Sadly not. I have no contact with the TV side of things. I can only assume that it's a conscious decision to do something that the other listings magazines don't bother with. Long may it continue.

[The Mumbler]

They were on the point of ditching them in 2000, and had been meaning to for years even then.

The radio listings of RT are indeed like a different world to the rest of the magazine. Jonathan Coe's piece about NF Simpson in the issue for this week was terrific (as was Mr Barfe's one on National Theatre of Brent).

[Lfbarfe]

The radio listings of RT are indeed like a different world to the rest of the magazine. Jonathan Coe's piece about NF Simpson in the issue for this week was terrific (as was Mr Barfe's one on National Theatre of Brent).

Thank you. The subs on the radio pages are a little too good, perhaps. One of the lines I quoted from the recording referred to "Alan Yentob's massive Imagination", but this had been amended to the proper programme title by the time it got to the page. Still, being paid to talk to Patrick Barlow, John Ramm and Martin Duncan - it really doesn't qualify as work.

[The Mumbler]

Yes, and my increasingly haphazard memory being what it is, I couldn't quite put my finger on why the Yentob quote didn't make me laugh anymore in that column. Which is particularly worrying, given that I attended two recordings.  But I knew it wasn't your doing.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Has the Radio Times ever considered changing its name, I wonder? I know it's 'too strong a brand' (shudder) for that to happen, but I wonder if it's ever been considered and what the alternatives might have been. Somebody must have suggested officially calling it 'RT'.

[Mr. Analytical]

(as was Mr Barfe's one on National Theatre of Brent).

 Apart from one obvious flaw.

 Barfe you poor misguided lamb... Brent isn't a nation.

[Lfbarfe]

Has the Radio Times ever considered changing its name, I wonder?  I know it's 'too strong a brand' (shudder) for that to happen, but I wonder if it's ever been considered and what the alternatives might have been. Somebody must have suggested officially calling it 'RT'.

I think that was the ultimate plan during Geoffrey Cannon's editorship. The new logo that was introduced in 1969 had the R and the T much bigger than the rest of the name, and I believe that the idea was to drop the 'adio' and 'imes' so that it came to stand simply for Radio (and) Television. Before that, in the 1950s, Peter Dimmock - head of outside broadcasts - argued that it should become the Radio and Television Times to steal a march on ITV.

I had a chilling conversation with a BBC Worldwide marketing bod once. He said he didn't know why the RT still had radio listings. I suggested that the clue was in the title, made my excuses and walked off to headbutt a wall repeatedly.

[Lfbarfe]

Apart from one obvious flaw. Barfe you poor misguided lamb... Brent isn't a nation.

Sometimes, you can analyse things too much...

[terminallyrelaxed]

 Sam Wallaston visibly has neither style nor talent... and yet he's in the job.  He has a proven track record of mediocrity and, evidently, whizzing round on a tricycle.

Evidently you don't think so, but someone with experience and clout at the Guardian apparently does. Just how sure are you that you're the one who's right?

 Paying your dues is all about being in the job for a period of time.  As Sammy-boy demonstrates, it's clearly a system that simply does not filter for talent.  It filters for lanky cunts happy to churn out cack reviews and then ponce about on a scooter.

I've tried to explain to you why it really isn't, unless we're talking about what happens during that period of time, but you're not having it, I'm not going through it again.

The current job filters for making the lives of subs easy.  Sam probably got where he is today by virtue of being willing to write about any old shite, at the drop of a hat and without making too many spelling mistakes.

Yes, thats what I've been trying to tell you. You can sit there with your arms folded waiting to be handed the Middle East Crisis, but I wouldn't wait underwater.

It's journalism of the path of least resistance.

No, its called 'working for someone'.

 Do you really need to go to someone who you know will get the tone right if you're looking for a review of a three wheeled scooter?  How about writing a daily column about what was on TV the night before?

Yes! because, as I said before he's already on the payroll, it will cost them nothing. There isn't enough work for a national newspaper to employ a full-time TV reviewer (maybe they do at some of the others, but not in my personal experience). Nancy Banks Smith is in her seventies and works part-time, and again, its all she does.
You notice they didn't get in a celebrity scooter expert because the Wheels bloke was on his hols. Personally, I thought Wollaston's three-wheel Piaggio review was fine - if I was a petrolhead I'd be reading What Three Wheel Scooter? but revs and emissions would be lost on me so I want to know what it feels like to be an average middle class bloke commuting on it, because thats what I am. Perhaps you felt it wasn't incisive enough, I don't know. I'm not saying its fair or whatever but thats the way they think and I don't see anything wrong with it. Yes in an ideal world everyone would employ the best person for each individual job, but that would cost a hell of a lot, plus just the logistics and paperwork would be a nightmare, and you might not get the world's best scooter reviewer when you want him because he's had to take another job that week just to keep afloat until the next time you fancy getting a scooter reviewed. Hence you have staffers, they might for instance be shit at the TV reviews but are good enough elsewhere to even it out.

There may be thousands of talented writers out there, but they're in incredibly short supply when it comes to the reviews and pop-culture commentary in the British dead-tree media.

Well, perhaps. We've talked about the rise of blogs in reviewing - often the contributors have a real passion for and encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject, but you notice its a blog and no-ones getting paid.

Embittered, certainly. Failed, no.

Well congratulations. You've now explained how well you're doing, which makes your rage and bitterness at the industry even more puzzling.

I mean...

On my own terms, I'm successful.

Does that mean that you weren't on anyone elses? Is that what this is about? Hygiene problems, what?

What lack of achievement? I'm sorry that sitting in an air-conditioned room with a group of people whose ambition outstrips their talent...........and no pisspot office politician looking over my shoulder to check I'm not emailing my mum.

You've never actually been into a newspaper office, have you? Unless it was a tabloid, I suppose. That does sound a bit like the Mirror.

I was a dyed-in-the-wool Guardian reader for a good 15 years. Maybe I changed, maybe it changed, maybe both, but I can't pick the paper up now without wishing I'd done something else with my time instead.

So not exactly coming at this objectively then....

What I meant was that most unsolicited submissions remain unread. There are a few heroic commissioning editors out there who give the first par a go at the very least. However, as Mr Analytical says, when you've got a pool of people already being paid (no matter that they've already got plenty to do and show no interest in the extra work they're given), what's the incentive to build up a network of freelances?

Yes, what is the incentive? Why should they? Or, more accurately, how big should this network be? The busiest freelances are specialists in their field. I know a commissioning editor, and she isn't on first name terms with half the people she hires, because she does it entirely according to necessity. Staffers are always going to outnumber freelancers for daily contributions, because they are employees, they can be relied on to be there, not doing something for someone else, or on holiday. Conversely, for supplements most of the work is farmed out to talent.

No, you see, I'm actually working in the newspaper industry, not yapping around its heels trying to get in.

Uh? I'm not trying to get in - I'm already in at enough places not to starve. Anything else is just bunce. Maybe not national newspapers, but national magazines.

I apologise for that, that was needlessly snippy of me, but it was said before you revealed that you do fine freelancing, at the time I thought you were just bitter because you couldn't cut it, which you say is not the case.

Very worth going off on one, I'd say. Whatever TR says now about not defending the status quo, just telling it like it is, his original reply seemed utterly, smugly at ease with the tawdry state of modern journalism, and made much of his own treasured insider status.

"He also said you'd say that!" Seriously though, as mothman pointed out, I was just trying to give you some insight from someone who's been there, the fact that its read like that to you speaks volumes about the chip on your shoulder. Come on, what is it? What happened? Is submitting work from home under and assumed name the only way to get work bought? Financial security no substitute for recognition and the respect of your peers? Too ugly for a byline photo? I'm only teasing, save it for someone who cares.

Because it's fun........I'm not being a cunt. I am a cunt.

Ah, well then.

That concludes this month's special "The World Doesn't Owe You a Living" edition of Arguing On The Internet. I've been me and you've been great. Join us next month for a new series starting with "The Moon Isn't Made Of Cheese: Get Over It".

[Peking O]

Is submitting work from home under and assumed name the only way to get work bought?

Hey, terminallyrelaxed, how about actually reading some of your posts before hitting submit? This self-righteous bilge you're pumping out is full of shit like this. Wait, what is it you do for a living again? Ahh...

PS We don't all want your job. If anything, I feel sorry for you.

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

What is LF Barfe's assumed name?

[Famous Mortimer]

His article was shit. Lots of his other articles have been shit. I don't think he's good enough to be employed by a national newspaper. I have no desire to be a journalist, have never submitted an article to anyone, am not snapping at anyone's heels and never will.

Am I allowed to criticise now? Does everyone who thinks he's shit have to give you their fucking CV before they're allowed to state their opinion on Sam fucking Wollaston?

[Lfbarfe]

Well congratulations. You've now explained how well you're doing, which makes your rage and bitterness at the industry even more puzzling.

Just because you're doing quite well out of a given set-up, it doesn't mean that set-up doesn't stink to high heaven.  

Does that mean that you weren't on anyone elses? Is that what this is about? Hygiene problems, what?

'On my own terms' is an acknowledgement that I might have a different definition of success to some other people. To me, success is having the freedom to do a job that I love at my own pace,and not having to do any old shit to pay needless bills. My definition of success is freedom from office politics and the ability to say 'Fuck this, I'm taking the dog for a walk on the beach' at any time if the muse is temporarily absent. I appreciate that for others, success may well be measured in other ways, such as being the 'go to guy' for  short-notice, unpaid motorised tricycle reviews.

You've never actually been into a newspaper office, have you? Unless it was a tabloid, I suppose. That does sound a bit like the Mirror.

When I lived in London, I did quite a lot of shifts at the Independent both in 1 Canada Square (same building as the Telegraph and the Mirror back then, so well done from Big Chief I-Spy on your recognition of newspaper offices) and at the building around the corner with the windows that no-one was allowed to open because an IRA bomb had made them unsafe.

So not exactly coming at this objectively then....

It's all germane, dearie. The reason I stopped reading it was precisely because I found it was printing more vacuous toss by clueless pillocks than actual news and informed opinion. The signal-to-noise ratio got out of hand. I'm not sure of the circulation figures, but I'd be amazed if I were alone. To be fair, the Guardian's no better or worse than its competitors. In recent years, I've found that I can live without a daily newspaper just fine, which would have been unthinkable to the me of 15 years ago.

Yes, what is the incentive? Why should they?

My wife works for a literary agency. Many agents don't even look at their slush pile, but part of Mrs B's job is to give each unsolicited MS at least a cursory glance. One that she found there made the Booker long list.  I know newspaper journalism is a day-to-day business, but is it so unwise to look ahead and try to find new people who might be useful at some stage?

Or, more accurately, how big should this network be? The busiest freelances are specialists in their field. I know a commissioning editor, and she isn't on first name terms with half the people she hires, because she does it entirely according to necessity.

That's fair enough. Horses for courses. I'm on friendly terms with all of my regular employers.

Staffers are always going to outnumber freelancers for daily contributions, because they are employees, they can be relied on to be there, not doing something for someone else, or on holiday. Conversely, for supplements most of the work is farmed out to talent.

Thank you for this lecture in the glaringly obvious. You may work in a newspaper office, but you don't have an egg-sucking monopoly.

I apologise for that, that was needlessly snippy of me, but it was said before you revealed that you do fine freelancing, at the time I thought you were just bitter because you couldn't cut it, which you say is not the case.

I'm bitter about a lot of things because I'm a bitter person and I always have been.

"He also said you'd say that!" Seriously though, as mothman pointed out, I was just trying to give you some insight from someone who's been there, the fact that its read like that to you speaks volumes about the chip on your shoulder. Come on, what is it? What happened?

Alan Rusbridger gave me AIDS.

Is submitting work from home under and assumed name the only way to get work bought?

Some of my work has been printed under a nom-de-plume, but I've never submitted work under anything other than my own name.

Financial security no substitute for recognition and the respect of your peers? Too ugly for a byline photo?

No uglier than Sam 'Beaker' Wollaston, but I have a puritanical distaste for byline pictures in general. I just can't see the point of them.

I'm only teasing, save it for someone who cares.

You evidently care enough to spew this much on the matter.

Ah, well then.

Remember what I said earlier about self-awareness?  Embrace your inner cunt - it's the path to true happiness.

That concludes this month's special "The World Doesn't Owe You a Living" edition of Arguing On The Internet.

Ah yes. My wife caught me in the middle of replying to one of your earlier postings and asked 'Are you arguing with people you've never met again? Shouldn't you be working?'. She had a point, and unlike a staffer, it's only my own time that I'm wasting by pointing out at such tedious length that you're an arrogant arse.

I've been me and you've been great. Join us next month for a new series starting with "The Moon Isn't Made Of Cheese: Get Over It".

I'd rather not join you in any way at all. You seem like a puffed-up twot of the first water.

[The Mumbler]

Well congratulations. You've now explained how well you're doing, which makes your rage and bitterness at the industry even more puzzling.

My guess at an explanation is "some kind of integrity". I can't claim to have read everything Mr Barfe's ever written but from what I have read, "phoned in" doesn't seem to be in his journalistic vocabulary. (No, I'm not Mrs Barfe.)

As for Sam maybe not being the best at doing TV reviews: if he'd done one or two columns, fairly dos. Fine. I'd be rotten at scooter profiles. But he's written hundreds of them over the past three years or so. And the one at the head of this thread ranks somewhere south of Remedial.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I don't give a fuck about the staffing situation at newspapers, or about Sam Wollaston's deadlines, or his career aspirations. I'm just saying that if you're going to write an article about something (whether it's last night's TV or the Middle East), then it should be an informed, entertaining and high quality piece. It's not unreasonable to expect that for my 70p. Wollaston's presumably being paid quite well, after all.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Evidently you don't think so, but someone with experience and clout at the Guardian apparently does. Just how sure are you that you're the one who's right?

Because he's read it? Just look at the article. Read it, and tell me it's not objectively shit in every possible way.

Are you one of these media people who, upon realising how 'unrealistic' it is to hold 'principled' beliefs in today's climate, seek to scoff at anyone who still holds such views? In other words, you've secured your own little nook so you can safely dismiss any dissent or pleas for change with 'You're just bitter' tediousness? Ah, one of those...

[The Mumbler]

I just think that writers owe it to their readers to do their best. That doesn't mean they have to write something that everyone will immediately understand and enjoy (by the very nature of the beast, no-one will have a universally appreciative audience), just that they have the privilege of addressing a hell of a lot of potential readers. To abuse that privilege is to debase why journalism exists in the first place. So, whether it's Sam Wollaston writing barely coherent ramblings or Charlie Brooker writing about nothing (you remember the one - he actually berates the reader for still reading) or Zoe Williams wasting what may be an able brain for all we know, it is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

[mothman]

Guys guys guys! Can't you see what's happpening? if we start to argue amongst ourselves, then the Wollastons have already won!

[Lfbarfe]

the Wollastons

An everyday story of dumbed-down, pleb-pleasing cunts who say nothing and say it loud, but hey, they've paid their dues and they can cut the mustard. A shame they can't write for toffee.

[mothman]

Mmm. So WHY are you such a bitter person, then?

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Why do you consider him to be a 'bitter' person, mothman?

[The Mumbler]

Because apparently, if your life is going well, there's no need to worry about anyone or anything else.

[Lfbarfe]

I have a quite startling capacity for bitterness, but I don't think this is an example of it. The bitterness would be if I felt I should be doing Wollaston's job, which I don't. Of course, I could do that job perfectly well, but not having paid my dues or cut the mustard on a 3-wheeled Piaggio, it's never going to happen. I have enough going on in other areas of my life not to dwell on the cruel hand fate dealt me. To think, I could be schlepping across London to share workspace with self-aggrandising fuckwits rather than walking next door from my bedroom and working in my pyjamas. I don't know where I went wrong.

It's not bitterness or 'I coulda been a contender'. When I pick up a newspaper, I'm a customer - my professional experience has some bearing on how I perceive what I read, but I truly, honestly want to be informed and entertained by people who've done their homework. To me, Wollaston is neither entertaining nor insightful, and I'm saddened that he's the best the Guardian can do.

To be fair, maybe he's not at fault. Maybe he's been conditioned to write in a certain way. Maybe that's how editors think all TV reviews should be now - tart and insubstantial. Maybe he wishes he could get his teeth into a proper critical review of a serious programme, but his bosses are saying they want more of the inconsequential shite about rubbish programmes, and he wants to eat, so he carries on providing it. I'm lucky. Within the basic restrictions of house style, I don't think I've written a single thing in my freelance career that I couldn't or wouldn't want to defend to the last syllable.

[mothman]

Why do you consider him to be a 'bitter' person, mothman?

I'm bitter about a lot of things because I'm a bitter person and I always have been.

. . . and I was just wondering why, and what he had in particular to be bitter about. Not his own career, apparently, whether or not it's juxtaposed with that of the Wollaston! Just idle curiosity really.

[Ciarán2]

Because he's read it? Just look at the article. Read it, and tell me it's not objectively shit in every possible way.

Feel free to run me out of town here, Lalla, but I find the reaction to the article a bit over-the-top to be honest. He does make a couple of points (they're not mind blowing, but the "Billie Who, frankly." quote and the bit about the two different kinds of celebrity who go on Celeb Reality TV) which might have provoked some interest in the casual reader. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the piece is well-written and understand why you'd be annoyed with Wollaston's copy day in day out. But "objectively shit in every possible way"? Come one, do you have a god's eye-view point here? It might be a shit article and you can argue your case well, I think (you've convinced me), but
you - and others here - do sometimes talk about these things as if you're talking about concrete facts. That's a bit baffling, really because you don't need to resort to that kind of thing. You know what's wrong with Wollaston's writing (perhaps the public don't, perhaps even the commissioning editors don't), but what do you propose to do about it? I don't mean that in the aggressive sense - I just wonder if there's anything that can be done? Do The Guardian accept unsolicited articles? I'm not expecting you to start firing off your own telly reviews like a demented Points Of View-er, of course. But do you write letters? That type of thing? Or why - if the artform is so debased - do you not just skim over newspaper TV reviews and say it's better done elsewhere (like the internet)?

It's only telly for god's sake!!1! (scarpers)

[mothman]

Although there's (as yet) been no policy statement or manifesto pledge from them, I feel confident that one of the first acts of a newly-elected Conservative government will be to halt and if possible reverse this alarming trend in the spread of Wollaston that has taken place under New Labour.

[Mr. Analytical]

Didn't some notable Guardianista turn up on here once and explain that the editors only wanted hacks to reflect people's opinions on pop culture back at them?  It wasn't Wallaston was it?

[Part Chimp]

I don't get the "what are you going to do about it?" angle. It always seems to crop up when a critique of writing is involved. If someone plays a bad guitar solo I don't pick up a guitar and try to out-solo them. Nor do I feel obliged to let them know that they've played badly. However, I might go on an internet forum and join a debate about whether the solo was good or bad, because that's fun/interesting to me. Why should my response to an article in a newspaper be any different from that?

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I don't think I could write brilliant TV reviews. I just think that somebody else could. Someone who isn't Sam Wollaston.

And I'm sorry, but I do think that Doctor Who piece is objectively poor. It's the faux-childlike schtick. There's no reason for an adult to write that way in a supposedly intelligent paper. And he only gets away with it because 'it's just telly'.