h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Funnily enough I was going to raise HIGNFY to make exactly the opposite point - I think it has suffered from the lack of a regular host. It was fun and refreshing for a while, but after a while it seemed like they were trying to build the show around the guest host. My vote would be to give the gig to Alexander Armstrong, but that's just me. It's not just reading the autocue - it's about comic timing, moving things along, and contributing to the banter without trying to take over. Angus Deayton was really good at this, but after he became the news story he really had to go. Having said all that, while I'm defending the skill required, I'm certainly not defending the salaries.

I guess hosts or interviewers are a bit like effective chairs at meetings or football referees - you don't notice when you've got a good one, but it's painfully obvious when you don't.

Hmmm. Bit of a two girls, one cup point then. (Don't google that! )

Agree that Alexander Armstrong would be great. Mainly because it probably isn't possible to get Brian Blessed pissed *every* week

How about if the BBC just kept finding fresh talent? If they kept finding great new presenters/stars/talent they'd oversupply the market and drive prices down!

<>

I couldn't resist looking, could I?

Deb

Otto

No, that's most people actually.

There is something about having guest presenters but he would make a good permanent host.

Deb - I haven't actually seen it myself, but loads of folk have seen it when I told them not to

swl - I didn't look any further than the description I got on the search results! The mental image was bad enough.

Deb

SWL,

The Friday Night Project was a program with Alan Carr and Justin Lee Collins acting almost as guest presenters on the show, and had a differen celebrity presenting every week. The presenter had an obviously heavily scripted show to do, (and usually a new record to promote). It hopefully won't be back now AC and JLC have moved on.

"swl - I didn't look any further than the description I got on the search results!"

Yes, that's where I stopped as well. Mind you, I can't help wondering if your other half caught you with it on your PC, how would you explain away that particular pecadillo?

How about they actually interview young people with talent,employ them,nurture them and then when they leave for another channel for a larger salary,interview a young person with talent,employ and nurture them..

That's how I'd like to see our licence money spent.It's what the Beeb USED to do..and did very well indeed.

I'd also like the Beeb to be the Beeb not some knock off of ITV or Sky or any other channels.I want them to lead and the other channels to follow.

Hi

It's interesting, I never really considered the idea of the BBC not trying to be competitive in a commercial world. I would suggest that maybe if they dont show themselves as being competitive then they couldn't defend the licence fee? Maybe?

Anyhow.

It's not just the 'stars' we see on TV, it's the same problem with highly paid executive board members of large companies (BBC, Post Office et al) who are (or were) essentially public sector workers. They are/were running SERVICES for the good of the country/people, not running businesses being paid for out of huge sums of money from investors who have chosen to speculate to accumulate.

That's what the Post Office, the BBC, the NHS are paying for their top execs. They are having to compete with football teams (Adam Crozier anybody?), Supermarkets, Department stores and other large businesses. I'd rather pay the going rate for some 'talent' in order to have half decent TV than pay over the odds (sorry, the going rate) for someone to oversee the running of a business that could well do with having that money elsewhere. You know, the people getting dirty and working long hours and having to pay for childcare to keep their career going... Not the ones who could do with a bonus so they can afford that yacht.

The Beeb can be competitive by being the leader not the follower,by setting the standard at which others have to aim..by being the channel that is innovative,that's being commercial.

At the moment all we have is every channel copying everyone else.Hardly commercial or competitive,just copycats.

I presently have access to over a 100 channels and I can tell you that there so little to choose from between most of them.

Anyway it's VOD that's going to be the future of media entertainment and online streaming as well.Choosing what you want to watch when you want to watch it..

I've seen the future. Chicken in a basket, mark my words.

Utter tosh! Scampi in a basket is the future.

both wrong: soup in a basket.

That's where I'm putting my money.

Mayonnaise in an earthenware pot. Now that's the future, my friends

Back on topic - I had to giggle when Wogan turned up, saying stars could afford to take a cut. This is the man who happily takes £10k to present a charity telethon - hello Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?

Surely, if the BBC were to stop paying daft money for "stars", that would create an excess for the other channels who couldn't afford to snap them up thus creating "star" unemployment and deflation in the fees that they could demand. They just need to take the long view.

More funding and time on the TV for brilliant stuff like "Rev" and that train journey thing with Mr Portaloo and Coast and less inane self centred prattling by the likes of Norton and Ross would result.

And a little off topic, The National Lottery. Isn't that promoting a commercial venture, which the BBC are not supposed to do? Camelot. Camelot. Camelot (It's only a cardboard cut-out), sorry... Camelot are a bussiness with shareholders and profits aren't they?

PP

<>

G A R L I C B R E A D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

"And a little off topic, The National Lottery. Isn't that promoting a commercial venture, which the BBC are not supposed to do? Camelot. Camelot. Camelot (It's only a cardboard cut-out), sorry... Camelot are a bussiness with shareholders and profits aren't they?"

In principle I'd agree with you ... but isn't the world cup just a money-making gravy train for members of FIFA .. and we have to have soccerball on the telly ...

@ Taff. I think you win!