Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 30 Jan 2015 11:17:45 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at legendarylocalbore I totally agree with Stephen Fry. Apart from some well made documentaries and some comedy, British television has become an embarrassment! The only positive thing I can say, is that it hasn't plumbed the depths of American television!Geoff Brown, 'The Local Bore You Can't Ignore,' Newcastle upon Tyne Fri 18 Jun 2010 09:44:36 GMT+1 Brian Brown A sports car driving small town lawyer in a pretty 1950's Norfolk town? Not exactly Jimmy McGovern is it? But if television needs to fill 24 hours of airtime then you have to watch cooking, house buying and antiques shows. Fri 18 Jun 2010 09:39:17 GMT+1 aristotles23 The problem here is Stephen is casting pearls before swine,in that he describes the kind of "council tv" that many seem to enjoy (albeit mindlessly),most probably as a way of "vegetating" in front of the box after a day of mind-numbing/stressful (un)employment,but fails to capture the zeitgeist of modern viewers apparent need for tv that is "easy to digest",frivolous and inconsequential.For anyone to suggest that he is equally guilty of culturally empty television production is not just disingenuous but shows a mentality unwilling to expand beyond the mundane and pedestrian level of the vast majority of pre-watershed tv.In short,I could not agree more with his analysis but would add that it is inevitable that we will have intellectual content for only a minority of viewers,and council tv as the standard for the entertainment of the average of the lowest common denominator.In a country where the most widely bought "newspaper" has the intellectual and cultural content of a comic for semi-literate Nazis with a passion for football and "celebrity" tittle-tattle ,it is hardly surprising that these same "consumers" infantile appraisals of the world around them,is pandered to by the originators of television programmes.The trend towards an anti-intellect agenda has sinister and far-reaching consequences,not least of which is the disempowerment of the population by the removal of the means by which we learn true intellectual appraisal.When all the thought needed for the digestion of programme content has been rendered unnecessary by the ready-made opinions and conclusions of the presenters script-writers,then the dumbing-down process has become the default position of television.The result is intellectual and cultural disempowerment as a means to an end,the end being the reversal of nineteenth and twentieth century emancipation and enlightenment,keep the workers down and dumb because they are easier to rip-off and to control when they do not know what is really going on,but are merely "entertained" by the box in the corner. Fri 18 Jun 2010 09:27:18 GMT+1 plainspeakit TV is like muck: spread it wide and it loses its effect. Fri 18 Jun 2010 09:15:13 GMT+1 The Real Mark Smith 'Are there enough "complex" programmes on TV?'Complex? Whoever wrote that question doesn't appear to understand what Stephen Fry is saying. It's not about being 'complex', it's about having intellectual merit.Bravo Stephen Fry, Bravo! Fri 18 Jun 2010 09:14:58 GMT+1 Joe Richardson Stephen Fry is a man I admire for his intelligence and wit, but in this case he is close to being a pot calling the kettle black. Infantile television does exist through some comedies and reality shows but there are equally more grown up and stimulatiing programmes too through our dramas and documentaries. I switch between them on my cable and Freeview channels. When I have time after I have had a hard day, I want comedy even if it is infantile on channels such as BBC3, Gold or the Comedy Channel, etc. Outside of that I seek out documentaries on channels such as BBC4, Yesterday, History, Sky Arts, etc. The only thing I don't like is bad, unashamed and unadulterated behaviour on reality shows. But my point is this. To say that television has become infantile is too generalistic and if anything, it has always had infantile elements. I saw an old episode of "On The Buses" over the weekend which proved my point. On the other hand I saw an old episode of "Steptoe and Son" which was just so brilliantly written...but I enjoyed each show and took them for what they were. Fri 18 Jun 2010 08:50:08 GMT+1 I_amStGeorge British television is not only childish but also poor quality but this was all forseen when Sky was introduced to Britain. The air time is now full off American cartoons, Soaps constantly repeated as if video had not been invented, Cookery programmes and Reality tv. The choice of films are either poor standard american (again) films or if they were any older they would be silent. Why cant Britain recycle its many decent programmes from the past if we have to have recycled programmes instead of this incessant american melodramatic drivvle that is presented. Such serials as "Dominic" with Brian Blessed is much more entertaining than Numbers but we never get any good programmes presented now.Even the news is regurgitated 24 hours a day so much so the presenters are scouring the world looking for something new to say when there is plenty of local news surrounding them. I gave up my tv 3 years ago as I refuse to pay for a licence that is not worth the paper it is printed on Fri 18 Jun 2010 08:43:53 GMT+1 HonestMP I think Stephen is being a bit of a hypocrite. I am more concerned about the “bread and circuses” mentality that produces programmes based on cruelty and programmes that use police footage of chases Fri 18 Jun 2010 08:26:16 GMT+1 happybrian123 Yes, it is designed to attract 12 year olds and younger. The number of repeats that are on means that a viewer can see the same episodes year after year, after year, after year............ Fri 18 Jun 2010 08:17:14 GMT+1 Len Rorke I agree with Mr. Fry. A lot of programs are infantile and seem to be increasingly involved in desperate methods to attract attention. The BBC and other broadcasters are scraping the barrel with what is put forward as comedy. We are also subjected to an assault in our homes of endless soaps where the actors play out an incessant and pathetic portrayal of life that is so far removed from reality and is a direct contributor (in my opinion), to the subconscious taking on board of unacceptable mannerisms and demeanours in our real life relationships. To exacerbate this further our soaps are even the subject of breakfast television! As if they are events that have occurred in real life! The last thing I want to be subjected to is a soap and I definitely don't want to be subjected to this on breakfast television ... how ridiculous and childish. Fri 18 Jun 2010 08:09:06 GMT+1 Andy He's right, but he is also guilty of presenting a show (QI) which often gets very 'teenage' in its humour.You only have to watch any comedy show on BBC3 to see the depths to which the BBC is stooping. Shows like Lee Nelson's Well good Show, Coming of Age and such-like seem to be aimed at the 8 to 15 age group, with most of the so-called humour based on sex and bodily functions. It's hard to believe an organisation that brought us TW3, The Frost Report, To the Manor Born and Yes Minister has gone downhill so much. Fri 18 Jun 2010 08:04:30 GMT+1 grumpylady I agree with Stephen Fry - TV needs a good shake up- too many programes for children - we need good drama/factual /interesting viewing -Whilst we are thinking about programmes - why is it when format is popular i.e,Dancing on Ice/come Dancing -they do it every year until every celeb has managed to get in on the act-Two series and then move on!Again if a presenter is popular -they are on everything - Anthea Turner -Carol Vorderman - so much we were fed up and then its on to the next one-currently Holly Willouby-like her but NOT on every programme going-lets have a change! Likewise love Philip Scholfield - but its EITHER him or Ant and Dec-are there no other male presenters !! And that does not mean more of Brucie - please someone let him end his career with some dignaty -his jokes/lines were funny 30 yrs ago -but now its just sad!Interviewing him on the boat on Election night - he seemed completely unaware of what was going on and saw it as his chance to entertain -by the way entertaining celebs on a boats-complete waste of money-why do we want to see them standing around drinking !! Its time the programme makers stopped paying large salaries to people like J Woss who dress in velvet suits , insult their guest and use unacceptable language- and we wonder why todays youngsters are like they are - he 's like an overgrown school boy swearing at the back of the bike shed and whilst someones stupid enought to pay him - he will carry one - but its time those of us who pay for the watching BBC got value for money -- . Fri 18 Jun 2010 08:01:54 GMT+1 Ralph124C41plus I recommend #476. As it happens I saw an old Horizon last night. No "exciting" music. No presenters spinning out the actual material of the programme by showing their "research" (which seems to require a lot of whizzing around the world to ask trivial questions). Just a solid narrative of previously researched facts.Lovely! Fri 18 Jun 2010 07:59:04 GMT+1 SouthernImp It's simple economics isn't it? Take a minority of the population (and let's face it, the viewers that watch X-Factor are less than 50%) and ask them to pay 50p to call and vote and who's actually paying for the show? The dumb viewers, that's who!There's plenty of choice on Sky and its equivalents, if you don't like the rubbish on mainstream terrestial TV, watch something less boring instead. Why don't you? Fri 18 Jun 2010 07:46:57 GMT+1 sizzler Stephen, most people don't know that the stars are suns which are far away. They're not infantile, the general population is no wiser than they were in the bronze age. What's infantile is educated and thoughtful politicians and bankers ruining the lives of our simple people to accumulate wealth and power. Fri 18 Jun 2010 07:27:52 GMT+1 Merv Rogers The natural and completely predictable result of chasing advertising led ratings instead of quality is the production of moving pictures for the brain dead. That is largely where we are at the moment. Fri 18 Jun 2010 07:26:30 GMT+1 Guto Evans I don't watch much TV because I do find it dumbed down, I remember watching science programmes such as Horizon in the 70s which went into great detail about their subjects and comedies such as Fawlty Towers which are eternally funny, but I've stopped watching science programmes because there's not enough meat on the bones and most, but not all, comedies seem to be just about taking the p*** out of stereotypes to a nasty degree and aren't we clever and funny for doing so. One thing puzzles me, if we're all supposedly better educated today with many people passing 10+ GCSEs at A grade, 4 A Levels at A grade and half of our school leavers studying at degree level and hence many more degree educated people in the UK now, how come TV is going in the opposite direction intellectually? Fri 18 Jun 2010 07:15:57 GMT+1 Maximus This post has been Removed Fri 18 Jun 2010 07:10:10 GMT+1 missproliberty Re comment No.17 from Witchfinder.I agree with you entirely. The reason there are so many brain-dead 'phone-in programmes is because the programme gets its revenue from the millions of idiots who pay exhorbitant charges on 0909 numbers to vote or to give the very obvious answer to the very simple questions.I have never watched Big B and stopped watching Come Dancing after the 2nd showing, when you have seen one such programme you have seen them all. The same with interviewers talking to so-called celebrities, utter trash.I hope there are no more "Lets find a..." for Andrew Lloyd-Webber. Fri 18 Jun 2010 07:09:48 GMT+1 chrislabiff Bwing bak de SWINGOMETER ! ! ! Fri 18 Jun 2010 07:08:43 GMT+1 Andy ps - I do agree with Mr Fry. I have thought for some time that TV programmes have become more like pop videos - way too much "background" music and CGI and other graphics overlaid onto the picture, not to mention images that last about one second before flipping to the next one. Which is surprising, given that most kids nowadays seem to spend more and more time on their computers or XBoxes or mobiles or whatever and less time watching TV. If that is the case, what exactly is TV's target audience? Fri 18 Jun 2010 06:47:10 GMT+1 Andy 446. At 7:55pm on 17 Jun 2010, Alfettaman wrote:There's something delightfully perplexing in the question. Let's look at it logically;(1) Either TV is moronic/infantile, or it isn't AND(2) Either you watch it, or you don'tSo...(a) if it's moronic and you watch it, then presumably you're a moron - so you won't be admitting that here(b) if it's moronic and you don't watch it, then you're not qualified to comment (because you haven't watched it)(c) if it's not moronic and you don't watch it, then either you're moronic (and don't like watching non-moronic TV), or you're not qualified to comment (because you don't watch it)(d) if it's not moronic and you do watch it, then you can post a comment here.Personally I'm in category (b): I don't watch TV because it's moronic and I've got much more interesting things to do - but that means I'm not qualified to say anything about it, so please ignore this comment and read the next one instead.................To follow your logic through... If you don't watch TV you can not say if it is moronic or not. Therefore, you have to watch at least some TV to make this determination. Thus, you fall into category (a)Unless there's a hidden category (e)? Fri 18 Jun 2010 06:42:15 GMT+1 matt Dr Who is a kids program and always was. There is always BBC4 BBC2 and More4. Thu 17 Jun 2010 22:59:27 GMT+1 frigidbridget I agree with Stephen Fry the BBC is dumbed down and treats all it's viewers as if they were ill educated . All the so call "trendy" drama target audience, are teens.We need to get back to informative and compelling viewing. Thu 17 Jun 2010 22:39:07 GMT+1 MargaretB I think I agree with him. Not sure if it's that the programmes are childish exactly, but there certainly seems to be much less variety of programmes now. Some sections of the community are catered for a lot, and others (like me) hardly at all. I like documentaries about politics, history and art, and good historical dramas (not like The Tudors, where all the women had 21st century eyebrows, and the people all behaved like 21st century people, yet all these are really quite thin on the ground now.We went digital in March, and in my area we can't get BBC channels at all on Freeview, and it has surprised me how little an inconvenience this has been - a few programmes to watch on iplayer, but otherwise life goes on. I think that a few years ago, I would have missed the BBC much more than i do now.Having said that, the BBC still has the two best programmes on TV - The Apprentice and Strictly Come Dancing Thu 17 Jun 2010 22:18:20 GMT+1 J Workerbee 459. At 10:10pm on 17 Jun 2010, CP wrote:Get a digital video recorder. Check the telly pages each day and record anything you find interesting. Then, occasionally, when you actually have time to sit down and watch the telly, you will always have a choice.Or don't you have a life outside of TV?-------------------------10/10 ! Thu 17 Jun 2010 22:15:49 GMT+1 Pepper Quill Stephen Fry says he is shocked how "infantilised" Britain's adult TV programmes have become. What do you think?I believe that the quality of Britain's adult TV programmes has adjusted to the current level of learning and culture in the British population. Thu 17 Jun 2010 22:07:12 GMT+1 You Cant Buck The Future The problem is less and less people are watching TV now. The Two Ronnies n the 1970's used to get audiences of 15 million every week, nowadays no TV programme can command that kind of audience. TV is in decay I'm afraid, but really it's no bad thing. I chucked my TV out years ago and I don't miss it. Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:45:09 GMT+1 billy BBC's 'Horizon' program used to be a jewel in scientific broadcasting but in the past few years it has become purile and Americanised with the same points and same special effects shots being made and shown over and over again. The whole program could now be condensed into 15 minutes without the repetition and the content is aimed at the level of young children. Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:42:47 GMT+1 Brittany Chaveos I completely agree with Stephen Fry, though he may not entirely agree with my comment. Let me further reinforce his argument by a single lament: the disappearance from our screens of the BBC's excellent 'Play for Today'. It ran from 1970 to 1984 and gave exposure to countless writers. The BBC would do well to remember that England is not yet entirely chav-infested; it shouldn't try to look 'hip' by pandering to the semi-civilised who can't or won't countenance anything that requires processing of more than three words at a time. No, dear BBC, trying to look 'hip' doesn't suit you. Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:33:09 GMT+1 chrisk50 @ 322. At 08:55am on 17 Jun 2010, MARTNAL2 wrote:"Most TV seems to be aimed at couch potatoes who never have to make a decision beyong takeaway pizza toppings. Find an alternative. We get 70-odd years, make the most of it and turn it off."ChrisK50 replies:I have tried all the alternatives, but I reckon I have had every pizza topping going, I eat them every night while watching TV. Sorry just had to get that one in. HA HA Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:25:06 GMT+1 Rachel I must confess most of the programs I enjoy are American... and until reading Stephen Fry's article I hadn't put my finger on why. He is absolutely right. I find British TV programs mostly dull and depressing. Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:19:35 GMT+1 LondonHarris Is TV really being Dumbed - Down, and only watch by Dummies?The reason I asked this Question is that with the many TV Channels now upon Freeview, we are ALL treated with the silly Station Idents Logo's in the corner of the TV Screen.Now considering, that many TV Channels also run their Adverts at the very same time, and consider also the Answer that is always given to the above Question, which is again always - "Station idents ARE there so that the Viewers alway know which TV Channels they are watching".Am I dumb, or what??? since NONE of the TV Channels that plaster their useless ident logo's upon our TV Screens during the Programmes, DON'T show ANY Channel Ident Logo's during ANY of the Commercial Breaks for Adverts.Therefore, ANY Screen Logo's are NOT fit for purpose, and completely unwanted. Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:13:51 GMT+1 CPslashM Get a digital video recorder. Check the telly pages each day and record anything you find interesting. Then, occasionally, when you actually have time to sit down and watch the telly, you will always have a choice.Or don't you have a life outside of TV? Thu 17 Jun 2010 21:10:15 GMT+1 Michelle06 I completely disagree with Stephen Fry's comments - he is clearly not the demographic that those programmes are aiming for. He complains that programmes such as Merlin or Dr Who are too "dumbed down" and not for adults - but what sort of complex adult programmes would you expect to see at 6.30 on a Saturday evening? I applaud the BBC for programmes such as Merlin, Dr Who and the recent Robin Hood series that have all occupied the early evening slot on BBC on a Saturday evening - finally families with children can sit down together and watch a drama programme that does not have to rely on swearing or graphic sex scenes to provide the entertainment - and anything that keeps them from watching Britains Got Talent, Big Brother or X Factor has to be good Thu 17 Jun 2010 20:58:12 GMT+1 sheila coleman I would like to know why producers have to change already good story lines for example more recent adaptations of Miss Marple and Poirot by Agatha Christie have been destroyed by producers including characters or additional story lines that were never in the original books. I can only assume there are too many producers with too much time on their hands. Thu 17 Jun 2010 20:55:28 GMT+1 Shine600 I don't know if Stephen Fry's comments targeted 'Reality' TV shows but many who have commented here have done so. In their defense I have to say I have found many of these shows to be gripping both emotionally as well as informative. They appeal on a deeper level as they are, obviously, real situations where people naturally reveal how we all tick and though the editing may provide control over how we interpret that. Some shows I am still thinking about several years after watching, assessing those moments of amazing insight, the sort that drama only rarely manages to pull off with such conviction. Thu 17 Jun 2010 20:52:43 GMT+1 Alan T Let us not forget that Stephen Fry was one of the perpetrators of Black Adder II (the crudest and most childish of that otherwise excellent series) - and thus, the phrase "Pot-Kettle-Black" springs, unbidden, to mind! However, if I were with the BBC I would be seriously examining the content of this HYS and noticing how very very few defenders TV content has got. Modern TV is repeatedly (and in my view, correctly) characterised as a triumph of presentation over substance, and a running theme here is that the "wrap around" (trails, presentation links, ads etc) are at an intolerable level.If I were in charge at the BBC (or anywhere else in the TV industry) that would worry me, a lot. As to American TV being worse than ours: Yes it is! The latest series of American shows made to fit a 30 minute airtime slot now actually only run for about 21 minutes. That indicates that, over there, 9 minutes of every 30 (or 18 minutes of every hour) is ads - getting on for one third of each hour. Unfortunately, that also means that when they get shown over here, that same time has to be filled with ads or trails - thus the interminable rubbish breaks in the middle of programmes on Sky and other channels. I would encourage everyone to acquire a Freesat or Freeview DVR which allows you to automatically record any TV programme you desire (it's not complex, you don't have to "set" it like you did with a VCR - it's far simpler) and watch the programme whenever you want, but you can easily fast forward through all the rubbish to watch just the programme itself. Since we got one of these we watch almost NO live TV any more, and enjoy our viewing far more for it. It's great watching the 5 minute ad break go through in a few seconds, or the endless trailer sequences wizzing past in a second or two. Oh no, is the great Wimblebore about to start again? That plus the World Cup... oh well, we have a lot of recorded TV and DVDs to watch! This is 2010 after all - nobody should be reliant on live TV now. Alan T Thu 17 Jun 2010 20:49:20 GMT+1 MizzJShaw He is so absolutely right, and even worse is the dark bleakness shown in our morbid soaps.(Why not film them in black and white) to make them even more gloomy. Whatever happened to good entertainment, serious drama and intelligent talk shows. Why do people think it is clever to know nothing, to speak bad English, to dress like tramps and to act like perpetual teenagers. Thu 17 Jun 2010 20:41:17 GMT+1 sheila coleman Its been obvious that tv programmes have gone downhill for a long time. News readers put "full stops" in the middle of sentences of news items which makes them very confusing, as well as annoying. Why are the weather forecasters sent out, especially in snow to show us all what snow looks like!!! A complete waste of licence money. Working Lunch use to be very good but for some reason the format was changed so that so much time is wasted with introducing "guests" to begin with then introducing them again when its time for them to be interviewed, then there is the female presenter who seems to "whinge" a lot of the time. If the format had stayed as it was originally I am sure viewers would not have deserted it as it the only programme of this type advising on tax etc. We do not watch the soaps as they are far too violent and the language is appalling, in fact they should not be on until late at night. Now we have football, football and yet more football. Ugh!! We, like many others whose comments I have read watch very little tv. There use to be very good programmes like "I Claudius" and Lord Peter Wimsey to name two. We use to see several nights of "Horse of the year show" now its a short programme and mainly of the high jump, yet hours and hours of football. To me the transmitters should be shut down for many hours of the day, this would encourage children , parents etc to do something more interesting with their lives and we would then possibly regain some quality TV. Thu 17 Jun 2010 20:35:04 GMT+1 Chris How dare Mr Fry be so condescending - I'm now going to throw all of my toys out of the pram.For sake of being a broken record, when 75% of what you watch is owned by just one man, that wonderful Mr Murdoch, what else do you expect but overpriced rubbish that promotes a singularly utopian ideal that if it's good for capital its good for mankind. Thu 17 Jun 2010 20:33:50 GMT+1 jim Do we have british TV? There is very little on that can be regarded as enterainment. Thu 17 Jun 2010 20:27:20 GMT+1 Bibi Inane, for the most part, rather than childish, I would say. The BBC has now dumbed down to such an extent, that the only way one can ascertain one is not watching a commercial channel is the lack of advertising breaks every two minutes. At least those channels bombarding us with advertisements have some excuse to take 10 minutes after every ad run remind us of what we watched before the break. The BBC channels appear to think their viewers have the attention span of goldfish - and a similar level of intelligence. Thu 17 Jun 2010 20:16:48 GMT+1 Michael Lloyd I do not buy into the "Stephen Fry is a genius" bit; I think we see and hear far too much of him and he does not appear to me to show much sign of great intelligence - just look at his own TV output. However, I am certain that he is absolutely right in his recent remarks about TV.I have been very lucky in never having a TV or living in a house with one from birth until about 11 years ago (over 50 years, in fact). I have therefore no preconceived notions of any imaginary golden age of television. Unfortunately I allowed by wife and daughter to pressurise me into accepting TV, and I can say with absolute certainty that in the last decade it has gone from pretty poor (with a few honourable exceptions) to downright abysmal. Many evenings there is nothing whatever to watch. Saturdays are pathetic. The only good thing is that I save electricity by not having the damn thing switched on.Sadly, Radio is getting to be as bad. I was an avid Radio 4 listener for decades. Nowadays there is virtually nothing I want to listen to any more. I enjoy some of the programming on Radio 7 (or maybe we should call it 4 extra or something) but the puerile, chatty, moronic presenters drive me barmy, I don't need to be told at two-minute (or less) intervals that I am listening to "BBC Radio 7, the digital radio station for comedy and drama" - surprisingly, my digital radio set actually displays this useful information, and in any event, I am able to remember the fact for more than the statutory 120 seconds.Nowadays I listen to very little, and find myself reverting to my first source of information and entertainment, books. There is a lesson for the BBC and other media providers here, but they won't learn it because they know better than I do what I want. After all, they have degrees in media studies, so they must be better than the rest of us, innit? Thu 17 Jun 2010 19:39:31 GMT+1 Gillian Mr Fry is correct. 30 years ago television had good quality period drama which was the envy of the world. Now I find it very hard to find a period drama with out the black character thrown in. It is far to PC. Television caters for the masses. Recently I bought the television series "Only when I laugh". This isn't PC. It was a breath of fresh air with all the rubbish now on television. Thu 17 Jun 2010 19:19:57 GMT+1 Alan Marr The standard of Television reflects very much the state of the nation , which is shallow , unthinking and always wanting the lowest form of entertainment. I gave up having a Television 27 years ago when good Television no longer was produced. Just go back to the 60's 70's and 80's and compare the output then with the rubbish produced now.The Television today is a travesty of it's former self. Just go to You Tube and see some of the excerpts from Television of those eras. Think of "I Claudius " The Forsythe Saga" and the famous production of Hedda Gabler with Ingrid Bergman and Ralph Richardson and compare that with today's rubbish. Thu 17 Jun 2010 19:02:34 GMT+1 Alfettaman There's something delightfully perplexing in the question. Let's look at it logically;(1) Either TV is moronic/infantile, or it isn't AND(2) Either you watch it, or you don'tSo...(a) if it's moronic and you watch it, then presumably you're a moron - so you won't be admitting that here(b) if it's moronic and you don't watch it, then you're not qualified to comment (because you haven't watched it)(c) if it's not moronic and you don't watch it, then either you're moronic (and don't like watching non-moronic TV), or you're not qualified to comment (because you don't watch it)(d) if it's not moronic and you do watch it, then you can post a comment here.Personally I'm in category (b): I don't watch TV because it's moronic and I've got much more interesting things to do - but that means I'm not qualified to say anything about it, so please ignore this comment and read the next one instead... Thu 17 Jun 2010 18:55:54 GMT+1 dani "If you are an adult you want something surprising, savoury, sharp, unusual, cosmopolitan, alien, challenging, complex, ambiguous, possibly even slightly disturbing and wrong," First of all I extoll the BBC and TV in general. TV is about choice and I think there is choice; yes there are some silly programmes but there are lots of brilliant ones. As an nearly-20-year old fan of both Stephen Fry and Doctor Who, would like to say, I think the above quote sums Doctor Who up perfectly-I've being looking for a quote that does-once again it falls to Mr Fry. Doctor Who is great writing and great drama and a lot of work goes into it. It is one of the best written programmes on television, and I most people who agree with me are adults. I recently convinced my drving instructor to watch it, she is a similar age to my parents and a quite clever and intellectual person. She think's it's easily the best programme on television, and complimented it's 'great writing' as did my Dad. The problem is, taste is subjective, but quality shouldn't be and yet, people seem to think it is -tut, tut Mister Fry.There are lots of great programmes, it's about believing in the medium. Thu 17 Jun 2010 18:43:58 GMT+1 Peter Reynolds "The Young Apprentice" is the best example of this. It's what "The Apprentice" should always have been. Thu 17 Jun 2010 18:42:48 GMT+1 AllyEff Surprised Stephen Fry has taken the time to watch and form an opinion on the childish TV to which refers. Ah well we all waste our time doing things like sitting in front of TV. Clearly Stephen needs to get a life. Thu 17 Jun 2010 18:27:48 GMT+1 Mindings I fully agree, but it's not just TV. When you tune in to Radio 4 pm and hear world cup commentators using exressions where teams were either thumped or walloped and then followed by a political commentary on Cameron's visit to the EU Summit comparing it to the new boy at school. Pure infantile radio from what was thae last bastion of adult listening.Groan! Thu 17 Jun 2010 18:26:54 GMT+1 Brian Berlin Murdoch, Murdoch, Murdoch. That's why the programmes are so bad. That's why we need more, not less media studies courses, so that people can analyse, understand and change what is really going on. Dumbing down isn't magic! It isn't just for money either, it's done for political reasons too, by foreign billionaire media owners like Murdoch. It's USEFUL for the right-wing to have a dumbed-down, infantilised, Sun-reading population! That's why the Tories, who love attacking the BBC, almost never get at it for having dumb programmes per se.And to those who think media studies is like Fame or something... why don't you look it up on a well-known online enyclopaedia? Thu 17 Jun 2010 18:15:40 GMT+1 leggylegz " The incident between James Corden and Patrick Stewart goes to show the generational differences between our "entertainers".Stewart, representing our dying but remarkable legacy of top quality entertainers, mouthed off by Corden, who quite franky, is the unfunniest presence since Ricky Gervais and who's dialogue is about as funny as the remarks made by 12 year old school children on the back of a bus on any given weekday morning. "Jericho420, I couldn't agree with you more! The likes of Corden, Gervais and Kay etc. are merely yobs who have managed to hoodwink the 'entertainment' business.Their 'success' is not borne from any exceptional talent other than to exploit a spiralling decline in the intellectual demands from a large section of society, already dumbed-down by soaps, reality shows etc. Alas, the BBC's feels the need to cater for these (diminishing) demands or lose its share of viewers (ratings wars). And so the standards continue to decline. Thu 17 Jun 2010 18:09:33 GMT+1 ZiggyNoShoes Oh dear - the same old story...Yes there is a lot of immature, low-brow rubbish on TV; but there's always been a lot of low-brow rubbish on TV! Perhaps the explosion in the number of channels makes it appear there is more of it - which in terms of broadcast hours per week there is.Doctor Who has always been a family/children's programme, I know the BBC are very pleased with themselves about it, possibly due to very good worldwide sales, but I don't think they have been comparing it to the plays they used to broadcast by Dennis Potter et al.Contemporary TV drama is not in too bad a place, we still see extended science documentary series being made and shown with subjects such as the history of mathematics etc. etc. Of course Mr Fry himself made an excellent documentary about mental illness, and the "Who Do You Think You Are" programmes provided a useful bridge between the casual viewer and the potential of deeper insights into history from a very personal perspective.BBC4 has been a very welcome addition to the family, perhaps a little too high brow for me occassionally - but a broad spectrum is the name of the game.Yes, the vast bulk of programmes are just 'eye-candy', a background noise that viewers can tune in and out as they wish. But that's all it has ever been, sorry but there was no "Golden Age" when every programme was a "Cathy Come Home" Play for Today - there weren't reality shows because the technology to produce them wasn't available. Documentary shot on 16mm film had to be carefully planned and executed - remember "The Family", a frightening preview of what was to come. Digital video allows cheap production and the low £perhour paid by broadcasters means lots of low grade reality show material. But there are still nuggets of gold to be seen amongst the dross, just keep flipping - and can I recommend Sky Arts 1 and 2 as a place to find the occassional unexpected gem. Thu 17 Jun 2010 18:02:08 GMT+1 Conner De Public I must agree with Mr Fry.The BBCs output is increasingly making GMTV look like The Open University!I get the feeling the "Top Brass" are only hanging on for their Gold Plated pensions. Thu 17 Jun 2010 17:58:32 GMT+1 JobyJak I agree with Stephen Fry but the fact is television gives people what they want to watch, if he doesnt agree with it he should make a tv programme and see if people will watch it.If the ignorant masses want to watch trash that is up to them, he cannot tell them how to think.However I do think we have swung too far the other way and in the near future it will be corrected with more thought provoking viewing. Everything experiences swings. Thu 17 Jun 2010 17:51:32 GMT+1 Sian Rose I totally agree with Stephen. There are the odd sparks of brilliance like Springwatch, QI and period dramas such as Bleak House and Little Dorrit (all BBC ones when I come to think of it) The rest seems to be soaps, reality TV and the like which are fine if you just want to chill or watch mindless goo. However they should not be the ONLY things on TV. Weekends are the worst when it is constantly sport, reality TV or Westerns. When I was younger there always seemed to be a old fashioned murder mystery or period drama on a sunday now more reality TV and silly quiz shows! Good job we have Iplayer and BBC so you can be more discerning in what you watch! Thu 17 Jun 2010 17:47:51 GMT+1 Hyperstar I guess the BBC doesn't want my views Thu 17 Jun 2010 17:42:54 GMT+1 Gabriel Oaks Yes, I totally agree with Stephen Fry.What is equally bad are programmes that spend ten minutes reminding us of what we were watching before the ad break (we are not stupid!).The 'runner up' to these are the banners trailed across the climatic end of a programme advertising thenext programme. Completely spoils the viewing.So I now watch far less television! Thu 17 Jun 2010 17:15:27 GMT+1 LondonHarris For along time now all Adult TV in the UK has been seen as having to be Child friendly, to a point now whereby to find ANY Programmes containing Adult Contents, then this has to be bought home for a Night in to watch upon DVD.British Television as a whole IS the most over - regulated in Europe, and to understand this you would have to compare other European Broadcasters of Television Channels providing General Entertainment and Films against what is ALLOWED to be seen upon Any of the accross the board UK Networks, which is very tame by comparison.Not only are All UK Adult Programmes child - friendly, but also ALL UK News Feeds are chopped - up when it comes to a disaster, whereby these Feeds are heavily Cut compared to Non - UK News outlet coverage.Oh', and if there will be ever a time when the UK will catch - up with the rest of the World, please remember there is always CBBC for those Adults whom don't wish to see Adult Programmes, or better still there is the OFF Buttom upon your TV Set at your disposal. Thu 17 Jun 2010 17:11:27 GMT+1 willard Thank you Mr Fry.I cannot afford Sky, so am left with drivel on FreeView.Hardly ever watch BBC. Why don't they make one BBC channel a movie only channel, then I would not question the licence fee.PS. Dr Who is a children's programme, isn't it? Thu 17 Jun 2010 16:28:58 GMT+1 Beverley I hardly watch television anymore because the programs are geared to idiots. Documentaries give you a five minute re-cap after every single advert break as if you don't have the mental capacity to retain the information for more than two minutes. Then anything that is supposed to be aimed at adults, it's often full of sex, violence and foul language!Where are the programs for the people who crave some mental stimulation? For the people who can string a sentance together without being vulgar? For the people who want something more than so called reality programs and celebrities because they happen to have broader interests than that!If this doesn't change, I won't even bother owning a television when I get my own place. Thu 17 Jun 2010 16:28:48 GMT+1 BritishSubject Quite right Stephen, you are voicing what we have all known for a long time. Furthermore the entire population has been forcibly infantilised as they have been in the USA. It makes it much easier for govt to control people.Programmes like Horizon used to be mildly intelligent but now 3/4 of the programme is empty space. Much of the rest is just mindless dross. Thu 17 Jun 2010 16:20:41 GMT+1 Pamela Read Comedy on BBC used to be terrific. Now all comedy programmes give us schoolboy smut , even my beloved"Have I got News for You" has joined the trend for snigger worthy smut instead of wit and humour. Thu 17 Jun 2010 16:14:33 GMT+1 suzie127 I don't know if childish is the word, I would prefer to call it mind numbingly boring, sensationalist and pathetic. Just my opinion you understand. This is why I generally get my news from the web and only use television to watch various sports and documentaries. Thu 17 Jun 2010 16:07:31 GMT+1 Bobbyblue Unfortunately I suspect a sizeable minority of the population still confine their watching mainly to ITV1 and then complain about lack of programming quality.I, personally, do not watch "reality" programmes and try to avoid daily "soaps" but my Skyplus recorder is still bulging with potentially excellent programmes from a variety of sources that I haven't got round to watching yet.Some programmes supposedly aimed at adults are definitely infantilised - sadly "Springwatch" with Chris Packham comes to mind, but these can easily be avoided. For those with Sky there are some wonderful minority channels to be find (no not those, naughty) catering for all tastes and intellects - even mine.So, Stephen Fry, British TV is generally want you want it to be and if you spend your time watching rubbish than that is probably what you will find. Wasn't "Kingdom" on ITV1 now I come to think of it? Thu 17 Jun 2010 16:04:59 GMT+1 malleus Stephen Fry is correct. However, he should not limit his comments to e British Television. British Society; in general; has become both childish, uneducated and shallow. If you were to instruct the average young job applicant to fill in a questionnaire they would probably go out and punch the doorman! Thu 17 Jun 2010 15:53:17 GMT+1 Portman WIth the pressure to fill so many channels there is going to be a lot of cheaply made content. There is still however plenty of quality content, it is just spread across more channels. The real risk is that we lose the channels like BBC4 because the intelligence of their content is only popular with the few. The model should be to provide for all tastes and currently I think that is pretty well achieved. It is a success. I fear thought that the Tories are clearly in bed with Murdoch and therefore with high audience content and commercial television. In that model BBC may be forced to lose the very quality that Mr Fry seeks. Thu 17 Jun 2010 15:30:27 GMT+1 The Truth My husband and I have given up a long time ago and just watch the programmes that appeal to us i.e. mostly news and sports (F1, Tennis, Ice Skating, sometimes Football) and Dale Winton's Saturday quiz. It's been like that for a while. What can anyone do? We do what's in our control which is as stated above. Thu 17 Jun 2010 15:22:10 GMT+1 MikeVonDoom As children's TV once asked; Why Don't You... turn off your television set and go and do something less boring instead.If I do ever see TV that educates AND entertains, I have to say, it's almost always on the BBC.To those who ONLY want to be entertained; perhaps you could stare at some shiny things for a while. I'm sure there'll be another mindless sitcom, soap or "reality" show along very soon for you. Thu 17 Jun 2010 15:17:03 GMT+1 recrec He is absolutely right. I have sky and struggle to find anything to watch. In fact I usually play recorded music or video's from the past. I really hate paying my licence because it is not value for money. I pay to buy recorded music or video and then have to pay for rubbish I do not watch. Thu 17 Jun 2010 15:16:49 GMT+1 toastcrisperer @neilbarber...As kids and fans watching Dr Who years ago, we would often hear some rather patronising ill informed commentator labelling it a children's show. It may have started that way but it evolved quite dramatically during the 1970s. It is a throwaway statement much like talk of wobbly sets and rubber suits. And its worth repeating that nothing irritates kids more than being patronised. I totally agree with you however about the coy and needless sexing up of the Doctor. It is highly inappropriate and I suspect it is a cynical ploy to attract the famously disaffected audience of women to the show. Get the Doc to have relationships and keep the girls tuned in. BBC Enterprises whom I believe are really calling the shots (see BBC Ents)Most bright kids can see all this coming a mile off - being written down to as much as spoken down to. They'll switch off and switch over. The great thing about Dr Who was that for the most part the writing, the dialogue and the monsters were imaginative, challenging and frightening for 'kids' and adults alike. That's what kids love - being scared and horrified. It’s dull killjoy adults that are squeamish and diffident. Kids especially appreciate being treated like grown ups and Dr Who’s scripts were at their best scintillatingly grown up, interesting, amusing and inclusive. Not any more. It sure is “squeaky bum time”. Go to your room Stephen Moffat... Thu 17 Jun 2010 15:16:41 GMT+1 barryp Mr Fry misses a point. Many people want somewhat 'Infantile' programmes. Many of the programmes he denigrates are watched by many, not for their intellectual content, but simply as a release from the wear and tear of everyday life. I doubt if East enders or Coronation street is selected for its challenging plot lines. BY using the channel switch I can normally find something to suit my wishes or mood, sometimes though I do have to resort to a book.What I do find distressing is the way in which Children's TV has regressed. SO many of the presenters are little more than ill behaved children in their behaviour, and should not be allowed anywhere near impressionable children. We seem to have imported every bad habit of over-reacting and noisy expression from somewhere in the Western World. We have quiz shows designed for a combination of Brats and the thick. We have rewards for poor behaviour, and presenters who cannot string an English sentence together. Thinking about it, maybe Mr Fry is correct, he just failed to point out that the rot starts at the bottom. Thu 17 Jun 2010 15:16:01 GMT+1 Nic121 For someone so intelligent I feel Stephen Fry has overlooked a very important point - 'infantile' tv, as he puts it, may well have increased in recent years, BUT other types of programmes that are "surprising, savoury, sharp, unusual, cosmopolitan, alien, challenging, complex, ambiguous, possibly even slightly disturbing and wrong" have also significantly increased in recent years.The point being is that there is so much choice nowadays to suit ALL tastes. There are many channels now dedicated to more challenging programmes of the sort Stephen refers to, including BBC2, BBC4, MORE4, history channels, nature channels, documentary channels, national geographic channels etc etc etc. Also, the main tv channels including BBC, ITV and channel 4 regularily produce some great very intelligent and thought-provoking dramas, comedies and documentaries that i've enjoyed watching.I'm not a big fan of most reality tv either, but that's just fine as I can CHOOSE to watch a whole wealth of other programmes that are to my taste. Thu 17 Jun 2010 15:13:58 GMT+1 toastcrisperer Yes of course Stephen Fry is right but he didn't say quite enough and said it all a little too politely as ever. In the case of Dr Who, it has certainly been marketed ruthlessly at children by BBC Enterprises and the once clever, witty and adult themed scripts (which children loved as they were not being patronised or obviously 'written for') have all but disappeared with the Doctor now uttering the likes of "oh, no it's sticky bum time" etc. It is losing a lot of its fans consequently. Merlin is a different show along the lines of Robin Hood and has a totally different pedigree let alone history. There is a very tangible element in the BBC that purports to know what we want to see, hear and think and as always, part and parcel of such a patronising attitude is the lack of creative daring and concommitant infantalising of the 'target' audience. It's not just TV, it's everywhere in our society. Supermarket aisles labelled 'Tasty Treats' as though we can't work what the products are for ourselves ...we have to be told. The way we treat our old people. The way we fawn over celebrities and their latest trinkets and gossip. Thu 17 Jun 2010 15:03:11 GMT+1 FriendlyNemesis Whilst Mr. Fry has a point, it's a sad day when us adults can't enjoy being a little childlike during our leisure hours.Worth remembering too that some programmes designed for children can become adult viewing in a phenomena known as 'cult'. Should we take the fun out of everything ?Still if he persuades the powers that be to get rid of soaps & so called 'reality TV', he'll have done us all a favour. Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:59:12 GMT+1 MeanCaptainBloke Many years ago,we had a maximum of five channels.Strangely,we also had more choice,better quality and more innovation.Now,there semms to be more copying of formats,so much of T.V. becomes repetitive.No one is saying "Bottom" was intellectual,but it was made at the time, when outrageous humour was also just part of the mix. Now I hear the coalition is making an arrangement with Mr.Murdoch.So rather than tell the BBC to make great telly,they could well destroy the BBC for profit.How exactly would this benefit the British public?Probably another coalition backward step. Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:52:41 GMT+1 SSnotbanned Will the real Stephen Fry please stand up and lead the masses into revolting against the TV licence.I know I tried, and it didn't seem to make any difference. Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:36:40 GMT+1 SSnotbanned #135 purevil your powers of deduction are incredible.unfortunately all wrong.better luck next time. Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:28:28 GMT+1 SSnotbanned #84 peter symYes, she was supposed to be a 'kissogram'. How convenient for the story .HaHa !! Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:24:58 GMT+1 Call_Me_Col I completely agree with Mr Fry. With few exceptions most prime time family entertainment on British TV is levelled more towards children than adults. Weekend prime time TV especially is full of inane pap more suitable for CBBC or CITV. I'm just glad I've got a good and ever growing book collection to turn to. Anything with Ant & Dec, anything about the supposed talent of the public or with a reality TV tag and anything giving people their 15 minutes of fame should all be put on Teen / Children's channels.It's also the volume of this garbage, do we need 100s of hours of so called talent shows, quiz shows, "gripping" reality TV shows across a plethora of channels every day. Personally I'd rather have 4 or 5 decent channels. Still there's always the off button. Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:23:39 GMT+1 SSnotbanned 'Que' ?QIQED Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:21:28 GMT+1 neilbarber Well I don't know about his general point about all TV.What I do know is that Dr Who is a CHILDREN'S TV programme. Yet he complains it's too childish! Amazing!And meanwhile we have Karen Gillan protesting that she doesn't know what the fuss is about with Dr Who being sexed up and her character wearing short skirts... problem isn't really her skirts. It's her character saying she wants to go to bed with the Doctor. It is fiction you know Karen! Amy doesn't really exist you know.Please let's remember: Dr Who is a children's TV programme!It really is not necessary for a children's fictional TV programme to invent suggestive, seductive storylines to rob our children of their childhood. It really isn't.PLEASE BBC, please adults, let the children have their Dr Who.If you want something different, go watch Torchwood or something. Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:16:44 GMT+1 Andrew There is plenty of good broadcasting available; you will find it on BBC Radios 3, 4 and 7, and Classic FM.Just imagine if they ever started broadcasting pictures too! You'd end up with the most awful rubbish! Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:09:29 GMT+1 D G Cullum As we pay a pole tax for the BBC we should have a big say in what rubbish is put on the box. my TV is old now and when its gone that will be it I will not bother getting another one. The BBC is run by the elite and this is London based and they can not see anything but their life style same old faces talking the same old rubbish as for the news programs well what news? I know that there is a push to have the internet in everyone's house so we can twitter more rubbish , but there are many who do not want to join in and like to read books and listen to the music of the chose and the endless waffle drives them mad but then this is real human nature something the BBC can not control, thank God Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:07:34 GMT+1 James He is spot on Documentaries - they speak slowly and clearly and haltingly in case we don't understand ... Gavin and Stacy - yes, its really childish humourEastenders - is for mentally challenged people ; terrible. Thu 17 Jun 2010 14:06:53 GMT+1 citizen42 look at some of the postings on HYS QED.if you want to expand on adams thesis "wealth of nations" relating to its social warnings and guidance,you are accused of a wasted education by some semi illiterate who cannot grasp the inner principles that he put forward.the 60's and 70's young audience have been spoilt,we were given an education and it was susidized by the likes of mortimer wheeler,charles bronski, micheal wood we had the pilinger report,world in action.a whole collection of series on the 1 and 11 world wars.we had current affairs programs coming out of our ears fantastic personel interviews with the likes of ludvic kennady,david frost and parky to name but a few. "CHRONICAL" what a programme and theres so many more. i tell you ,the BBC was worth th liecence fee! dont laugh it's true. no iam of the opinnion looking at the postings on HYS we are getting the TV we derseve...... Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:52:45 GMT+1 miketyler What I think is most amazing is that the comment that has managed to get so much coverage was just a few words in a much longer speech.He most pointedly was not bashing the BBC, in fact in the earlier part of his speech he predicted that the idiot press would grab for the bright twinkly nugget of a sound bite and run with it ignoring the rest of the observations.But never mind Dave (The PM) will most surely crush what's left of the BBC, selling off all the bits that make money to his mates in the commercial sector, who can't compete with the quality of the BBC.Then when deprived of income the BBC will be lambasted for being too populist or too elite or probably both. Then the baby will go out with the bath water and we will be condemed to american style radio and TV and those who think that's a good idea, should have a couple of weeks with only the free to air USA TV and Radio to help them see the light. Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:49:56 GMT+1 thomas To a certain extent I agree with 'dumbing down' comments but that doesn't worry me nearly as much as the presenters etc. who routinely refer to children as 'kids'. What is the purpose of that??Then there are those that, when they use what they deem a 'big' word, go on to explain what it means to the viewer. Either they think we are too dumb to know what the word means or the presenter/journalist is showing off their superior vocabulary. Either way it is offensive. Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:43:46 GMT+1 1stTopic I certainly agree with Mr Fry I would love some of the science programmes go into detail and not gloss over some of the harder to understand parts.The BBC is also too PC in its programming as to be only producing bland, unappetising programmes and if you are going to have a Dr Who lets have an adult version preferably written by a decent Sci-Fi writer that doesn’t ignore paradoxes and doesn’t mix Sci-Fi with fantasy which is often done these days. Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:40:47 GMT+1 laura Stephen fry is right to some extent, but he is now working in the States, who have given us such intellectual programmes like:- Friends (brainless, unfunny), Dallas/Dynastys (trivial trash), WWE wrestling (unbelievable that adult s enjoy this).On the other hand Mr Fry gave us QI - how very witty this is NOT. Black Adder - fool of ex-Cambridge toffs who think are being oh sooo funny!! Kingdom - best forgotten!!!!Goodbye Mr Fry go to the states and please stay there oh and keep Helen Mirren there also for her anti-UK entertainment stance - the same one she has had awards and remuneration for!!!! Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:33:40 GMT+1 Chris R He has a point...I have my own gripes with the BBC over certain issues... however I think he needs to look at some of the things he clearly thinks are adult, firstly his fascination with Twitter, a programme where most people seem to just post inane comments all day, and also QI is beyond irratating with those alarm bells ringing out every 5 minutes. Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:31:47 GMT+1 Naymaybe Personally I think that Eastenders should be axed and replaced with a serialisation of Wagners Ring Cycle. That would get us all thinking more adultly.... Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:30:53 GMT+1 deleted Can I point out that Stephen Fry did not say that the programmes weren't good (a lot of comments are making out that he did) and I think he's wrong to say that the programmes are balkanised - I would say that they are the exact opposite. Would have been good if he'd given a specific example of what he meant or even given a solution. But he didn't and this makes him sound like he's moaning for the sake of it - as usual. I like him and he's entertaining but I can't help thinking that he's a pompous arse at times and I'm sure he'd agree. Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:15:59 GMT+1 ryan bez Steven Fry is right, but the issue is confined to terrestrial TV, which has become disposable, populist and desperate. The sooner the BBC stops forcing people to pay for its products and becomes a subscription channel the better. The viewers can then vote with their feet (or in this case eyes and ears). If I never had any of the terrestrial channels again it wouldnt bother me one bit. Thu 17 Jun 2010 13:01:01 GMT+1 justanenglishman I must agree totally with Mr Fry, the content of the news and the repeat every half hour has left me speechless, the breakfast Programme is a absolute disgrace when compared to France 24 or Al Jazeera, it has become a cosy slipper wearing nothing. The adult programmes are frankly not adult but aimed at the late teenager, I do not watch much terrestrial TV anymore, but the satelite channels smother you in adverts every ten minutes. Much better with a book and the radio I find. Thu 17 Jun 2010 12:51:43 GMT+1 J Workerbee By childish are we including swearing for swearings sake, and having to sexualise everything?Childish maybe, teenage definitely! Thu 17 Jun 2010 12:47:43 GMT+1 BaldLea 22. At 2:49pm on 16 Jun 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:"...All in the name of 'equality' and political correctness we pander to the lowest denominator...We are in the realms and world of the socialist. God help us....."The audacity of such a comment astounds me. You are blaming socialism when most of the really trashy TV is sponsored by big multinationals or comes from the (rather) anti-socialist USA. The commercial channels need to make profit so they churn out cheap and easy TV.If you are referring to the BBC then ask yourself how many chat shows invite on guests with reduced fees because they are plugging a book or film (not capitalist enough for you?). And while on the subject of the BBC, how can they ever get it right when they are obliged to show factual science programmes as well as dumbed-down fairy stories from the bible? The BBC do a brilliant job given their remit. Thu 17 Jun 2010 12:45:01 GMT+1 LancashireLass Adult TV has far too many 'phone-in and vote' programmes, or are interupted by a 'competition' with the prize again being money. The phone lines are at a premium rate - as was immediately obvious when the chage for yet another phone show (Eurovision) was so much less per call.TV has turned into at racket and the BBC are as guilty as all the other channelsAs for Childrens TV - shall I mention Telytubbies, and In the Night Garden......I couldn't believe what I was seeing.....and I suppose there are more of the sake ilk that I haven't heard ofNo wonder kids today do not have any grasp of the English language Thu 17 Jun 2010 12:43:11 GMT+1 Black_And_Proud No.Why the hell should I be dictated to by this idiot?People want to be entertained, Mr Fry. The fact that they don't want to watch the same shows as you doesn't mean they're stupid or childish. If they want to watch challenging programmes on science or art, it is available (generally thanks to the BBC). If they want to watch somthing more lght-hearted, they can do so. So what's wrong with that?And please stop talking nonsense about Twitter and the Magnificence Of Apple- we don't care about your corporate sponsorships. Thu 17 Jun 2010 12:18:11 GMT+1