Friday, 25 April 2008

This One Show, At Band Camp

I just watched The One Show. They started with a little item about homeopathy, introduced by Christine Bleakley saying, quite wrongly, that "the jury's still out". It's not out. Homeopathy doesn't work, and if it did then almost everything we currently know about science would have to be re-evaluated because the two are completely at odds. The doctor presenting the item was pleasingly dismissive of the "science", but really I'd have liked her to be less respectful of the homeopath's nonsense. I like my presenters to not take any crap. She said "The theory is that water has a memory. How does that work?" and the homeopath, Dr Sara Eames said this:

Yes, I think that's a really confusing point if you don't know actually how homeopathic remedies are made. They're actually prepared in a very careful way which is a series of dilutions and what we call succussions, which is a vigorous shaking. We think that it's that process of diluting and shaking, diluting again and shaking which actually transfers the information into the remedy.

She didn't answer the question (it has no answer) and she referenced at least two bits of unsupported pseudo-scientific gibberish. All I'm saying is, Paxman would have pressed her on it, like he did when Paul Dennison tried to explain that there isn't any water in processed foods. Then Eames was allowed to say that "there have been over a hundred clinical trials [of homeopathy] and the majority of them do show positive results or at least positive trends" (this is only true if you stupidly include really crappy trials) and "there's also more evidence from laboratories now suggesting that homeopathic remedies do have some sort of physiological activity" (this is only true if you define "true" to mean "false" -- unfortunately I can't directly refute this claim because like most 'evidence' for alternative medicine it is as vague, elusive and nebulous as it is voluminous).

Next, the presenter complained that homeopathy isn't regulated. (This is perhaps out-of-date information, since the government launched Ofquack, but it's still basically right.) Then she asked "how can someone know they're getting a qualified homeopath?", which is as nonsensical a question as you'll ever hear. The homeopath was then allowed to say this:

The body that I belong to, the Faculty of Homeopathy, does have a list of registered practitioners so particularly if people have a serious medical condition I would strongly advise them to approach that organisation.

What?! That's advice that will get people killed. If people say things like that there should be a big flashing message at the bottom of the screen saying "DO NOT TRUST HOMEOPATHY TO CURE A SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION". It is, at best, a useful placebo to reduce pointless medication for self-limiting conditions. At least the presenter should have offered a counterpoint. Not only that, but she utterly failed to disclose, and this might seem like quite an important detail to forget, that she is the sodding president of the Faculty of Homeopathy (or at least she was this time last week -- it's hard getting information out of a homeopath without rapping them hard against a hard but elastic object such as a leather-bound book). Oh yes, investigative blogging, this, where "investigative" means "Google". Essentially, the BBC is giving a deluded quack a platform to promote her own organisation by posing as an ordinary user of that organisation and giving potentially lethal advice and misinformation. I'm fairly sure there are rules against that.

After that was an item about the song Baydon Races. You have very much not lived until you've seen Myleene Klass playing football anthems on the accordion using one finger. At the end, there was an "art psychologist" on, who had figured out just by looking at someone's favourite pictures that she was fun, sociable, and creative (which I think almost anyone will agree to) and a couple of obvious things formed by taking an adjective that describes the painting and applying it to the owner and "possibly a woman, rather than a man", then stated very wrongly that she was probably a housewife, and failed to work out that she was an artist. It would seem to me that at least being able to identify an artist when you see one standing in front of you in a room full of paintings would be a pretty simple job for an "art psychologist", but apparently "art psychology" is not what you'd call an exact science.

Tuesday, 15 April 2008

Shunning Daisies

Pushing Daisies. It's good. We like it. A lot of people like it. It's won a lot of award because of this. It's first episode aired Saturday on ITV1. People liked it. It's a well-liked show.

Then why in buggering biscuits aren't ITV showing all the episodes?

ITV has decided not to broadcast the second episode of its latest drama series Pushing Daisies. The episode titled "Dummy" will now not air during this current run, which means that episode 3 "The Fun in Funeral" will be shown next.

Oh?

An ITV spoksman explained why: “Unfortunately due to scheduling restrictions we can only screen eight of the nine programmes in the current run. Episode two is the only one we can take out at this stage with out disrupting the flow of the series but it’s a great ‘stand alone’ episode, and one that we will broadcast later this year”.

What?

"Unfortunately given the high profile nature of the 9pm Saturday slot, we only have eight windows at the moment and have therefore made the decision to show the second episode at a future point."

Whu- What? The amount of advertising ITV have done for this new show... and they didn't have enough weeks to air all the episodes? Couldn't they find a chance not to schedule tedious murder dramas, ridiculously thought-out game shows or Celebrity Mr & Mrs?

That's like hyping up 24, and only having seven weeks in which to air it. It's stuff like this which is the reason why people download and stream so much TV. If you take it away from them, they are going to steal it.

Sunday, 13 April 2008

3DTV

From the recent media coverage, I am forced to assume that I am the only person in the country who wasn't sent a preview tape of ITV's new impressions show, Headcases. As such, I had to watch it on my actual television, on the actual day it was on (although I was still allowed to skip the adverts).

Because you don't actually see the impressionists, this show is being compared to Spitting Image and 2DTV. ITV have said that the clever CGI methods used allow them to make new sketches very close to broadcast if need be (although this week it appears they chose not to). I'm not certain what it is about pointing a camera at Rory Bremner which makes this impossible but apparently he is a very busy man. To be honest, I don't see how it makes the slightest bit of difference if the show is live-action, CGI, animated, latex puppets, stop-motion, marionettes, sock-puppets, or shot with crap cameras in the dark so we can't see who's who, like that ridiculous impressions show a few years ago that used the Barenaked Ladies' Humour Of The Situation for its title music, this being the best part of the show.

I did quite like Headcases. I laughed in a few places. I liked the political stuff best, because I follow politics more than gossip and because I think there's a richer vein of humour there -- plus the opportunity to make a point (which Headcases did exactly once, possibly by accident). That said, the fact that David Cameron had essentially the same character device as princes William and Harry did mean that about half the show was given over to just one gag. I was impressed by the credits. The show had two pages of performers and one of writers, and most of the names I associate more with the BBC and Channel 4 than with ITV. One or two I associate with BBC Four. That's unnerving. It's the sort of thing that just cannot happen. It's like finding out Alan Titchmarsh has written raunchy novels, or seeing the Prime Minister on Football Focus, or something.

It was a fun diversion, and it got the tone about right. But I don't think it had clever enough writing to make me want to watch it every week. The risk with impression shows is that the writers develop their characters into something quite other than the person they're based on, and then they become just regular dodgy sketch shows. I'm not sure Headcases didn't do that before it started. I guess the test will be how well it manages to stay current and interesting in the coming weeks. (You know, because David And Victoria In America and Northern Rock Has No Money! are bost such up-to-date stories.)

Simon Says

I've just heard Simon Cowell say this:

And if Britain has no talent, it'll be the end of Britain's Got Talent


Really? And I suppose if they run out of casualty victims on Casualty, it'll be the end of Casualty.

Wednesday, 9 April 2008

How To Watch Torchwood

Thanks to the BBC's iPlayer service, the unmissable is now unmissable™. It's not always that simple, though, so here, based on my experience last week, is a guide to using the new service:
  1. Set Torchwood to series record on your hard-disk TV recorder set-top-box. Use the BBC Three broadcast; it's almost a full week ahead, after all. This will suffice for almost the entire series.
  2. You will have to remember to record the last two episodes manually, as these have randomly moved to a different day (presumably to get them out of the way before Doctor Who started up again) and the finale is not on BBC Three because this would be making life too easy for us. In any case, the series is now on two channels, on two days, at two times, with gaps of anywhere up to two weeks between episodes, so the series record feature can't be trusted with this.
  3. Make sure you are not discouraged by the fact that the penultimate episode was a thoroughly missable (oddly, Firefox's spellchecker objects to "missable" but not to "unmissable") affair or the fact that the antipenultimate was shit. The finale is actually pretty good.
  4. If you miss the finale, and the series record feature didn't work, you can download it from iPlayer. Go to the TV Replay menu on your HDR box and select "Torchwood".
  5. Torchwood may, for no apparent reason, be absent from this menu. If this is the case then (a) you will have to use a PC, and (b) the associated episode of Torchwood Declassified is probably there.
  6. Fire up your laptop. Go to the iPlayer website. Browse to Torchwood and click "download". The file should register as 500MB. Do not click "stream", as we want to watch this later, elsewhere, offline, as downloads permit us to do.
  7. You are told that you must download some software. Do so.
  8. You are told that you must restart Firefox. Do so.
  9. You are told that you must update Media Player. Do so.
  10. Browse to Torchwood again and click "download" again. Wait for a pleasingly short amount of time, partly because the file now registers as 250MB.
  11. Shut down the laptop using hibernate mode to save time, and take it to your chosen viewing location. In my case, the train.
  12. Reboot the laptop. The iPlayer software has crashed, so you'll need to restart that.
  13. Browse to Torchwood, and click "play".
  14. You will be told that you must download a license to play this file and cannot watch it without an internet connection. Start mentally composing an angry blog post.
  15. Return home, safe in the knowledge that Torchwood is repeated on Tuesday evening.
  16. Turn on the TV at the appointed time.
  17. You will see a documentary about various inept conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Not-Actually-A-Princess Diana, which has replaced Torchwood at the last minute despite very obviously having taken quite a long time to research and make, because of the BBC's insipid obsession with showing every damn thing they have at the most 'relevant' moment possible, without considering at all how convenient or useful that is to anyone.
Nice job, BBC. You've made the unmissable very nearly unwatchable.

This Would be Liveblogging If We Didn't Have a Hard Disk TV Recorder

Kevin on the Apprentice just told Sir Alan Sugar,

The ciabattas sold like hot cakes!

Genius. Almost as good as Great British Menu the other day, when Jenny Bond, on a post-production voiceover, wondered how Angela Hartnett rated a meal out of ten, a musing which was followed by an apparently unrelated clip of Hartnett being critical of said meal, which itself was followed by Bond saying, "so, about two out of ten, then".

It's fantastic, watching the show and listening to Jenny Bond making stuff up to try to add layers of drama that don't even nearly exist. I never paid much attention to news about royalty, but if she ever had any credibility, it's long dead now. If she ever tells me how the Queen feels about something now, I think I shall assume she's made it up to add drama.

Monday, 7 April 2008

Having Worked Out How To Embed YouTube Videos, I Demonstrate My Mental Superiority Over All Sixteen Apprentice Candidates

Yes! The Apprentice is on again! Of course, in the first few weeks all the fun lies in poking fun at the inept attempts of the candidates to carry out even the most basic tasks. (In later weeks, all the fun lies in poking fun at the continued inept attempts of the candidates to carry out even the most basic tasks.)

Last week, they were challenged to run an industrial laundry. The men's team (Team Renaissance!) were disarmingly competent, especially after their woefully shoddy fishmongering skills in the first episode. The comedy came almost solely from the women's team (Team Alpha! Or something) who took incompetence to staggering new levels. While the men rang a proper laundry service to find out what they charge, the women decided to pluck a price point out of thin air and chose to charge a flat rate of £4.99 per item. Four pounds and ninety-nine pence per item of laundry. Their first task was to pitch for a contract from a hotel with a thousand sheets and pillowcases and towels to be washed, so they were looking to charge five thousand pounds. The hotel was unsurprisingly taken aback by this, expecting a price at least an order of magnitude lower.



To occupy my time, I have constructed a short list of proofs that they could have employed, without recourse to any actual research, to reach the realisation that this was not a plausible pricing strategy.

Some Proofs That £4.99 Per Item is Not a Sensible Price to Attempt to Charge a Hotel for Cleaning One Set of Laundry

  1. Several of the items were pillowcases, and you must be able to buy a pillowcase for less than that. I mean, surely. At TK Maxx.
  2. If the eight of them can earn £5,000 for less than one night's work, then they could do that for 200 nights a year and make one million pounds. Assuming you can rent and run the premises they were using for less than £100,000 (which obviously you can) this means the candidates can earn more than Alan Sugar is offering them just to clean sheets.
  3. If a guest staying one night at a hotel generates one dirty sheet, two pillowcases and two towels, this would cost the hotel £25, which even in London is a fair proportion of what the hotel would be charging.
  4. You can buy a lobster off Renaissance Fisheries for that price.
If anyone has their own proofs, please add them below.