MACLEANS Magazine's does not show George Stroumboulopoulos on the cover. Nor does it mention that he is even in the issue. I heard it on the Strombo Forum or was it on Georges MySpace page?
Page 48 and 49 of the Dec. 25th issue, talk about the perceived expectations put on George's shoulders and the story behind it all.
The writer, Jonathon Gatehouse used a word I had to look up; Pastiche imitation of the style of another's work. Unlike a parody, a pastiche is not making fun of the original.
Here is the sentence.
The Hour- a five-night-a-week pastiche of news, politics and pop culture - is neither the saviour nor the nadir(another word I have to look up) for Canada's public broadcaster.
Nadir is below or opposite the zenith... so it's not the low point? It's just a show dude.
"of course I can't save the CBC." "One show does not make a network" George is quoted as saying in the article.
I do recommend you pick up a copy of MacLean's and read it for yourself.
Last paragraph of the article; 'There is a possibility that George Stroumboulopoulos could grow up without growing old. Right now, though, he's a little too stoked about interviewing the guy from Twisted Sister.'
That interview George did with Dee Snider of Twisted Sister was fantastic. If that's too stoked, bring it on.
Barbara W.
35 comments:
Actually, in this sentence, pastiche means a patchwork, or a collage. A mixture of news, politics and pop culture.
Thank Ouimet. Not a word you hear every day.
Haha! I guess you can't win 'em all, not everybody is a fan but this guy sounds jealous ;). Maybe he is compensating for being a pastiche and nadir journalist by using words nobody understands. I bet he is a closet Twisted Sister fan ;)
There's no arguing that people are taken with George, That's old news.
What's unusual is how reluctant some are to admit that The Hour is an awful show.
Yes, it has it's better moments, but truthfully even John Doyle could score as host with these odds - 4 hours a week with celebrities from other countries.
But it's a roller-coaster of good and horrible segments.
Though the show is devoid of credits rolling at the close, we now have it confirmed that George is Executive Producer, so the fault lies squarely on his shoulders.
A couple of lines stood out in the Maclean's article:
1. "George isn't the angry type" - few people are. But waxing affectionally about him as if sainthood is not far off is hardly realistic. His aggressive side is evident only to those who find their emails going unanswered, or his stubbornness in staying with a format that doesn't work.
2. "If you think I'm dumbing the news down, well, then you don't really get what we're doing. Because we're not dumbing the news down, we're explaining it."
I don't recall there being a demand for having the news "explained". To whom?
This presumption is perhaps at the root of why many people find the show condescending
3. "The main thing is that the measure of a success on the CBC isn't just about the ratings, it's about how much discussion it starts. And this show has started a lot of discussion." Says Kirstine Layfield, executive director of network programming.
Regardless of her intent, this statement is absurd. Ratings are a measure of viewers and audience, and to belittle it's significance in broadcasting reveals a disingenuous attempt at damage control. It's simply dishonest to pretend the show has no serious problems.
It's admirable for the CBC to remain loyal to the crew of a sinking ship, and to experiment with new ideas. But to remain intransigent in the face of obvious weaknesses is arrogant and a disservice to the public.
What happened to Hilary and her field trips? Exactly how many times was her work featured this season? Instead of helping her, George seems to have abandoned her in favour of writer Paul Bates. So much for letting another gender shine.
The Panel Van mostly remains parked, as if it too is bored with it's job.
There's a pervasive sense that George himself is spread too thin to care about the quality of what he presents each night. Innovative, cutting-edge and fearless journalism are not labels that one could apply here.
And whose ultimate responsible for that?
Instead of making excuses in the media, thinking that publicity is what counts, the team would better serve the country by accepting that they don't know everything and could use some help.
Maybe I don't get it, either.
There was a run there where he was talking about Kevin Federline every day. The upshot was that K-Fed is a loser.
But by giving that loser so much airtime, well, stare into the loser long enough, and the loser stares back at you.
I guess some people might need their K-Fed news put into perspective, but not me.
And here we are discussing - the CBC must be thrilled!
Hilary was on the right track, and there's little doubt in my mind that after more Gomeshi it was obvious that girls had been shut out of performing on the show, so that explained her presence. She too needs a chance to develop - why should only George be allowed to practice on the air?
What would I suggest?
First let me point out that no one has offered any suggestions for content that I've seen anywhere in the Strombo world. No room for improvement? The Hour is perfect as is?
I would list a hundred ideas but they'd only be used without credit - remember no one is credited at the end of the show.
The fundamental problem is that virtually the entire hour is taken up with topics that are dated, dull and barely relevant.
It's easy to make a case that everything is interesting, but who watches everything?
Is anyone going to justify Hulk Hogan's daughter as being worthy of a segment?
What's worst of all are the many stories and people right here in Canada that are being ignored.
The Canadian Blog Awards, Matthew Goode, Tom Green, and many other topics that are current and Canadian go neglected in an Hour of Josh Groban and pretty distasteful Disinformation clips.
Isn't George saying with every show - "this is the best we could do, and these are the most interesting guests we could find. Anything else was deemed not worthy."
And where's the music the Pornographers sing about at each time?
Would having a band on or a musical performance be so difficult? There's a whole hour to fill, and news only becomes so depressing at that time of night.
There's some specifics.
Allan,
Your comment: "His aggressive side is evident only to those who find their emails going unanswered..."
My comment to you: Most would not consider the failure to respond to emails as "aggressive". I do it all the time, particularly when emails are negative. Personally I think a response to someone like you would open a Pandora's Box of endless communication.
I cannot believe that I'm about to write this...but if watching The Hour is causing you so much grief and misery, get off your soap box and change the damn channel.
Incredible.
I just had the overwhelming sense that I was being admonished by George himself. That certainly got my heart racing - fear of George. Must catch my breath.
Frankly George, I'm exactly the viewer you want - an intelligent adult who cares about others.
And finds the world fascinating and life a miracle amidst an utterly stupid horror show of a world.
And takes personal responsibility for doing something to make it better.
OK, so that wasn't George. Just a voice we don't hear very often around here.
Unfair of me to attribute the above sentiment to G.S.
Totally.
Just someone touchy about not answering emails. Eh, negative emails.
And surprisingly on the mark about my incessant spouting off with a plethora of "feedback".
That hurt.
Was that your intention, anonymous?
Speaking of soapbox.
As a teenager I attended a political rally in Vancouver packed into a stifling hockey arena to hear from some guy named Tommy Douglas.
When it was over, I took home the wooden pop bottle box they had found belatedly for him to stand on (he was kind of short) to give his great speech.
Eventually I would see Pearson and Diefenbaker on the same stage, but Tommy was the best.
A few years later, he autographed it for me when I was in a radio station.
It wasn't a soapbox, and he never did become what they introduced him as - "the next Prime Minister of Canada", but I could gladly smile at him as he passed me twenty years later on a sidewalk in Ottawa.
What does that silly story have to do with anything discussed here?
Nothing.
And nor does your suggestion to change channels have anything to do with creating a future for my favorite show The Hour.
Who was the guy that growled at me and yelled "bring it on!" on my TV screen?
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone besides me who actually brought anything.
Perhaps being a pussy is just what makes you, I mean him, all the more adorable.
I would never rumble with George except on these pages.
And surely that's what he was referring to on the screen, or was it directed at CBC management?
Gosh, I thought I was helping.
At least Kirstine Layfield seems grateful toward me and my "dragons", eh George?
("The main thing is that the measure of a success on the CBC isn't just about the ratings, it's about how much discussion it starts. And this show has started a lot of discussion.")
Except with George.
I believe this piece would better if you didn't feel the need need to tell us what words you didn't know, and then assume we're as stupid as you are by telling us the definitions.
Ouch.
It's just gentle humour...
Nothing to be mad about.
Allan...it's Anonymous from 1:21PM. Glad you came to realization that in fact it was not George who responded to your "incessant spouting off". Thank you for proving my point...the one about the endless communication...I post one comment, you post four! I rest my case.
Now don't get me started again.
It's just that I have to make up in quantity to match the quality of your postings.
Squabbles? I just get bad vibes from it all.
I save my critical viewpoints of the Hour for Goerge's e-mail. Good, bad, I'll drop it to him, he'll read it, and it never matters tif I get a reply (I don't of course).
Critics are biased. People are not objective in reviewing him.
Why?
Middle aged critic, went to school, tries to inlfuence the world or what have you, knows big words, like nadir or pastiche, and here comes someone with twqo years in Broadcasting who sweeps through things. At age 34 more people know GS than the varying critics.
Like Caesar was jealous of what Alexander had accomplished, some critics might have a bit of resentment, and write a review that bleed with their own feelings.
I challenged someone on it, not for George's sake (he's a big boy let him fight his own battles)
I challenged it because it was bad journalism.
I won, because I got a politically correct type of reply that basically said "it's my opinion, not news, and I am giving it" and when I hit the guy on that, no reply. (I'm a freelance writer, had journalism training, I know two or three things)
Does the Hour have bad points? Sure. Do I want to rant and rave about it? No. The man knows how I feel.
And anonymous people should never hide. Choose a name and join the battle, head high, screaming with battle fury, and ready to defend your point. :)
Thank you Lauren.
I feel like you have given me a gift with your comment.
Thank you for raising the spirits with your mighty 'pen'.
Cheers, and Happy Christmas to everyone.
Be yourself is what I always say.
Just let us know who that is.
It's the only drawback to this blogging stuff - anonymous posters, especially the insulting kind.
I'm left perplexed when someone just wants to play games, or only wants dialogue with someone who agrees with them. Like, grow up.
I'm fairly isolated in my opinions and get a lot of cheap shots thrown at me as I go along, but it's the world we find ourselves in.
You've got to admit, Barbara and Lauren, that it's very few people in the internet world who get a lot of emails, some of them negative, and can afford to ignore them.
I certainly don't. Do you?
But the most surprising statement from the anonymous visitor was how pained the person was in stating "I cannot believe that I'm about to write this...but if watching The Hour is causing you so much grief and misery, get off your soap box and change the damn channel.'
If that wasn't George, then who is it?
Seemed the person got a bit touchy when I mentioned George's aggressive side.
Something doesn't add up, but it's their choice to hide their identity, though it's also rather cowardly.
It's not a word I would ever think applies to George, but ... you don't have to be a rocket scientist to have the same impression as me about that person's remarks.
Totally unfair to use the anonymous route. Poor exercise of citizenship in a free society.
I deal with Ouimet a lot, as you may know, and she has no problem answering all her emails, negative or not.
So I know from experience, interacting with a responsible and mature person, that making excuses for ignoring emails is pretty weak.
If George can't handle it, then why is he in broadcasting, let alone asking me for feedback.
Not acknowledging, let alone responding, to emails is more than just being lazy. And if your big worry is getting even more emails, gosh, I simply can't imagine how anyone could cope - unless they'd like to consider something referred to as being "up front" and just saying so. There's a novel approach, eh?
So they leave people to draw their own conclusions as to what happened to their emails.
Again, a poor approach to communication between people.
Allan, George has never, to my knowledge,commented on this blog.
He gets thousands of emails and messages and I have no idea how he handles them all... you think I get answers to my emails? I don't expect any answers because I know how hard the guy works and how busy he is.
I send him a note and assume if he has time he will read it and hopfully smile.
That anon. comment could have been from (for example) any one of the staff or crew of The Hour because it is thier show you are talking about... They work very hard on the show too and might feel the need to pipe in.
Just something for you to concider my friend.
Fair comment, and reasonable, Barbara. I won't argue with that. I know there's always more to it, to anything, than what my mind is capable of envisioning.
Really, who doesn't have and recognize to some extent, their limitations. I'm well aware of mine, but feel free to point any out I may have missed.
(you've been fairly hospitable toward me since I got here a few months ago so I think we can "talk")
So, more for the others, but you're welcome to listen in (hey, it's your house!)...
You know, no one is forcing you to read this. And it's not like it's costing this web site money to let me speak. And most people here seem to be to the gentle type that I'm happy to spend time with.
I want to address the remark about changing channels.
If that remark came from a broadcaster they have good reason to regret they suggested such an option.
But specifically:
I've often heard Howard Stern say the same thing, and I agree with him.
Yet the airwaves in Canada are considered a public utility and have only a limited amount of stations that it can carry, hence the need for government regulation. Satellite transmissions that people choose freely and pay for willingly are another matter.
The CBC is a Crown corporation also accountable to the government (which in an ideal world reflects the will of the country's citizens)
For both of those reasons I have a right, in fact a duty, to involve myself in the process, whether those in power like it or not.
George is a person in power and he doesn't seem to like it if you're not fawning over him or applauding everything he does. And he doesn't have to like or not like something according to my wishes. He too is free to choose.
Yet by the nature of the job he's chosen he has to act responsibly and be accountable, far more than anyone here.
To suggest that I simply go away is his right as a free person, but not as a public broadcaster.
And it's just as telling when a person doesn't answer emails.
And I don't buy it when someone says they're not the least bit disappointed when they don't get a response. That's stretching it a bit on credibility.
If George writes to Neil Young and doesn't get a response he probably chalks it up to any number of reasons, starting with "I'm not worthy" and going to "he's a busy guy".
But George is no Neil Young, and pretending he's too busy is an obvious cop-out.
And even a star like George would rather have a note back from Neil than simply silence, so don't expect anyone to believe it doesn't matter. That's nonsense.
Yes, it takes a healthy ego to step up to the microphone or in front of the camera.
But how healthy is that ego when you can't even run credits at the end of the show to acknowledge the work of others?
And how healthy if at the first sign of grumbling from the audience you respond by telling them that if they don't like it they should pack up and leave?
I'd be ashamed of myself for being unable to cope with criticism, and that's likely what the anonymous poster was feeling when he made the statement " I can't believe I'm about to say this ...".
Well, you just did. And you did it counting on the fact that no one will ever find out who you are.
I care about that person's opinion, but I have little respect for the approach they've taken, and frankly, it's entirely consistent with the George I've come to know.
There are times that I too have been flippant and rude to people on the internet, but most times I try to be fair and thoughtful and explain myself rather throwing in some curt remark.
Few people, it seems, can be bothered with the effort of courtesy, or thinking, or speaking under their own name. Then they'd actually have to take responsibility for their words, but some find it more attractive to do a drive-by snipe.
So go ahead, if you got this far, take a shot. I'm not afraid of anyone here.
Unlike George, when I say "bring it on", I plan to stick around and deal with you, instead of walking away.
What a pretentious poser.
I brought it on, and he couldn't handle it.
George's brave new world turns out to be just as phony, conceited and cowardly as the old one.
So tell me I'm wrong.
But if you expect anyone to respect your opinion you should be prepared to tell me why I'm wrong. And most of all, I'd really like to know what evidence you can think of that that wasn't George dropping in to tell me why he doesn't answer emails, using the anonymous tag to hide his identity.
Oh well, just me killing time over the holidays. Nothing to get worked up about here, folks. Just keep telling yourself that George can do no wrong, and The Hour is perfect, couldn't possibly be improved, and only THEY know how to do a television show so our opinions are irrelevant and unwelcome.
Sorry, no room at the Inn for, as anonymous referred to me, "someone like you".
You know what, Barb?
You would be the ideal candidate, really the perfect person to be George's personal assistant. Everything I've seen and read tells me, if I were George she'd be the person I would trust.
And then you could be in charge of his mail and you would know exactly what he does with it.
Surprisingly, I'm not his personal assistant and yet I already know exactly what he does with it.
Can you guess?
ok, this is just a quick note, but i have issue with one thing that has been brought up.. i do not feel anyone should be supported just because of their gender. i would love to see more female content in 'the hour' but only if it is good. i don't want to have token representative. that to me is worse than none. most of the stuff i read about doyle makes me feel i should support her just because she is female, not because of her talent or lack of thereof.
hope this makes sense. i'm working two jobs right now and my writing skills at sub par at best.
First rate. For someone with a weird moniker that spills out over the margin you've picked up on a good point.
While this neighbourhood seems mostly female (gazing adoringly at gelled black hair) there's little reference to poor Hilary.
Pretty obvious that she's the token girl in the group. And I guess I'm not allowed to say that she's cute, but I did and she is.
But it's her talent we're discussing, right?
Why is it that I can think of only three bits she did this season? That doesn't seem right.
Sure all three bits bombed, but who doesn't blow once in a while?
No one has found anything to say about her anywhere, ever.
Why did George push her aside? It couldn't be feedback from viewers because he ignores that.
Even though her presence is an obvious attempt at affirmative action of the gender kind, there's a distinct impression she been given no respect and hung out to dry.
More boy's club selfishness.
Last night, I watched the re-run of his interview with Jann Arden, who I'm very fond of.
In his introduction of her George said that she's been considered for her own talk show - and then he added something that really struck me as odd and perhaps a bit too telling - he said "and I'm fine with that, totally cool with that".
What did he mean by that?
Did we need his permission or approval?
The way Hilary was quickly replaced by one of the writers, Paul, was really kind of heartless.
To hire her and then bail so quickly doesn't speak well for an element I look for and admire in others - called - loyalty.
Did I miss something here?
Sure would be cool if youse guys did a feature profile of her here.
And don't hold your breath waiting for George to say it's ok. Remember, The Hour is all about him.
And Gomeshi-Pyle.
But I'd bet Hilary has some pretty interesting stuff to say.
Too bad no one cares to ask.
Hi again Allan...it's Anonymous who posted at 1:21 PM and 10:08 PM. My identity seems to be of great concern to you:)
Duh
You seem to have just dropped in to play cat and mouse. Doesn't interest me. While most people here seem fairly sincere, this last post of yours reveals that you're not actually here to contribute anything. I rest your case, to save you the time.
well, i've posted a few references on doyle on my blog. and i'm devoting my next post on 'the hour' to her (i'm super behind)so i won't go into details here. i'm not part of the team here but i do post fairly often on 'the hour' on my own blog. and i don't think i ever reference strombo in an adoring gaze fashion. it's not my thing.
of course she's cute. it's tv, not radio. :)
tell me about it
i'm radio
Allan...
I don't consider anonymous posting to be "cowardly". I'm new at this whole world of blogging and have yet to set up my 'identity'. I read something that I disagreed with and simply had to comment on it. I was under the impression that communication was the whole point of participating in this activity in the first place.
In keeping with the time of year, I will be the one to extend the olive branch of peace and wish you a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year.
WOW!!! Guys this is craziness but I have to comment...
Allen,
I have to commend you for voicing your concerns on a very pro-George blog.
I too have grave concerns over the Hour but as Lauren does... I email him on a regular basis... directly.
George actually responds to me on occasion and often makes changes after I have sent him a comment/email/blog.
If you chat with George in person, he is more then willing to discuss what you don't like about him. He is absolutely willing to take criticism. I think the internet is a horrible way to communicate as there is little way to deduce innoniation. GS is more then willing to duke it out with you so long as you are willing to back up your criticism and not just tell him it sucks. Anyone can criticize art, make sure you tell him why.
notpaid... is not the place to get his attention... it is just the place to make his fan club angry with you and to get yourself banned! Again, I am refreshed to see some one critcize him publicly... however George would not post anoymously. GS has no fear of telling you what he thinks as he has often mentioned... he doesn't have the chip in his brain for awareness of fear.
The Hour definetely needs some work. Did you watch last season? I enjoyed it much more then this one. One of the things I disliked the most is the guest people if you will.... Hilary is HORRIFIC, Paul is just silly and Jian... well at least he dresses nice.
I for one am so grateful Hilary has only had three bits. And for me that was three too many. She has no talent for TV or radio. NONE. I have voiced that with George. I am in no need of having female representation if the quality is what Hilary brings... please, she embarrasses more then engages.
"She too needs a chance to develop - why should only George be allowed to practice on the air?"
Why should I be subjected to Hilary practicing on the air???? When was the last time George practiced???
Paul, I can at least tolerate because on occassion he is funny.
The CBC is the sinking ship not the Hour... it is the one shining star in it's sky of darkness.
Canada is unfortunately in a place where we are about to lose our public broadcastor and it is a tragedy.
Allen, you need to listen better George almost nightly offers for you to comment on content or give suggestions.... it is called....
www.cbc.ca/thehour
OR his other places:
www.myspace.com/georgestroumboulopoulos
george@strombo.com
Some of CBC's shows are not credited at the end. It is a thing. While I agree it sucks, it might not be within GS's control. Did you email the Hour and ask?
"Who was the guy that growled at me and yelled "bring it on!" on my TV screen?
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone besides me who actually brought anything.
Perhaps being a pussy is just what makes you, I mean him, all the more adorable.
I would never rumble with George except on these pages."
This was an interesting statement... you caught what George was saying but missed the point...
George is more then willing to listen to your opinion but just keep in mind....it is just that... your opinion... and that is what he sees it as.
"You've got to admit, Barbara and Lauren, that it's very few people in the internet world who get a lot of emails, some of them negative, and can afford to ignore them.
I certainly don't. Do you?"
George is an equal oppourtunity ignorer... he ignores the good and bad. Then again if you got the mail volume and content he got... you would read and not respond too. He does read it. All of it... good bad and ugly.
GS can afford too... as he has said many times to me and to others... he just doesn't care. I think people mistake him for someone who cares. He doesn't.
George also has an unbelievably crazy schedule. I have seen his close friends post on his myspace telling him to pick up his phone... I have seen him ignore picking up his phone to speak with fans and audience members. The guy has alot of demands on his time.
"And I don't buy it when someone says they're not the least bit disappointed when they don't get a response. That's stretching it a bit on credibility.
If George writes to Neil Young and doesn't get a response he probably chalks it up to any number of reasons, starting with "I'm not worthy" and going to "he's a busy guy".
But George is no Neil Young, and pretending he's too busy is an obvious cop-out.
And even a star like George would rather have a note back from Neil than simply silence, so don't expect anyone to believe it doesn't matter. That's nonsense."
Allen, if you were to speak to my family and close friends you would know that I don't pick up my phone and I often get message after message.
I listen to each one... I don't respond, not because I don't care or want to but I don't have the time. I just don't. I am that busy in my life... I am not on TV... so I can only imagine the difference that can make.
While I will admit getting a response from George is great. I am not in the least dissapointed to not get a response. I don't expect one and often ask that he doesn't respond. Sometimes I just want him to know what I think about his work. Good or bad.
"And how healthy if at the first sign of grumbling from the audience you respond by telling them that if they don't like it they should pack up and leave?"
A totally valid point. I often wonder that myself... then again I have been able to voice my concerns in person and get a response.
"And most of all, I'd really like to know what evidence you can think of that that wasn't George dropping in to tell me why he doesn't answer emails, using the anonymous tag to hide his identity."
The chunk you wrote prior to this I really respect... but the evidence I have is that... GS isn't afraid of you either.I have heard him say that in person. He would use his own name and link it to his website or myspace. He would have a go with you and not cowardly use anoymous and then run away.
I do not tell myself that the Hour is perfect far from it... I spend most of my breaks at work chatting with a friend discussing how much better the show... could be!... if someone were to do... and that list of a hundred things you were refering to comes in. And often it ends in an email to George.
"Pretty obvious that she's the token girl in the group. And I guess I'm not allowed to say that she's cute, but I did and she is.
But it's her talent we're discussing, right?
Why is it that I can think of only three bits she did this season? That doesn't seem right.
Sure all three bits bombed, but who doesn't blow once in a while?"
This seems totally right to me... By this industry's standards she has had two too many chances...
Blowing one bit is one thing... she is not meant to be, whatever it is that she is on the Hour.
"The way Hilary was quickly replaced by one of the writers, Paul, was really kind of heartless.
To hire her and then bail so quickly doesn't speak well for an element I look for and admire in others - called - loyalty.
Did I miss something here?
Sure would be cool if youse guys did a feature profile of her here.
And don't hold your breath waiting for George to say it's ok. Remember, The Hour is all about him.
And Gomeshi-Pyle.
But I'd bet Hilary has some pretty interesting stuff to say.
Too bad no one cares to ask."
HAVE YOU EVER LISTENED TO THE STROMBO SHOW on CFRB????!!?!?!
Hilary has nothing interesting to say AT ALL. Her last bit was about squirrels... SQUIRRELS!!!!
Hilary was originally hired as someone for behind the scenes to do up info on stories. GS asked her to do it on the air. He wanted a sidekick, she became the sidedud.
Allen, thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion... it has been most engaging and refreshing to hear your concerns. I encourage you to continue to voice and to also let The Hour in on your concerns.
I would love to reply to all the comments in full but my time on this computer is limited as I am on vacation.
We should do a post on what changes people want to see on The Hour.
I have some thoughts on that and I think Barbara B, Alana, Allison, Becky, Jas and Evelyne do as well and I want to here more from you guys as well.
Merry Christmas everybody.
Keep warm and be cool.
That's quite the substantial response. Shows how difficult it is to offer a thoughtful comment in just a few words.
Just like you, I have several mixed feelings about what I've endured and enjoyed by time The Hour ends each night.
One thing I'm certain about is that I want this program ( and more like it) to succeed.
But truly, after the outstanding first couple of shows it was steadily downhill from there.
Of course, the actual ratings are the most authentic "opinion" of all, yet it's hard to find the truth about these anywhere on the net.
My personal opinion of George is not really an issue that I would dwell on. But his work is, and what it reveals.
It's the content of the show and the assumptions it makes about it's audience that prompts me to jump in and encourage discussion.
I'd pick George too for this assignment, but so far my conclusion is - too good for Much Music, not good enough for Newsworld. And I think it's such a waste to let this one go down the drain.
(I think you may have strained your earlier point a bit when you state that George - "I think people mistake him for someone who cares. He doesn't."
Can any human avoid caring?
Anyhoo, grateful to you for the above.
Viewer feedback needs to be dealt with more seriously, and a mechanism put in place to reflect that.
Barbara, that is one solid suggestion:
"We should do a post on what changes people want to see on The Hour."
Possibly the most fun we could have here, and certainly the most honest, compared to the notion that the show is perfect and as good as it gets.
It would be fascinating to hear from each of your contributors as to their own experiences watching The Hour.
At least it would let the world know the breath of thought put into being a fan of George and his journalism career.
I only checked the site today to see if this stupid show was being taken off the air. Come up with something better CBC! NOT "News Lite by someone only you think is cool".
I race to change the channel right after The National so hopefully somehow you register my discontent.
Anonymous 3:59pm, you could always just go to bed. Not every show is everyones cup of tea.
I love the show and want to watch it.
You don't.
Do I complain about what shows you like on your blog?
Post a Comment