TV and Radio permalink
Jonathan Ross
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Nooj (U3233455) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
Anybody see his 'performance' last night?
If he had been give the specific brief to try to unsettle a professional and respected gardener who happens to be female, he couldn't have done a better job.
It was gross - well - he was gross, and Rachel responded with great dignity.
I may have to pop over to points of view -
Message 2
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
You are right Nooj. Whilst one might wonder why Rachel agreed to appear on his show she might be forgiven for believing she would be able to at least get one word in edgeways about her role as a garden designer. Not a chance, the whole interview was based on sexual innuendo with Ross looking bored or changing the subject each time Rachel gave a sensible reply. Eventually even she was reduced to joining in the smutfest although she was clearly deeply embarassed when Ross asked if her husband liked to "give her one" when she was bent over in the garden. Based on the preceding sentence the moderators of this board should hide this post! Says it all doesn't it.
-
Message 3
Posted by Nooj (U3233455) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
I really was totally appalled!
If she had punched him right in the face, it would have been justified!
Has TV not moved on since the Carry On films?
At least the participants in those knew what was involved
What a .........he is -
Message 4
Posted by judimac (U2467704) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
I never watch Ross because of the smut. But lets face it. anyone who agrees to go on this appalling programme knows what they're in for, so why did she do it?
-
Message 5
Posted by nanaanna (U9512847) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
Very rarely watch it as I've always thought him obnoxious.
-
Message 6
Posted by Braidman (U11753668) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Hierarchy!
The contempt with which the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú hierarchy holds us, the general public when they said Ross and Norton were not overpaid!
Saying that I never watch either, they are beyond contempt, but nether of them worry what I think, i'm sure!
How anyone with a bit of common sense would appear on either show to be insulted, is beyond me. -
Message 7
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Sunday, 8th June 2008
Yep, I just don't get the Jonathan Ross thing. He really seems like the Beeb's best example of dumbing down, no matter what the subject or who the guest is, we learn nothing. What a contrast to someone like Kirsty Young on Desert island discs, whose always seems to coax all sorts of interesting bits of info out of her guests.
I find it horrifying that journalists go out and risk their lives for the Beeb and a fool like him gets paid squillions more than they ever do for producing rubbish.
Oooo nothing like a good rant to finish off the weekend
-
Message 8
Posted by BigDibberUK (U10156605) on Monday, 9th June 2008
What was Rachel's reply to Ross's crude question? The viewing public who missed it need to know...
-
Message 9
Posted by Alexlondon11 (U2577420) on Monday, 9th June 2008
I didn't see that particular interview (if that's what you can call it), but I'm not surprised. I cannot abide J.Ross. He is the worst thing on TV. I just cannot understand why he's so popular. He never, ever lets somebody talk or give a decent reply to his half-baked questions.
Get rid!
-
Message 10
Posted by Nooj (U3233455) on Monday, 9th June 2008
It's on I player - where I watched it having been tipped off that he had done this.
She behaved with graciousness and dignity, but was obviously uncomfortable.
The nearest I can think, is whe an obnoxious drunk hits on you in a pub, and you try very hard not to cause a scene!
My God - I hope she got paid a lot!!! -
Message 11
Posted by kath74 (U8999103) on Monday, 9th June 2008
I hardly ever watch JR, the only time I've seen it recently was when Jean-Christophe Novelli was on, for reasons which will be obvious to all other female posters. He hardly got a word in and eventually was driven to a sarcastic comment, something like, "if I could just have a minute..". JR was oblivious, of course. I can't imagine why Rachel agreed to go on.
When there's a real A-lister on, like Cate Blanchett, he fawns over them so much it's embarrassing. -
Message 12
Posted by Ken Smart (U1158196) on Monday, 9th June 2008
I'm still trying to figure out just why Rachael would have been invited onto the Ross programme - and why on earth she accepted. Without wishing to be offensive to the woman, I have always thought Rachael was no more than a bland 'supporting act' on any gardening programmes, and offered no more than a bit of basic chat off the cue-screen that most people on this Board could manage at a push. I honestly can't think of anything that she has ever said that has smacked of profundity. Indeed, if RdT hadn't been a reasonably pretty face (fading fast Rach), would she have been on TV in the first place?
-
Message 13
Posted by royalgreen (U2373730) on Monday, 9th June 2008
Having watched the programme and having previously watched Jonathan Ross (I am perhaps one of younger and therefore more cruder member of this board?).
The programme is what is, I would be highly surprised if she didn't know what she was letting herself in for. I do note that some of the innuendo was actually instigated by Rachel although she seemed to be a little unsure as how to reply when JR was a little more blunt. Some of it was certainly cringe-worthy.
I imagined her publist organised the interview certainly not that JR staff seeked out a "famous" gardener post Chelsea.
Do you think that this is an assault on the public pre GW lead advert? -
Message 14
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Monday, 9th June 2008
Hi Royalgreen - I'm not (usually) a Jonathan Ross hater by any stretch and it is possible that the other parts of the programme that I didn't see (Robbie Coltrane and Paul Weller) were actually witty and amusing. I expect that Rachel realised she was letting herself in for a bit of banter and that no doubt the 'are you there to put sex into gardening' stuff would come up. I've seen it happen before on these laddish programmes, where the female guests are either put in a position where they engage initially with the jokey smut and stuff and then can't easily walk away from it when it just gets offensively crude like Ross did, or worse the female guests will feel the need to "out-crude" the 'boys' by saying something sexually offensive and tasteless themselves. This might be OK if their remarks were either in context or stood on its own as being funny but too often they aren't and they are left looking tacky and stupid. At least Rachel managed to more or less retain her dignity.
As you say the programme is what it is. I imagine R de T was trying to take advantage of her recent success at Chelsea to publicise and promote herself whilst she has been recently in the news. -
Message 15
Posted by cazsudz (U7061972) on Monday, 9th June 2008
" if RdT hadn't been a reasonably pretty face (fading fast Rach)"
Gratuitous Ken - remarks like that don't do you any favours either -
Message 16
Posted by Ken Smart (U1158196) on Monday, 9th June 2008
Gratuitous Ken - remarks like that don't do you any favours eitherÂ
I can assure you that I don't look for favours. Nevertheless, if you honestly think that Rachael got TV exposure because of her gardening abilities, then you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land. If you accept that she did indeed get her walk-on part because of her looks, then you must realise that her time at the top is limited. I'm afraid it's the ways of the world these days - look at the bimbos that read the News and dramatise the weather, and you'll see what I'm getting at. Not cruel - just honest. From what I gather from the comments of her appearance on the Ross show, Jonathon didn't seem to be too interested in the finer arts of gardening - not that Rachael could have enlightened him anyway. -
Message 17
Posted by Nooj (U3233455) on Monday, 9th June 2008
Oh Ken
She's not some young bimbo - sh'e a grown up woman who happens to look nice.
You have atually dispappointed me! -
Message 18
Posted by Apple (U3132210) on Monday, 9th June 2008
I feel very embarrassed - I put a note on the Potting Shed when I saw in a (free!) TV magazine that JR had Rachel on his programme - However the programme made me feel very uncomfortable! Rachel seemed to squirm - but he does have a reputation for being a *** * (sorry this message would have been hidden if I'd typed the actual words!)
-
Message 19
Posted by janerowena (U10782401) on Monday, 9th June 2008
I should imagine she never gets to see the programe. She has two very young children and a very active life. Staying up late to watch JR can hardly come very high on her list of 'must-dos'. She would perhaps have only watched one programme or two, as I have, and never have realised how bad he can get.
I was amazed. I think he lost it a bit there. -
Message 20
Posted by Lurganspade (U10706116) on Monday, 9th June 2008
Every one has a poor judgement in error every now and again,or as the PC brigade says, poor choices!
If given the choice again, whould she appear on the same programme as him again?
He makes me cringe! -
Message 21
Posted by the cycling gardener (U2350416) on Monday, 9th June 2008
Jonathan Ross is a self promoting borish oaf. He represents smutty, yobish Chav Britain. Calling the programme "Friday Night with Jonathan Ross" is a ruse. His guests are side-kicks hired in as support acts because this is, lets face it, The Jonathan Ross Show!!! Look what he did to David Cameron. Well done Rachel for maintaining a charming demeanor throughout the whole sorry interview.
-
Message 22
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Monday, 9th June 2008
So we won't be suggesting JR as the new presenter for GW, then?
I wonder if there is something about gardening types that makes a few of us dislike him. Pass the spade, I'm for burying him. -
Message 23
Posted by Gardenballet (U4233452) on Monday, 9th June 2008
I just cannot abide Jonathan Ross - he is not even able to SPEAK PWOPERLY!!
I only watched last week because Rachel was appearing. He really is an ignorant, big-headed buffoon. He is so stupid with his silly, smutty humour.
I think that Rachel kept a wonderfully dignified presence during his 'interview'. I put interview in inverted commas, as it certainly was no interview. It was just him larking about, trying to embarrass Rachel.
Rachel was hardly questioned - he just couldn't wait to dribble on about his phallic cactus plant - ugghhhhh!
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú JUST GET RID OF HIM!!!!
Why, oh why should he be paid such a ludicrous salary for no talent? -
Message 24
Posted by notreligious (U8291071) on Monday, 9th June 2008
JR is an overpaid idiot .. he is like Benny Hill on drugs with a desk but worse!
I can't imagine why anyone would want to go on his show. Oh yes I can, because they are usually plugging their own product whether it's their new film, book, music concert etc., why was Rachel there exactly?
The audience must be paid, or dragged out screaming from a special needs centre. -
Message 25
Posted by Amazing (U7102651) on Monday, 9th June 2008
I watch JR every week, don't like his 'band' don't really like him, (his radio prog on 2 on Saturdays mornings is BRILLIANT) but,like his guests. Rachel was, as we say in Scotland,"well up for it". Did she dress like our Christine, no, she dressed like someone on a talkshow on a Friday night, I half expected her to fall out her dress. The people that appear on his show should really take time out and have a look at his previous shows. Or is it a case of agent says, next week you are on JRs show, or This Morning and they have to appear. How would Rachel have been dressed if she had been on This Morning, in dungerees and wellies, I don't think
so, or maybe not.
I enjoyed the interviews/chats with Rachel and Robbie. Don't like tennis so wasn't that particular about the tennis player. -
Message 26
Posted by Amazing (U7102651) on Monday, 9th June 2008
Sorry, tennis player, (scottish) is called Andy
Murray. Sorry just a bit lax there. I'm still upsayt about the troll modding my message.
-
Message 27
Posted by Little Cornflower (U12037777) on Monday, 9th June 2008
I think Jonathan Ross is funny. I am not so keen on his chat show because he fawns over "A" list American celebrities.I did watch his interview with Rachel and it was what I expected.If it wasn't what Rachel expected she is either very niaive or needs to sack her booking agent - and surely no one would appear on a TV show, the style and format of which they were unfamiliar.
She's cashing in on publicity while her profile is high ( from the Chelsea F.S. ) and her looks and figure are still there. -
Message 28
Posted by Little Cornflower (U12037777) on Monday, 9th June 2008
Ooops - I forgot to say that her husband is someone of influence in TV, I believe, so surely he would have told her what to expect from JR.
Her slot did go to prove that she lacks the personality and screen presence to play a larger part in a TV programme such as Gardener's World - she'd be well out of her depth. -
Message 29
Posted by Jenks812 (U5452843) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
The question does have to be asked. Why was she on the show?
Although it may not have sounded "politically correct" but Ken Smart said it the way it is.
She's on there because she's a looker.
It's not nice to say and she has talent in gardening, but if it was horticulture they were after then they should have got someone else.
Friday night with Jonathan Ross doesn't exactly have the audience for gardening celebrities.
Personally I like JR. Yes he's smutty and the sense of humour certainly isn't high brow but the show is all about him. If you accept that, then you may enjoy it a bit more.
As mentioned earlier, his radio programme on sat. mornings is fantastic. -
Message 30
Posted by Alexlondon11 (U2577420) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
Oh for goodness' sake!
What evidence do you have that RdT was solely invited on to Ross's excuse of a chat show because 'she's a looker' (and what an outdated term that is!)?
There are any amount of reasons she could have been invited: because she won a Silver medal at Chelsea for her first garden, because she works for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, because she was available at the time, because Ross fancies her, because the moon and stars were in the right position or because it was raining. Fact is - ya don't really know and you, like Ken are making sexist assumptions.
In a way you're right. Jonathan Ross show is for a young-ish, male audience that have got nothing better to do on a Friday night than watch telly, so RdT would be a preferred choice of guest as opposed to Joe Swift, say. Guests are invited because at the time of interview, they are seen as topical (i.e.: they have been on the news, or they want to plug a new book, film, cd etc).
And each to their own - I cannot see the appeal of someone who invites people who are infinitely more creative, intelligent, witty and attractive than he is and then makes the entire interview all about him. Call me old fashioned, but past shows of Parky are diamonds compared to Ross' speck of dust. -
Message 31
Posted by TallyHo (U2364821) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
And each to their own - I cannot see the appeal of someone who invites people who are infinitely more creative, intelligent, witty and attractive than he is and then makes the entire interview all about him. Call me old fashioned, but past shows of Parky are diamonds compared to Ross' speck of dust.Â
I just think JR is a waste of public (our) money. Whatever he did to RdT (I don't watch him) sounds similar to what he did to Nicole Kidman which was just cringe-making... it would seem JR isn't up to interviewing attractive, intelligent women, so he tries to embarrass them, the man's a boorish, ignorant buffoon. -
Message 32
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
I have to say although I loathe JR, I don't think we need to feel sorry for Rach de T. As an ex-model and TV presenter, she is bound to be perfectly media-savvy and I expect she has come across plenty of boarish twits in her time and is quite capable of dealing with them. She must be keen to self-promote to have gone on the show.
Someone said that it showed she wasn't up to being a GW top dog. I agree, but for a different reason. I think she did interesting and informed slots when she was on GW but she lacks (on screen, not ness. in life) a sort of barmyness that the other GW presenters all have, simmering in the background.
If you look at say, Carol or Monty
, I feel they are more representative of gardeners. There is something about both of them which suggests they could go completely bonkers in a pleasantly creative kind of way.
Alys, with her weird 1950s glasses and dog, is in training, and even Joe falling flat with all his daft ideas has that air about them, which I think is entirely natural and can't be forced.
My theory is that it is something that many gardeners have - a sort of slightly bohemian nuttiness about them. Therefore on screen we recognise fellow loonies but Rachel and to a degree Chris Beardshaw come across as too sensible by far, which is less loveable and therefore watchable, even though they are worthy in what they do.
Oh dear I seem to have gone a bit off track, oh nevermind I'll just press the post button anyway, seems a shame to waste all these lovely wordys by deleting it all. -
Message 33
Posted by Madmary (U3568971) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
Aspidistra,
How right you are! I must confess, I hadn't thought about it before, but all the really good gardening presenters are exactly as you described! That certain quirkiness that you need to have and a sort of mad determination that your garden will be the best you can make it - against all the odds!
To stay on topic. I'm certainly not young! but find JR either hilariousy funny (usually when he's being bested by one of his guests - John Barrowman being a case in point!) or hugely cringemaking! But there is a certain kind of "must-watch" quality about the programme simply to see how his guests, who all seem to think the publicity they get is worth the experience, react to his particular kind of "interviewing" technique.
Personally, I think sympathy for RdeT is misplaced, as she must have known what to expect! -
Message 34
Posted by Ken Smart (U1158196) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
Oh Ken
She's not some young bimbo - sh'e a grown up woman who happens to look nice.
You have atually dispappointed me!Â
I'm afraid all I'm really interested in is whether she can justify her position as a gardening presenter, and whether it was this supposed credential which got her an invitation onto the JR show. Can anyone of her supporters tell me just ONE original tip she has ever imparted to we keen gardeners. I can't think of anything she's done to justify her label as a gardening presenter (let alone an appearance on some celebrity based show). Her appearances on GW usually consisted of swanning into shot, reading the idiot card, and swanning off the other side. No special skill involved - a modern-day presenter. She may be an awfully nice person, but she's certainly nothing special in the horticultural world. -
Message 35
Posted by abstracts (U8278271) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
For heavens sake will you people lighten up. Wossy isn't and never pretends to be a serious interviewer like Parky. He simply offers up his own version of late night, light entertainment which happens to consist of smut, crudity and inuendo, which he does brilliantly. All his guests will know that before they go on so they shouldn't be offended or embarrassed when he gets a bit raunchy.
What really shocked me though with the RdeT piece, was finding out she is actually 46. If I was to guess her age before the programme, I would have said mid 30's. It must be all that fresh air she gets. -
Message 36
Posted by Obelixx (U2157162) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
There was one mini series she did in AT's day where she took on a badly neglected back garden and turned it into something attractive and was filmed actually doing the dirty work and clearing all sorts of crud.
I also really liked the way she tackled what came to be called Rachel's bed at Berryfields and was very sad to see Monty decide it should all be abandoned and turned into a green garden because it had suffered neglect during her absence.
It seems gardening women on TV can't win either way - being either too pretty and distracting to take seriously, being too "expressive" too take seriously (Carol), too weird in their choice of clotehs to take seriously (Sarah's skirts) or too gluttonous to take seriously (Christine).
As for Jonathon Ross - can't bear him on his chat show but he's OK for the film show and OK in short doses on the radio. He's ubiquitous enough for any celeb who agrees to appear on his show to know to tread carefully as they will be prodded and poked and treated direspectfully 9 times out of 10. -
Message 37
Posted by Nooj (U3233455) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
You are so right Obs - and its not just in gardening - its in politics, ... all kinds of media jobs.
If you are a women who happens to look like a badger's bum, you are villified for the way you look, and if you are a woman who looks attractive, then you have no gravitas in viewers' eyes. -
Message 38
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
I missed the interview and can't seem to find it on iplayer. Amazing how the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú can always find money for 'smut' programes.
-
Message 39
Posted by Lurganspade (U10706116) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
Hello Nooj.
Women in politics, did you see Harmin speaking after the debacle in Crewe, snarling and blaming the working class people of Crewe for her parties losing the by-election.
Then when the Fathers 4 Justice climbed onto her roof, what did she do; she ran.
Did she confront them; no she ran.
Did she tell them what she thought of them; no she ran.
Did she invite them in for a cup of tea; no she ran.
The so called Blairs babes are a disgrace to politics, but ordinary people voted them in! -
Message 40
Posted by Karlslass (U7645194) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
I certainly did not vote for them ! any way - cant abide JR and object to my licence fee going in his pocket. Rachel is a nice lady and I quite like her presenting style. Maybe I am just easily pleased eh?
-
Message 41
Posted by David K (U2221642) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
Jonathan Ross is an overpaid, foul mouthed, disgrace. He couldn't even interview a guest of the calibre & intelligence of Anthony Hopkins without lowering the tone with his customary smut.
Yes, Rachel did seem ill at ease, but she must have known what she was letting herself into. -
Message 42
Posted by Nooj (U3233455) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
Lurganspade
That's just the sort of term I'm objecting to!!!!!!!!!!
Blair's babes!
Both a possessive term and demeaning.
I'm sure they were all mortified and very angry to have a label like that put on them.
Can't be bothered to continue - it's got away from gardening anyway -
Message 43
Posted by ArtemisHP (U12217956) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
"Ken Smart", why so waspish? What has the woman ever done to you to make you feel so unkind. Your name suggests you're a man, so it can't be jealousy; or, can it??
-
Message 44
Posted by Lurganspade (U10706116) on Tuesday, 10th June 2008
Dear Nooj.
I am A "Labour" supporter and I did not give them "that" name originally, aparently they loved being called "Blairs Babes", some thing to make them stand out from the crowd.
But unlike Kate Hoey or Mrs Dunwoody (Crewe) when the going gets tough, they do a "Harmin".
Cheers
About this Board
Welcome to the new Gardening Board. If this is your first time, then make sure you check out the
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
Weekdays 09:00-00:00
Weekends 10:00-00:00
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.