TV and Radio permalink
Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
'I've hit a grass ceiling' says Carol Klien.
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú didn't even give Carol the opportunity to apply for the position of lead presenter for Gardeners World. Says it all really doesn't it, smacks of sexism and ageism.
Carol is most definately the most knowledgable and best preseter to have replaced Monty and yet they have put forward yet another clone of Monty, Monty was fine but enough was enough. Carol could have moved Gardeners World on to another level not just another hash of ethical,organic mish mash. As a nation we are constantly being bombarded with what we should and shouldn't be doing with regard to climate change, Yes I agree we should all be taking steps to put what has most definately been allowed to get out of control by past and present Governments but to encroach and make gardeners feel is their duty to help put right in my opinion is not on.
I watch gardeners world to learn, learn about the plant itself, what aspect suits this plant, how best to look after this plant and to propergate from it. I watch to learn about design and colour and I like to be informed about this by someone I respect, a person I know is knowledgable, they are my encylopedia, my gardening hand book. Carol is all of these things.
I am disgusted with the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú for not allowing Carol a fair chance to prove she is what Gardeners World truely needs. Not some pin up the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú hope to pull up the ratings, Carol would have done this in her own way.
I am so sorry Carol that you were ot given this opportunity but so very pleased you wish to stay on and be our guiding hand!
PaperwhiteLink to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 2
Posted by ShirleyR (U12038819) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Please add my name to the hoards who would have loved Carol Klein to have become the lead presenter on Gardeners World. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú seems to be a law unto themselves - I cannot believe they did any genuine audience research, as there is no doubt that Carol would have come out on top as the obvious favourite. I do believe it was a sexist decision.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 3
Posted by Sheila1 (U2826143) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Totally agree. Carol should be the new presenter. No question.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 4
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Yes, she should be the new presenter-without question!
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 5
Posted by Musekast (U13152748) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
I agree with this entirely. Carol Klein is both knowlegable and an excellant presenter. One would have thought that she was an obvious candidate for chief presenter of Gardener´s World. That she wasn´t even considered is quite simply a disgrace and shows that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú bosses who made this decision have no idea what their public thinks and don´t appreciate their inhouse talent. To call it a ´grass ceiling´ is sadly evidently all too true.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 6
Posted by welshcol (U2301689) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Just to bring a bit of reality to the Carol Klein over-egged euphoria I for one do not think she was "an obvious choice" as the lead presenter for GW. Her presentation style, whether natural or enforced is irrespective, it grates, and the "burgeoning" enthusiasm must be a dramatic effect since it is so obviously unnatural and I defy even the best of actresses, which Carol is not, to keep any credibility after probably several takes of the same sequence.
A so called experienced gardener who by her own admission has not grown vegetables seriously for over twenty years, quote from the opening of her recent Growing Vegetables series, has lost any in-depth credibility as a balanced gardener let alone main presenter of the flagship GW prog., in a navy of two, of Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú programmes. As a guest presenter to impart her propagation skills etc no problem but to meet the multi-discipline requirements of GW no way!!. This is in not sexist inspired comment its just obvious.
Toby B although not a total unknown quantity should be given a chance and perhaps we will all be deliriously happy and contented by the end of September.
.
Are those little pink pigs I see flying over head?Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 7
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
I think the point here Welshcol is that Carol wasn't even given the opportunity to even apply!
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 8
Posted by malanD (U7337386) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Someone will correct me if I am wrong. What stopped Carol to apply for the post? I am sure she could have, if she really really wanted to.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 9
Posted by ArtemisHP (U12217956) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú didn't even give Carol the opportunity to applyÂ
Perhaps misogynistic chappies and older women drooling after younger men, didn't help much either.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 10
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Yes but it's fun. Drool.. drool...
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 11
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Speak for yourselves. We get one gardening program a week and I want quality not sex appeal!
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 12
Posted by ShirleyR (U12038819) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
I do think you're well entitled to your opinion about Carol K. but the point in question was the way the Beeb seem to have gone about filling this new job. I also agree that all 3 current presenters are excellent in their own ways and I enjoy watching all of them. Perhaps they should all just have had an equal share of the programme? We all miss Alan and Monty, but each time a new presenter happens, the style evolves, so would it make any difference if there was an outright lead presenter or not? I do think the Beeb could have gone about this a little more democratically. (Contradiction in terms maybe?!)
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 13
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
My point exactly.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 14
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Well to be more serious I think in a programme that seems to be using "ethical" as it's new buzzword the fact that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú never gave Carol the chance to apply for the job absolutely stinks. She wouldn't have been my first choice because I have personally found GW pretty poor overall for a long time. Whilst I like Carol I felt it needed someone new to come in and breathe some life into the programme. It would never have occurred to me that she wouldn't even be let in the running for it. I would certainly have preferred Carol over Toby Buckland because my fear for the programme is that he is going to be "moulded" by the same people who have cast Joe as such a pillock (and note I say "cast" as a pillock rather than that he is one).
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 15
Posted by Sparky (U6716422) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Hear, hear.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 16
Posted by immysma (U11425360) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
My OH likens the GW presenter situation to the England football managers job! Plenty of capable people out there & not being given a chance.
Janet.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 17
Posted by Stressed out (U11163734) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Carol would have been great as lead presenter and would have got my vote. Gardening is one of the things where men and women 'compete' on a level playing field, pity the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú didn't give her a chance.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 18
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Perhaps the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú should be made to reconsider their approach to appointing a 'new' presenter, after all they seem to have gone about this in such a way that any other employer might be accused of being prejudice and action could be taken.
Tony Buckland I am sure would rather his appointment to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú have been a fair decision and not brought in by the back door approach.
Come on Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú advertise this vacancy again and interview all approved candidates.
Carol has proved to us she is more than capable of being lead presenter of this program, I think you owe Carol the opportunity to put her ideas on how best to move Gardeners World forward accross to you. Only then will we feel that the best person was chosen, Failing this you owe us the TAX PAYER and Carol a balanced opinion as to why you didn't offer Carol the opportunity to put herself forward.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 19
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
rowancottage! But Carol likes growing veg?!!! I thought you hated veg growing on the telly? Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 20
Posted by Stressed out (U11163734) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
Aspidistra
Carol is not all veg. You get a bit of balance.
I just hate all the program being veg growing, as that is what it had turned into with Monty.
The 15 August had bits of veg growing but there was a better balance and it was very enjoyable.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 21
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Saturday, 23rd August 2008
We don't know exactly what happened - we don't even know if she has been correctly quoted in the press. But for the moment, let's say that she wasn't invited to apply, or not offered it, as quoted.
Sometimes in high profile job situations, people who are close to the available role don't specifically ask for the job and put forward formally why they want it and what they will bring to it. They don't take this step because it feels unnaturally formal to do so amongst close colleagues, or they don't want to risk failing to get something they have explicitly said they badly want. So not asking, but waiting in the wings is a low-risk strategy, provided that you do untimately get offered the job, or if someone obviously better than you gets it (the consequent magnanimity you can exude both feels and looks good). But if someone you consider less good than you gets it, because they were prepared to risk failure by really going for it, then you are going to kick yourself - hard.
So I hope Carol has been misrepresented in these articles, because actually I would much prefer to hear her say that she wanted it, applied for it and put forward her vision for the role clearly, yet was not the preferred applicant, than to read her say that she 'wasn't approached'.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 22
Posted by Yardman (U2337799) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
In this modern age of equal ops,sex discrimination, fairness to all, the employment law etc. I find it difficult to understand if Carol's quote in the Telegraph is correct how the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú can offer the position to Tony Buckland without going through the due process of CV's/ portfolios being submitted and interviews before a panel to get the top candidate,if indeed there was only one approach.
In fact what is the legal position on choosing this way?
Having watched GW over the many years, I would have been very satisfied with Carol leading, having proved herself over the last few months.
However as in sport management, I am happy to give Tony Buckland his chance and wish him luck, because the critics are waiting in the wings.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 23
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
That is a very interesting viewpoint Trillium and serves to illustrate how we should all beware of making judgements without knowing the truth of a situation. I read (into) the article as saying that Carol was told not to bother to apply for the lead as she wouldn't get it - rather than that she waited expecting to be asked and wasn't.
But as we are not sitting on a jury trying to establish the absolute truth, I prefer to believe my own theory as it sits better with the rest of my expectations of the GW production team.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 24
Posted by TallyHo (U2364821) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
Quite so Yakram.
Surely with a presenter's job like everyone else, one doesn't expect to be 'approached' and offered it on a plate. If Carol formerly applied for the position and wasn't even interviewed, she'd have a point. If there wasn't a conventional job selection process (as laid down in employment law) she'd also have a point, but I'm certain Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú corporate lawyers wouldn't risk either scenario and so I'm not sure what she is whingeing about — perhaps she didn't apply.
Take legal advice Carol, if you feel you've been discriminated against.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 25
Posted by londonplantmad (U2392946) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
I would have thought that any gardener with true credibility would run a mile from being involved in Gardener's World in its present format. I have seen the recent presenters go over the top to try and compete with each other to please the presentation. I am sick of it. I think Carol proves her ability when presenting her own programs. She does not need to apply for Gardeners World. That program is dead and buried in my opinion.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 26
Posted by U12811300 (U12811300) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
More likely she was not considered to to fact that want someone with more free time to devote to show and less other entanglement. Toby's gardening range is wider then carols.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 27
Posted by Musekast (U13152748) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
If you had read my comment properly you would have noticed that I said Carol was an ´obvious candidate´ not an ´obvious choice´. I was not implying that she should have been given the role of chief presenter, just that she should have been in the running for the job.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 28
Posted by Gaynor Witchard (U11583299) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
All
The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has strict codes of conduct - and follow them to the letter. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú does not discriminate on grounds of gender, age, ethnicity,sexual orientation, to name just a few. You can check this out on the 'Jobs' website. Unless any of you you were involved in the selection process then you have no idea who applied for the post or who was selected for interview. In the past, I myself have worked a very long time in a department and assumed I would be approached to at least apply for, if not be offered, the vacant post. It did not happen and I was (I felt) passed over. As far as I can see, you are judged purely on your performance at application/interview - what you've done in the past is not relevant on the day.
So, Toby has been chosen to lead the way - time to now stop all this now. It's getting rather personal. Let's keep supporting our ONE AND ONLY Gardeners' World!!!Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 29
Posted by welshcol (U2301689) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
Let's keep supporting our ONE AND ONLY Gardeners' World!!!Â
A few positive words of wisdom "mad doris"to in someway hopefully counteract all of the negativity.
"Water bridge the and under" spring to mind so lets nor preempt the new era, lets try and be constructive, reasonable gardeners who have strong but one hopes sensitive, considerate and amenable thoughts & feelings for others and will keep an open mind
, before strongly and vehemently disagreeing with something that is not totally in line with our personal ideas.
.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 30
Posted by ArtemisHP (U12217956) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
Interesting to see so many of those who had bad-mouthed CK, aiming to get the younger man they were lusting over instead, now that the beeb has denied them their fantasy, have started to see her qualities as a GARDENER!
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 31
Posted by 1stClassAlan (U2459016) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
posted by mad_doris
<quote> In the past, I myself have worked a very long time in a department and assumed I would be approached to at least apply for, if not be offered, the vacant post. It did not happen and I was (I felt) passed over. </quote>
You were.
<quote> As far as I can see, you are judged purely on your performance at application/interview - what you've done in the past is not relevant on the day. </quote >
Ipso facto - you need an interview to even give a bad impression !
Every interview I've ever attended dealt with relevent stuff I'd done for other people and I've made a complete Holicks of at least one and still got the job because of my C.V.
Back on the thread I think Carol is a good presenter but is often glaringly inadequate and has had her day - we need fresh sap !!!Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 32
Posted by ArtemisHP (U12217956) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
"we need fresh sap !!!"Â
A 38 year old is hardly a "sap"!Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 33
Posted by Gaynor Witchard (U11583299) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
'Carol is a good presenter but is often glaringly inadequate and has had her day - we need fresh sap !!!'
1stclassalan...that is a really insulting remark to make about Carol, or anyone else come to that.
I just hope that if any of the presenters read some of these comments they don't take to heart and just carry on doing a good job for us.
Someone close this thread PLEASE!!!
I'm signing off from this one.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 34
Posted by U12811300 (U12811300) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
mad_doris when the presenters actually do good job let us know since it will be a miracle.
The reason Toby Buckland was brought in was to clean the cobwebs out of the sorry state GW had became during the Monty years.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 35
Posted by immysma (U11425360) on Sunday, 24th August 2008
Do the presenters have much of a say in what actually goes into the programme.Isn't it down to producers etc?
Janet.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 36
Posted by stainedsteel (U12904524) on Monday, 25th August 2008
"Take legal advice Carol, if you feel you've been discriminated against."
-----
This advice - indeed much of this discussion - is misguided since none of the GW presenters is a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú staff member. In common with many of the researchers and even some of the producers, they are freelancers without recourse to employment law and without any employee rights or service expectations.
That said, it is still surprising (if true) that Carol Klein wasn't talked to about the job, even if only to explain why she wasn't in the running. You still need good man management, even when dealing with a team of freelancers.
I expect that the decision makers in this process were Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú executive producer, Owen Gay and series producer, Rosemary Edwards - both of whom have extensive experience of making gardening programmes for the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.
If I had to guess the primary reason for discounting Ms Klein, I would say it was ageism. Carol is 63 and although many viewers are of a similar vintage, the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú needs to try to make the programme appeal to younger viewers too in order to justify its prime time slot.
And to be honest, much as I love and admire Carol Klein, she is not a natural TV presenter. AT and Monty Don were both superb and comfortable performers in front of a camera; and both are blessed with a rich and naturally theatrical speaking voice.
It remains to be seen whether Toby Buckland can reach those heights but we already know that Carol can't.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 37
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 25th August 2008
According to Wikipedia, Carol is 53 - born in 1955.....
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 38
Posted by TallyHo (U2364821) on Monday, 25th August 2008
Stainedsteel: I didn't think of the freelance/full-time employee legal aspect, and of course you're quite right.
I agree with the rest of your post in the main as well... at the start of the current (rather disjointed) series, either Carol herself proposed she'd work from home in her own garden in Devon, or someone else proposed that she did and she readily agreed (who wouldn't?). This may have been construed as an unwillingness on her part to commit full-time to Berryfields and a more intensive filming schedule. I'm quite sure when Monty made his announcement that he'd retire there must have been some sort of 'what the hell do we do now' meeting and perhaps if she wanted the job, that would have been optimum moment to make her pitch for it.
Also, GW needs to plan for the long term future of the programme, it's no good switching presenters around every other/few years, and, in my opinion, it suffered from the 'too many cooks' syndrome. I'd have much preferred just Monty with perhaps some imput from Alys to form the basis of the programme just as it was in AT's and GH's day — they could always have filmed lengthy segments from guest presenters, but with all of them muscling in at the same time, GW lost it's character and focus.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 39
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Monday, 25th August 2008
I think Wikipedia is wrong. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú press office states
After leaving school at 15, she had a succession of jobs until attending Art College in 1962, from where she graduated with a Fine Art BA.
Doesn't really add up to her being 53.Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 40
Posted by farstar23 (U13174037) on Monday, 25th August 2008
I've joined the message boards just to add my voice to this thread. I assumed Carol didn't want the job when I read about the new presenter - I can't believe the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has actually misread the views of its audience so badly. I've been a huge fan of Carol since I saw her on C4's Real Gardens with Monty Don years ago - her enthusiasm, knowledge and ability to relate to people without the slightest hint of 'talking down' is a real breath of fresh air. She's got the popular touch every bit as much as my previous favourite presenter, Alan, plus, like all the great presenters, she really knows what she is talking about and visibly enjoys passing that on. Let's look at the reasons she might have been overlooked - age (illegal in the real world), gender (ditto)and a regional accent (didn't do Alan any harm). This is appalling - I'll stick with GW if Carol does but I wouldn't blame her if she tells them to stick it - and I'll be turning off if she does. No offence, Toby.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 41
Posted by TallyHo (U2364821) on Monday, 25th August 2008
You can edit Wikipedia...
A last ditch attempt from the CK contingent to get their own way?Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 42
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 25th August 2008
Well I did think that 53 seemed a little optimistic, but it would have been unseemly to have assumed it was wrong. However, it is clearly improbable that that she went to Art College at age 7....
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 43
Posted by londonplantmad (U2392946) on Monday, 25th August 2008
I do not think age is an issue in gardening. After all nobody made remarks about Christopher Lloyd or Beth Chatto. We would all be too pleased to listen to them all day. The trouble is with the format of Gardeners World. Its complete rubbish. After all we have Joe Swift totally lying about what he is doing on his allotment. Carol almost going over the top with her acting display. As paying viewers we are meant to be taken in by all this. I do not really care about who presents as long as they are decent honest people allowed to do what they are best at without all the razzmattaz. Geoff was 60 when he died he could have been 90 for all i care. Alan Titchmarsh is not young either. Its not about age or sexism its about a rubbish format.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 44
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Monday, 25th August 2008
Then clearly the problem is with the producer and editor!
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 45
Posted by stainedsteel (U12904524) on Monday, 25th August 2008
"After all nobody made remarks about Christopher Lloyd or Beth Chatto."
-----
And nobody seems too surprised that they and a number of other brilliant gardeners and plantspeople have apparently never been considered for the GW job. I could listen to Roy Lancaster all day. The late Roy Hay, and his wife, Frances, could have filled TV channels with their knowledge -- as could Carol Klein and others. But, unfortunately, they weren't cut out for TV presenting. Many of our best gardeners have never presented a single TV gardening programme, let alone been in contention to front the flagship gardening series.
In the same way that many gardeners seem to not have a clue about TV presenting, many production companies don't have a clue about gardening. The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú at least knows a great deal more about the subject than most independent production companies. Cleve West gave a shocking insight into the process in his Independent column earlier this year:
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 46
Posted by digitalgrandcanal (U11760543) on Monday, 25th August 2008
I want to bookmark the link in the above post to read later. ta
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 47
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 25th August 2008
I can vouch for the fact that many of the GW production team are both keen and knowledgeable gardeners. Ultimately they are trying to deliver raw information (what,when how), through a presenter who is a convincingly good enough gardener, a great communicator and sufficiently telegenic and meet the modern expectation of visual gorgeousness in the filming etc. They are never going to get all of that right, most of the time, let alone all the time.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 48
Posted by ShirleyR (U12038819) on Monday, 25th August 2008
RowanCottage - I love watching veg growing advice and programmes about allotments, cottage gardens and all the old fashioned stuff.
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 49
Posted by paperwhite (U6380063) on Monday, 25th August 2008
oooh, says alot i think!
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
-
Message 50
Posted by londonplantmad (U2392946) on Monday, 25th August 2008
If thats the case whats happened since Geoff Hamilton and Alan Titchmarsh. Since then we have had a production team that glories in second rate rubbish. Before this we had decent production on G.W. Maybe we should be looking at who is and was doing it before and make the changes there instead of the presenters. I think most well known respected gardeners do not want to be involved in it. Why should they if their reputations are dragged down with such a useless production. It does nothing for them apart from paying them. So it that the reason for playing to the producers tune?
Link to this forum: Written in the Daily Telegraph today, 23.8.08
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.