I know, dear. <3
One thing he really should do is apologise to the journalist that he accuses of fabricating parts of the interview (not that Stephen had even read it before he did so, naturally). From what I gather this was a decent journalist, using proper standards of verification (taping the Q&A for example), who doesn't deserve being a victim of Fry's hissy fit ramblings. But of course people like Stephen don't ever really apologise, they only "explain"...
I thought the journo did sell out a bit by giving a bunch of quotes about how shocked he was to the Observer. I'd have just let the interview stand on its own merits.
Quote: zooo @ November 15 2010, 4:29 PM GMTHardly anyone in Britain watches House.
What have viewing figures got to do with it?
More people watch EastEnders than House, doesn't make it the better show.
But anyway ...
From current Private Eye...
'When Stephen Fry's comments to gay magazine Attitude about women not liking sex as much as men were picked up by the Observer, his immediate reaction was to throw a hissy-fit and stage his 94th exit from Twitter - but not before making it clear what had happened: "Some f**king paper misquotes a humourous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me."
The claim was rapidly disseminated both by fawning re-tweeters already disinclined to distrust the "mainstream media" and by a mainstream media so obsessed with Stephen Fry it clears its pages every time he opens his mouth and inserts his foot in it.
But nothing of the sort had happened.
Paul Flynn, the experienced feature writer who conducted the interview, transcribed exactly what Fry had said and presented it in Q&A format. He has the recordings to prove it. The Observer reprinted them perfectly accurately and contacted Flynn to check them.
In fact, as Fry mad clear when he returned to the social networking site five days later, he had not read either article. "I have literally no idea what has been said about me over the past week. When I say that I do not read papers I mean it.... I conversed with a profiler. I can't remember his name and I haven't actually read the article he wrote as a result. They sent me three copies of the magazine and I looked at the photo on the front cover and now the magazines lie piled up somewhere... I almost never watch the programmes I make nor do I read articles about me or interviews that I've given."
Oh, and he did actually say what he was quoted as saying, but everyone should have understood that he was just "taking a thought for a walk - I was 'playing gracefully with ideas' to repeat Oscar's great phrase."
So did he feel the need to apologise to Flynn or Attitude for a claim which could harm both the hack's career and the magazine's fairly fragile sales? No, of course not. Instead he claimed that he had only granted them an interview because "I though it was a harmless way of supporting a specialist periodical... I only agreed out of kindness. What an idiot I am. A misplaced sense of community spirit that went ludicrously awry."
They must be terribly grateful...'
That's already been shared too, Tim.
Oh for f**k's sake...! 
Poor old Tim. It's not his day.
Quote: don rushmore @ November 15 2010, 4:50 PM GMTWhat have viewing figures got to do with it?
More people watch EastEnders than House, doesn't make it the better show.
'Course not. I was just responding to your claim it was the greatest TV show ever. Your favourite, maybe.
Blimey, are people still wittering on about this subject?
Quote: zooo @ November 15 2010, 4:29 PM GMTHardly anyone in Britain watches House.
I watch House too.
Good stuff.
I watched a bit of House; didn't do much for me, really.
I do know people who watch it too!
I just remember reading that compared to its viewing figures in the US, it's been a bit of a damp squib over here.
Quote: zooo @ November 15 2010, 6:45 PM GMTI do know people who watch it too! I just remember reading that compared to its viewing figures in the US, it's been a bit of a damp squib over here.
But hardly any big American shows do that well here. Comparitively speaking.
But I think of it as Hugh's show and he's 'one of ours'. We should all do our duty and watch it! It's weird that Americans en masse know who he is now.
Quote: chipolata @ November 15 2010, 6:51 PM GMTBut hardly any big American shows do that well here.
I don't know about that. Every bugger's on about The Wire and Lost. And Friends. And so on and on. No one ever even talks about House.
Quote: zooo @ November 15 2010, 6:54 PM GMTBut I think of it as Hugh's show and he's 'one of ours'. We should all do our duty and watch it! It's weird that Americans en masse know who he is now. I don't know about that. Every bugger's on about The Wire and Lost. And Friends. And so on and on. No one ever even talks about House.
They may talk about them but that doesn't mean they get huge ratings. Most are piddling compared to Strictly or X Factor or Emmerdale.
Well I wasn't strictly talking about just the ratings. I mean attention in general. Lost is talked about ad nauseum (very nauseum) whereas House isn't.
My original point being (many, many eons ago) that House can hardly be said to be the best TV show ever.
Jeebus, it's hard to say anything around here today without getting trouble from you lot.
