A little bit of Brooker goes a long way in my book. If anyone has a face and voice unsuitable for television, it is he. Actually I think a government health warning should be appended in front of his transmissions to protect small children. His angry Guardianista schtick grows old quickly and, as GGGGG points out, his outrage is highly selective.
I thought it was alright. Ultimately, nothing but a themed Screenwipe. And as I said to Mark at 10 min in, I enjoyed it, but I do just wish he'd actually make more Screenwipe proper.
Quote: Cheesehoven @ January 26 2011, 2:12 AM GMTA little bit of Brooker goes a long way in my book. If anyone has a face and voice unsuitable for television, it is he. Actually I think a government health warning should be appended in front of his transmissions to protect small children. His angry Guardianista schtick grows old quickly and, as GGGGG points out, his outrage is highly selective.
Why on earth do you continue to watch him? You've made it very clear what you think of him and his shows.
Threads, again?
Creepy 70s kids shows, again?
Fear-based news bulletins, again?
FFS, Charlie, change the record. Don't you know you have fans?
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ January 26 2011, 9:27 AM GMTFFS, Charlie, change the record. Don't you know you have fans?
Yes, but he also has a very sexy wife. Probably can't be arsed with the angry stuff any more.
Quote: ggggg hhhhh @ January 25 2011, 11:58 PM GMTI love how Brooker or people like him never mention global warming when talking about scaremongering in the press. I'm not saying it's not happening (before you all get angry) but so is terrorism and the prospect of nuclear war so why does this one get sacred cow status? I can think of about half a dozen times I've heard or read reports to the effect of "this is what Britain will look like if the climate rises 10 degrees" (without stating why it would rise that amount no more no less) or showing pictures of half the western world under water on the news, with the broadcaster only briefly stating that this is only an absolute worst case ever situation.
Er, didn't he mention the welter of shows predicting the end of the world due to environmental collapse? Not that you're being selective in your criticism, ggggg hhhhh. 
Quote: chipolata @ January 26 2011, 9:49 AM GMTEr, didn't he mention the welter of shows predicting the end of the world due to environmental collapse? Not that you're being selective in your criticism, ggggg hhhhh.
No, he mentions all the shows that show the end of the world though non-man related natural disasters like Yellowstone or asteroids. He never once even mentions man-made climate change.
Scientists tend to take the view that rather than scaremongering the media does not take global warming seriously enough and irresponsibly gives undue credence to the views of sceptics - catch up on iPlayer with the excellent Horizon: Science Under Attack. It is worth it to watch hapless Telegraph columnist James Delingpole squirming.
I can't recall any TV scaremongering about climate change.
The only thing I remember hearing reported recently was "Climategate", which was a bit of a f**king joke, tbh.
Climategate really was a case of the media making a story out of nothing; the timing of it made it a bit sinister.
Timbo & Kevin Murphy, have you two ever stopped to wonder if you feel this way because you care about global warming and as such in yours and a lot of people's minds anything that raises awareness of it whether true or false can only be good?
P.S. You can't seriously think we don't take global warming seriously enough. People never shut up about it on anything even remotely related to nature on TV.
Quote: Timbo @ January 26 2011, 1:07 PM GMTScientists tend to take the view that rather than scaremongering the media does not take global warming seriously enough and irresponsibly gives undue credence to the views of sceptics - catch up on iPlayer with the excellent Horizon: Science Under Attack. It is worth it to watch hapless Telegraph columnist James Delingpole squirming.
Yeah, because climate scientists are really qualified to know about the media. Where does it give "credence to the views of sceptics"? The only time I can ever think of them putting climate change sceptics on TV is when they're being belittled by scientists of the opposing view point. Also what are you saying, that any one with an opposing theory shouldn't be allowed on TV for greater good?
Quote: ggggg hhhhh @ January 26 2011, 2:02 PM GMTTimbo & Kevin Murphy, have you two ever stopped to wonder if you feel this way because you care about global warming and as such in yours and a lot of people's minds anything that raises awareness of it whether true or false can only be good?
P.S. You can't seriously think we don't take global warming seriously enough. People never shut up about it on anything even remotely related to nature on TV.
Feel what way? All I said was that I don't recall seeing any scaremongering on TV.
There's a difference between reporting what's observably happening and scaremongering.
Unless you're a polar bear, of course.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ January 26 2011, 2:38 PM GMTFeel what way? All I said was that I don't recall seeing any scaremongering on TV.
There's a difference between reporting what's observably happening and scaremongering.
Unless you're a polar bear, of course.
I meant you probably don't remember because your views make you less inclined to perceive it that way.
Terrorism is obviously happening, but when the news reports it they are still scaremongering because they exaggerate by implication. I never said global warming wasn't happening, I said the news always focusses on the worst possible effects of global warming and heavily implies that it's definitely going to play out that way.
P.S. And you don't think a story about a very brave swimming bear is intended to play on your heart strings rather the give you factual information to make up your mind?
Oh great! A climate change debate!
So much more interesting than Charlie Brooker 
