Stuaaaaaaart Herrrritageeeee

[Dusty Gozongas]

That article is a terrible piece of filler innit.

Worse though, for me, is that T&J and Warner Bros. animations (and a whole bunch of others from various studios) simply don't get broadcast any more.

Racism wasn't the only reason given for not showing these beautiful works of art. Violence was a huge part of their shame appeal too! Slamming a sash window onto Tom's head is a cliche I suppose but worth it for the Tom's reaction alone.

I'd even be happy with a contextual disclaimer before viewing any of these lovelies if it meant showing a new audience how fantastically creative the hand drawn medium was.

Or we could protect our kids from such imagery and carry on fuelling the arguments of anti-PC arseholes. Yeah. Let's do that.

[Catalogue Trousers]

Fucking awful article that seems unclear as to what point it's making. It's either 'ooh look at this vile racist tripe' or 'giggle giggle, how deliciously politically incorrect.' Either way, fuck right off to fuck and then fuck right off again. Wanker.

[poodlefaker]

Stuart Heritage became a father a year or so ago, I'm not sure whether this gave rise to any humorous situations, or whether he wrote about them at all.

[touchingcloth]

I wonder what kind of rate Heritage is on for churning out his lazy drivel. I'm acquainted with someone who runs a blog at the Guardian and is very vocal and proud about that fact, but I have a sneaking position he is paid "nothing" for the privilege. Anyone more in the know?

[MuteBanana]

Stuart Heritage the other day.

[Quincey]

I would comment, but after reading that article it seems Mr Heritage regards me as an idiot.

[Konki]

Another hilarious bit of fantasy casting from the mind-box of STU LOLZ.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/apr/24/cbeebies-bedtime-stories-chris-evans-tom-hardy-bbc

[kngen]

I wonder what kind of rate Heritage is on for churning out his lazy drivel. I'm acquainted with someone who runs a blog at the Guardian and is very vocal and proud about that fact, but I have a sneaking position he is paid "nothing" for the privilege. Anyone more in the know?

He's on wordage AFAIK (which means he has to file a certain amount per month) on top of his Week In Geek column (if that still exists). Wordage is a funny concept - occasionally, editors will need a piece to fill a hole in their paper but will be reluctant to pay for it, so their assistants tot up their writing staff's word counts and see who they can squeeze a feature out of without having to pay for it. And of course said feature will be pure spun gold based on that motivation. As far as Heritage is concerned, you'd be hard pushed to tell what was him making up his word count, or what was written with the best of intentions.

[Utter Shit]

I can't say I've ever noticed Heritage being notably bad. Bland for sure. But he absolutely shouldn't be compared to Wollaston. I've rambled on too many times before about Wollaston but he is so, so bad. Stream-of-conscience nothingness from someone who doesn't actually appear to be sentient. Most of his TV reviews seem to be about how he sat down on his sofa before watching, or which one of his friends someone in the show looked like. Nothing informative, nothing funny, nothing you can relate to. His work reads like those self-involved blogs you occasionally find that have been read by zero people ever and almost seem as if they have been written without any real intention of anyone reading them, except for some reason Wollaston has a national audience.

[Jack Shaftoe]

Yes, Wollaston is awful. My wife (who isn't even a Guardian reader particularly) the other day:

'This telly review is weird, it's just a list of stuff that- oh, it's that Sam Wollaston bloke'.

His dad was a proper writer, you know. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/may/09/guardianobituaries.booksobituaries

[kngen]

For a paper that prides itself on being egalitarian, the nepotism at the Graun can be quite breathtaking. There are people there in plum positions who have - and this is not an exaggeration - the writing ability of a 12 year old, but it's left for the subs to turn their copy into something publishable because they just happen to be the son (and brother) of some hugely influential and respected public figures.

[MoonDust]

Just read some Sam Wollaston. Fucking hell.

Read his review of Born to Kill. First third of the review was basically Channel 4's description of the show. No review, no personal insight, just pure "here's the blurb for two paragraphs because I can't be arsed".

Then read his review of Versaille and it was full, in pretty much every sentence, of jokes and "wit" which just seemed so forced and contrived. All in all I think only about two sentences actually said what happened in the episode.

Then there was the review of The Durrels which was him talking for two paragraphs at the start of how his mum rented an AirBnB in Corfu with his help and how his niece (to whom he then wrote "Hi Kate") might marry some local there.

The fuck mate, get on with it.

Surprised I haven't come across him before. I wish I hadn't.

[Konki]

Bafflingly still employed here's today's lolclassic: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/feb/12/rip-ser-pounce-game-of-thrones-the-most-diabolical-death-yet

[king_tubby]

Apparently he searches the Tweets for people saying how rubbish he is and BLOCKS them.

[Chollis]

bald soon

[The Lurker]

Apparently he searches the Tweets for people saying how rubbish he is and BLOCKS them.

The worst kind of person.

In fairness though, I don't mind Stuart Heritage although I think his work can often be hit and miss. That article was a bit crap but his column about the John Lewis Man on the Moon advert still makes me chuckle.

[Travis B]

Fantastic, a thread devoted to the utter cuntitude of Heritage. I really fucking loathe this prick. He is all that's wrong with the Guardian TV coverage. A smug hipster wannabe. He tries to elevate the mundane and trivial into what he would regard as important. You notice his columns mainly cover crappy reality shit and game shows. Cunt.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I too abhor Heritage of London

[Icehaven]

You notice his columns mainly cover crappy reality shit and game shows. Cunt.

Ah yes, the fish-in-a-barrel approach to criticism. I mean everyone loves a good hate-rant about S4C sometime, god knows we do enough of it on here, but this is an internet forum not a national newspaper and we're not being paid to be 'professional' critics (although tbf there actually is plenty of criticism and analysis of decent TV shows/films on here, and it's about a thousand times better). Wish we were though, it'd be great to be paid to write ''Crap TV is crap'' over and over again. Still I suppose if he was reviewing anything of substance or quality he'd actually have to engage with it and produce something with some thought and insight, and that's way too much like hard work.

[imitationleather]

A lot of Brooker's columns were ranting at shit TV and could be similarly shooting fish in a barrel, but what set him apart was that he was actually a good writer who cared about television, as well as the bonus ball of having a very good knowledge of how the medium operates. It seems that everyone The Guardian has employed to review TV since has been told to copy Charlie, but they've not got anywhere near the understanding of what they're writing about.

[Travis B]

I think part of the problem is from a few years ago, when the then new writers found it more worthwhile to dump on programmes rather than engage with them. These media graduates then had to write smug, sneery articles which they found had some takers at the Guardian. Meanwhile of course they have to champion shit programmes (ironically naturally).

Heritage is clearly at the top of that heap of dung.

I do have to admit having a blind spot when it comes to him, he could write the most brilliant dissection of The Wire and I would still think he's a cunt.

[Utter Shit]

I genuinely had no idea Heritage was disliked. I haven't read any of his Guardian articles (or if I have they've made no impact on me, positive or negative) but he comes across as a decent sort on Twitter and I'm currently reading his book, 'Don't Be A Dick, Pete', which is reasonably entertaining. Although I like his brother more even though he's the eponymous Dick, Pete...so maybe Stuart is a cunt after all.

EDIT: Hah, turns out I had a slightly better memory of his Guardian articles a couple of years ago when I first posted in this thread.

Vaguely related because they seem to occupy the same sort of 'not quite a comedian but not quite a proper writer' e-space as Heritage - what is the craic with Pete Cashmore? I always found him sort of vaguely irritating in a way that I couldn't really justify, and then out of the blue last year he suddenly went on a really nasty spree of anti-women tweets...then the next day just went back to normal, and everyone seemed to forget about it.

[Utter Shit]

Answer me about Cashmore you knackers.

[Travis B]

Answer me about Cashmore you knackers.

Just looked at some of Cashmore's stuff, and yes he's shit, but not as woeful as Heritage. I've noticed the Heritage hate has ground to a halt. Come on people, so much material to work with. Keep the hate coming.

[king_tubby]

If you look at David Lammy's twitter, he has just SMACKED DOWN Heritage.

What a time to be alive!

[touchingcloth]

I am not going to look at David Lammy's twitter, not anyone else's.

Cheers.

[king_tubby]

Good job, he's just called you a cock juggling thunder cunt.

[touchingcloth]

Wait til he sees what I've put about him on Menshn.

[Icehaven]

Didn't know wether to put this here or in the other Guardian slating thread but it's probably more for here, as it's another example of a long-term Guardian journo's ever increasing pointlessness.

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/18/cant-i-just-say-its-tasty-why-food-critics-go-too-far

It's an article by Zoe Williams about how she spent 10 years (10 YEARS) as a restaurant critic despite usually not really having that strong an opinion either way about most of the food. A decade, t  e  n     y  e   a   r  s ffffffffs being paid to do a highly covetable job before anyone finally noticed she was shite at it. What is she trying to achieve with this frankly weird article anyway? ''I very badly did a job you probably want for TEN YEARS and I didn't even care about it ha ha ain't journalism grand?'' And this last statement...

Unfortunately – and I'll go to the wall over this conclusion – humans are at their least interesting when they are eating; they are only really interesting when they are killing each other.

...as well as having fuck all to do with whatever point it was she was trying to make, is just drunk talk.

[king_tubby]

Grace Dent wrote ages ago about how she wasn't bothered about food and now she's the restaurant critic. And still unreadable. It's just jobs for mates.