AN OPEN LETTER TO CHANNEL 7 PROGRAMMERS

Dear Sirs, and I'm going to assume you are 'Sir's because if I even suspected for a moment that there was a woman amongst you I might have to tear out my own reproductive organs with a coathanger so as to not be kindred to you in any way.

On Tuesday night, whilst the Wikileaks saga was unfolding, I checked the program guide for something mindless to watch while I pored over Twitter (I like to multi-task. I was also doing the dishes and making a mixtape - that's just how I roll). I noticed a program on your main station at 9:30pm called Most Shocking; Top 20 Women Out of Control. Hmm, I thought to myself, is this another "Britney forgot to wear knickers" countdown? No. The description advised me that it was ordinary women, going crazy. Intriguing? Not really.

First of all, clearly the producers of the program tried to inject a little class into the show by using 'women' in the title instead of 'girls'. Most women don't like being called 'girls' - particularly by men who are using it in an effort to put themselves in a position of power over said woman. Perhaps this is what made you assume that the program was even remotely appropriate to be aired on your station. Perhaps you couldn't ascertain from the description of the program that it would be grossly offensive to not just women, but humankind in general.

Let's get one thing straight; I'm not a prude. I'm not a wowser. My intention is not to incite moral panic and I barely have a second thought as to "who will think of the children?". I understand the concept, so often reiterated in website news commentary, that if I don't like a certain program I have the ability to change the channel or turn off the tv. Yes, I have the digital dexterity to use a remote control. Hoorah for me.

The fact that this program exists bothers me. The fact that you thought it was perfectly reasonable entertainment bothers me. Let's break it down; the program consisted of American women in varying degrees of distress and/or psychological breakdown. They were either being seriously injured in accidents where it was not shown whether or not they survived without major injury, or they were being physically or verbally abused by men.

One of the Top 20 'out of control' was a clearly intoxicated and distressed woman being arrested by male police officers. Her breasts were (I'm sorry to have to use the term) 'hanging' over her shirt which had been pulled down in the arrest. She had no way of covering herself due to the fact that her hands were cuffed behind her back. The police officers and the narrator were having a good laugh at her expense. Neither of the officers tried to assist her. This was absolutely revolting. I would liken it to a pack-rape scene - you might say that is a long bow to draw - but here we were presented with a woman who was physically restrained while being sexualised against her will - all while being filmed - against her will. Yes, she was being arrested lawfully and yes, no doubt her shirt was skewiff due to her own attempts at violence toward the police officers - but does that justify (a) having a laugh at her expense (b) disallowing any shred of dignity she might have had in the situation and (c) catching it all on film so every other arse can have a good laugh about it too?

Another of these wondrous 'Top 20' moments was a women being a nuisance on a train. She was loud and offensive and was generally upsetting the passengers. She was also clearly either drug-effected or suffering from a mental illness. The incident culminated in a male passenger on the train physically assaulting the woman. Well, the narrator thought this was fantastic. Good on YOU angry-man-who-has-been-inconvenienced. You bash that noisy woman GOOD. Ha ha HA!

In fact all of the narrator's comments were derogatory to the women - and ALL women. And all of the images were offensive, and presented in the most misogynist fashion that I will have to assume that you, channel 7 programmers, agree that women should be abused, berated, belittled, and made sex objects against their will. Your mother would be so proud.

Clearly with the new digital stations you are having to scrape the bottom of the barrel with program choices so you're happy to air this cheap crap from the US. I hope that the audience won't put up with it. I know that I should have no high expectations of quality programming from a commercial station, but there are basic, VERY basic expectations of common decency that even the most morally inept person would at least recognise, if not support. It is your job to make this very simple distinction. You have failed miserably.

I raise my middle finger to you Sirs. And I raise my middle finger to mediocrity.

Regards, Marian B.

'Tis the Season

It's coming up to that time of year where I have to buy presents for people.

I know, I know, it's hypocritical of me, being athiest, to celebrate Christmas. But I really don't.

I celebrate X-mas.

The 'X' stands for excess and I base my celebration on the three 'C's; consumerism, commodification and commercialism. I celebrate these ideologies once a year by attending packed shopping centres at the last minute and buying overpriced, irrelevant items for people who would prefer a gift-voucher. I ritualistically swipe my credit card. I solemnly, in an act of selflessness akin to Jesus himself, attach the receipt to the gift in the event that the giftee wishes to return it. There's no room for humility at X-mas time. I give and give and give, until the ribbon can curl no more and my fingertips are bleeding from $2 shop tape-dispenser mishaps.

Basically the method in previous years has been to buy mass-produced gifts that are about the right size, cost and age-appropriateness - which, in fairness, is perfectly in keeping with the three Cs.

But this year I've decided to do things differently.

Firstly, I realised that I know lots of exceptionally talented people. These people write books. Books are good gifts for two reasons, (1) if you buy them early enough you can read them yourself before you pass them on, and (2) they are easy to wrap and post.

So here is my X-mas shopping list. As I love and/or know all of these authors (I love all of them and know some of them) it's especially heartwarming because I am giving them the gift of potentially making the Readings Top 10 list. Wahoo!

Also, the list is all Australian. Go me!

So here you are, the 2010 Screamedia X-mas gift list;

Andrew Marlton
First Dog on The Moon's The Story of The Christmas Story

Firstly, for the kiddles, there is that loveable pup, Crikey's own First Dog on the Moon. If only there was a Dance Bandicoot plushie to go with it *sigh*. What a precious little book this is. There are quirky little bits only grown-ups will notice and enough crazy fun for the littlies.

Paul Kelly
How to Make Gravy

This one is my gift to myself - I might get it for someone else too, but I will have to get another copy because I am enjoying cradling this one in my arms like a warm blanket. I wish I wish I wish that Kelly would record a full audiobook for this. This video from ABC's Big Ideas is such a tease.

Benjamin Law
The Family Law

I love this book. That is all. You can read me gushing about it here. I know exactly for whom I will be purchasing it; someone that is maybe homesick and maybe needs a good laugh and is definitely missed terribly.

Tony Wilson
Making News

I produce the Triple R Breakfasters podcast. Wilson is a former Breakfaster. I am related to sports-loving freaks. Wilson makes sports entertaining. It's all coming together. Not only will I be gifting this but I am currently reading it myself, contrary to being violently opposed to anything even mildly sports-related. Also, I have been promised a sex scene. That is all. 

E. Chas McSween, Enron Hubbard, Flash Johnson, Hunter McKenzie-Smythe, 

Intravenus DeMilo, Michael Jayfox
Things Bogans Like 

I'm pretty sure gifting this little ditty will get me excommunicated from some friend groups. But I don't like the idea of giving it to my Fitzroyalty friends so they can have a collective snigger at our Ed Hardy-wearing, Bacardi Breezer-sipping, Zumba-loving associates. That's just nasty. I'd rather give the book to the supposed Bogans so they can have a giggle at themselves. Hopefully by next year there will be a Things Elitist Intelligentsia from the Inner North-East Like book to sort out the rest of my gift-purchasing.

Shaun Micallef
Preincarnate

Genius. Micallef's 2004 book Smithereens takes pride of place on my bookshelf - as will our wedding photo when he finally retracts the AVO he has filed against me. That's a joke of course - the photo would go on the wall, not the bookshelf. In all seriousness, Micallef is a fantastic writer, humourist, entertainer, specimen of a man and all-round-talent-powder-keg. Can't wait to get my grubby little hands on this one. One for me, one for you.

Barrie Cassidy
The Party Thieves: The Real Story of the 2010 Election 

For the politics nerds. There's nothing like starting a new year reading about the last one.

Pip Lincolne
Sew La Tea Do

I want this one too. A crafty little ditty like this totally goes against the X-mas spirit of mass-production and consumerism but hey, in the religion of ME anything goes. And it's pretty. So there.

Curvy 7 & Semi-Permanent 2010 (books 1 and 2)

Eeeeek. I wait with bated breath every year for these precious prints to be released. Illustration. Design. Love.

Oslo Davis
Overheard

A nice little stocking filler. Not only are Oslo's illustrations gorgeously funny, I got to interview him a few months ago for a sound project I was working on and he is just as charming, witty and sharp as his artistry suggests.

So, there it is. All tied up with a neat little bow.

Who have I forgotten? There's so much wonderful book-ness out there.  Have YOU written a book that I should add to my shopping list?

Add your own Australian book gifting ideas in the comments below.

Not so Packed to the Rafters

Well whaddaya know, it was an in-law that died in the much anticipated 'bubble bursting' episode of Packed to the Rafters tonight. No big shock as there was talk of actor Zoe Ventoura (who plays Mel) wanting to head off overseas.

I haven't really watched Packed to the Rafters since season one, which I didn't mind at all. Since then though it's become a cringe-worthy mix of awkward scripts, over-acting and sweeter-than-honey schmultz. I started watching way-back-when because of Zoe Ventoura - I loved her on the SBS comedy/drama Kick! Why could they not have killed off Ben? (played by Hugh Sheridan) - he is the character I like least, and by like least I mean loathe.

Don't get me wrong, there are some wonderful things about Packed to the Rafters. Jessica Marais namely (who plays Rachel) and of course Rebecca Gibney is Australian tv royalty. But the show has become the later-on-at-night-only-once-a-week-and-on-a-different-channel Neighbours. What I mean is, shit happens but everything's okay. The strong focus on family and niceness and everyone being wonderful and white and wholesome gets a bit old. Yes, sometimes it's nice to watch sunshine, lollipops and blue skies but the characters and the story-lines are so predictable.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical. I did try to hang in there until all the 'Carbo the ethnic neighbour' story-lines that involved him *hilariously* being mistaken as *deep inhale* a gay. Oh what fun and frivolity was made of that mix-up! ROFLMAOLOLROFagain ... not.

Needless to say, I wasn't all that happy about having to sit through 45 minutes or so of lovey-dovey crap tonight before the big death scene. We get it - you're really in love - that will make it way worse when one of you dies *slaps forehead*.

There were two good things about the first 45 minutes though, (1) the dodgy cousin storyline. I can't help but like that guy, he reminds me of my own dodgy cousins. And (2) Nathan. The character of Nathan has developed a lot since season one, as has the actor Angus McLaren. He is really very good, and a bit cute, which is helpful.

Back to the 'death in the family'. The first shot of the episode was a close-up of Mel. Dead giveaway, if you'll pardon the pun. Even though I'd been expecting it for nearly an hour the actual collision was quite shocking. A car ploughed into hers at an intersection and the aerial shot holding on that moment felt like forever. Well done. There was a scene following that was also very good; when Nathan arrived at the hotel to tell Ben. The look on Nathan's face was pitch-perfect.

Then we got a walk-through of the family at the hospital, Dave Rafter leading Ben through to the morgue to see Mel. All quite powerful and tear-inducing (if you're not a cold-hearted cynic like myself of course). And finally we get the 'bubble' narrative back with good old grand-dad and baby Ruby. 

And here is where I got annoyed. Firstly, because the bubble thing was stupid to begin with - bubbles? really? life is like bubbles? I suppose it was the rather crap explanation from Ted earlier in the episode re the bubble factor that killed it. And secondly, at the very end of the episode, the screen faded to white - and stayed white for a few moments.

A teensy bit of a rip-off of one of the most iconic moments in Australian television history - the death of Molly Jones on A Country Practice. Of course when Molly died the screen faded to black (because her eyes closed). Here's the last five or so minutes of that episode;

It's a heartbreaker. Even now, even though I've seen it 50 million times.

I have to say, comparably, even with all the build-up and the 'who-will-it-be?' speculation about tonight's Packed to the Rafters, Mel's death was pretty forgettable.

While I'm talking about death scenes and Australian tv, here's one that I thought was better than the one we saw tonight - and who would have guessed it, it's from Neighbours (maybe skip to the 8 minute mark);

I think I'll go back to not watching Packed to the Rafters, mainly because the rest of the season will be focused on Ben, who is rather annoying. 

I'll stick to watching YouTube videos of those wacky Timmins' from Colac ... or, you know, doing something constructive with my life. 

What did you think I would blog about?

Hello stranger!

You may have noticed I've been on a slight hiatus over here while I focussed on a few other projects. Well those are now DONE *jumps with joy*. I missed you, really.

So here I find myself footloose and fancy-free and what just happens to occur on my beloved Q&A?

Shoegate! What joy! what fun! A shoe-throwing incident at our own, civilised ABC!

Right, enough of the exclamation marks. If you missed it, former PM John Winston Howard had the Q&A panel to himself last night on the eve of his memoirs, Lazarus Rising being released. Besides speaking about himself in the third person, avoiding a question from David Hicks with a bout of nationalism and again reiterating the difference between being 'sorry' and showing 'regret' - Howard dodged a pair of shoes;

I'm sure I'm not the only person who has wished for Howard to suffer a blow to the head at one time or another (or at all times, particularly between 1996 and 2007), but I would have preferred if Mr Shoe-thrower kept his smelly sneakers on his feet.

It was only moments before the shoe throwing incident that I was getting annoyed at Howard's response to a video question from Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks. He avoided answering the question by stating what a wonderful democracy we have here in Australia where such a question can be posed. I thought he seemed smug - intimating that this freedom we all enjoy had something to do with him. Perhaps he should have utilised that freedom to actually answer some of the questions posed to him, but alas, it was the same old spin from days gone by - no wisdom in retrospect here. 

So what of the shoe-throwing? Whilst I do love a spectacle, it irked me. Firstly, the shoe incident is the only thing being talked about - not the reason behind it. The civilian deaths in the Iraq War are rarely reported, discussed or acknowledged in mainstream media. Let alone the high incidences of suicide and mental illness in the youth of Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

Shoe-man was justifiably angry, justifiably outraged, but by resorting to violence, his argument was reduced to a joke. Granted, he was seemingly already a joke; after his initial question a tweet was shown on-screen referring to him as a 'long haired freak' - which I thought was unnecessary. The #qanda Twitter stream was full of nasty comments about the man's appearance as what I would describe as Socialist Alternative Chic. So what would the reaction have been if the shoe-thrower had been a well-dressed, clean-cut, armani-wearing businessman? Or a kindly old lady with a blue-rinse and pashmina shawl? 

Looking like an unwashed hippie is a surefire way to not be taken seriously. Even worse, when people like him do stupid things in the name of us 'leftists' he makes us all look bad. I shower, I have clean hair and I am disgusted by Australia's involvement in the Iraq War. I am disgusted by John Howard, his memoirs, his 'legacy' and his continued ignorance and washing of hands over casualties suffered in the name of imaginary WMDs. 

Q&A is a fantastic program. There's nothing like it on Australian television. Yes, it is more entertaining when there is a bit of argy-bargy, but like Tony Jones, I was embarrassed by the shoe-throwing. I wanted today's reaction to the program to focus on Howard's cowardly responses to the questions of reconciliation, Weapons of Mass Destruction and David Hicks*. 

Instead, we're all talking about the 'long haired freak' and his stinky shoes. We're even hearing Howard's own favourite word being tossed around; unAustralian.

~ ~ ~

Finally, allow me some self-indulgence. Of all my Q&A tweeting over the past year, I finally had a stroke of genius with this little ditty;

Oh what fun to have my five minutes of tweety-fame! Unfortunately, I was too slow for a potential on-screen showing *sigh*, but still, it was fun to be trending for a moment or so.

* yes, I understand the irony that I too, am writing about the shoes    

I read a book! Huzzah!

I finally got to read a book last week. An actual book that wasn't related to my academic ambitions. I had been hanging out to read an actual book for a few months. Even more frustrating, I had been hanging out to read a specific actual book - of which I'd been hearing no end of wonderful reviews.

So imagine my delight when I picked up the last copy of The Family Law from the Readings shop at the State Library. Literally the last copy - the man that sold it to me said they had been flying out the door - and I can see why.

I was lucky enough to meet the author, Benjamin Law, a few weeks ago. I've been reading his frankie writing for years (and more recently in Kill Your Darlings) so I did that awkward thing where you approach a person as if you are already friends - or is that just me? In any case, he was so charming and kind that it wasn't awkward at all (for me, *wink*). In fact, I developed a bro-crush on him, as in, I want to be related to him ... - and after reading his book I figure I probably could be.

Of course that's stupid, I couldn't actually be related to him, but humour me for a second; I too grew up in a migrant family, one of four kids (Benjamin is one of five). I too have an eccentric, superstitious mother and a father who is difficult to buy for and/or interact with. In fact, in every chapter of the book I was nodding knowingly, feeling an enormous sense of relief that someone out there, in the real world, had suffered similar insanities to me and had turned out okay - better than okay; successful, relatively well-adjusted and generally brilliant! Hoorah!

The Family Law is a delightful ride. There are tears; some of laughter, some of heartbreak. The book isn't in chronological order, so there is an excited anticipation at the start of each chapter; wondering where in the Benjamin Law time-line we are being taken. It is a collection of engaging stories that you could imagine someone telling at a dinner party - an intelligent, articulate person who has a knack for adding humour with every tinge of sadness - it could be to lighten the blow, or it could be to lull you into a false sense of security.

The picture that Law creates of his wonderful mother is so tangible it's as if she's sitting on the couch next to you, reading over your shoulder and asking you to pronounce certain words out loud. The whole book is full of "ah-ha!" moments (not so much the band, more the revelation) where Law just nails it in creating that one moment in time.  

Since reading it, I have been telling all my friends to read it. Which is interesting, because I have a mixed-bag of friend-circles; the indie-cool kids, the ageing rock-pigs, the affluent Baby-Boomers, the disaffected gen-x'ers, the Bogans, the LOTEs*, the spoiled brats ... and I have somehow managed to find something in this book that each of them would appreciate.

Examples; 

To my friend who has an Italian mother who speaks minimal English; 

"You'll love this book, Law's mother likes using obscenities inappropriately too!" 

To my gay friend who is single; 

"You'll love this book, Law does the numbers on exactly how likely it is that you will find a boyfriend!" 

To my siblings; 

"You'll love this book, you know how mum likes to remind us that she'll be dead one day?"

- You get the idea. Mind you, I don't want to loan it to them just yet because I keep going back to my favourite bits for a re-read.
 

You know what? I could go on about it for ages - just do yourself a favour and go have a sit-down with The Family Law.

 

* Language other than English

The quandary of Q&A

The ABC are usually the first to jump on new technology. ABC Online is full of award-winning feature sites and exciting innovations. ABC2 and Dig music were the first of their kind in the move to digital media. The ABC's iPhone and iPad apps, ABC iView and ABC Now make the national broadcaster's content accessible almost anywhere, at almost any time, on almost any platform.  

Last year ABC Managing Director, Mark Scott, made a speech to the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association detailing his vision for ABC Online to become a digital “town square”. Scott described ABC Online as a place where audiences could speak and be heard, listen and learn. 

In 2002 the ABC tag-line changed from “It’s Your ABC” to “Everybody’s ABC” - a precursor to the development of a community-based ABC, where the audience is no longer a single entity watching or listening but a part of a wider group with a real opportunity to be involved.

The ABC's social media services can now be found on one page, with links to Facebook, newsletters, iView, YouTube and Twitter, amongst others.

But it's Twitter that I want to talk about today. Ahh, my beloved Twitter. There are many ABC folk on Twitter - as you can see from lists such as this one by Daniel Taylor (@Dt_downunder). 

The ABC's panel show Q&A is an interesting example of the national broadcaster being first to test the waters of new technology. For a while now the #qanda Twitter hashtag has come alive on Monday nights - with a vibrant community of smart, passionate, sometimes hilarious, sometimes ill-informed, sometimes idiotic but always engaged community of people commenting on the proceedings on-screen. 

I'm one of them. I watch Q&A on the TV with my laptop at the ready and my phone on stand-by. I love the interactive aspect of the show - some of the comments on Twitter are more intelligent than what the panelists have to say and often the Chaser boys and members of the Crikey team can be found making hilarious observations that are hurriedly re-tweeted.

At the beginning of the program, host Tony Jones advises us that we can stream the show online, ask questions via SMS or through the website, follow on Twitter or through the random selection of tweets shown on-screen. 

Why the tweets on-screen?

Presumably those interested in following the Twitter conversation are ... well ... following the Twitter conversation. For others I've spoken to, who aren't interested in Twitter (I know, they're crazy), the on-screen tweets are a distraction. And why select those tweets that do go on-air at random? Many of the tweets are irrelevant, inaccurate or pointless observations on what the panelists are wearing. Even worse, that unholiest of unholies, some of them have spelling or grammatical errors!*

Wouldn't it be better to show the most re-tweeted tweets? At least that would be giving the television audience an idea of what comments are popular in the twitter-verse. Or how about the top-tweeters; those people that comment most often with the hashtag (- could be just as pointless as random; just because someone speaks often, doesn't mean they have anything interesting to say). 

Yes, some of the tweets on-screen have been brilliant and it is a thrill to see one's "tweety-friends" get their comments up, I just wonder if it's necessary, and if so, if it can be better managed.

The ABC is again striving to be the first to use new technologies to innovate its content, but has it jumped on the bandwagon unnecessarily? It's nice to have so much ABC content on Twitter, both for news and for commentary, but maybe having a presence on Twitter is enough - and having the tweets on-screen is overkill.

There's also the point to be made, which I have made before, that just because someone has an opinion, doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be broadcast in the "town-square". One tweeter felt it necessary to point out that "young ladies shouldn't chew gum" after an audience member asked a question - and his idiotic comment was put on-screen.

So what do you think? Love it or hate it?       

* I may or may not be being a tad pedantic due to my underlying bitterness at not having my tweets put on-screen.

Back to Reality

Channel 7 is currently holding auditions for its reality show Beauty and the Geek which picked up a pretty good following last year. I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that I didn't like it. 

Of course I will watch the first episode because I love being outraged and shocked - confession: sometimes I switch over to Melbourne Talk Radio just to feel my blood pressure rise - it's less effort than exercise and if I listen for long enough I might even throw up and lose a few kgs.

So, reality tv.

I've been keeping up with Masterchef this season. By 'keeping up' I mean switching over in the last 10 minutes to see the taste-testing and elimination. Someone told me a few weeks ago who ends up in the final three so it's no real joy now - mind you, blind Freddy could probably guess them after all the 'favouritism' talk from boned contestants. 

Masterchef's managed to consistently be covered in the tabloid press thanks to a few nobody-even-cares-you're-just-putting-it-in-the-news-as-free-PR type scandals - including the 're-plate-gate' affair. Is it really shocking that they re-plate the food for the cameras? Studio lights + cream-based desserts = liquid ugly ... and you'll be surprised to hear I'm not even a rocket scientist!

Channel 7's Australia's Got Talent has been the expected mixed-bag of freaks and weirdos. I'm sure there has been the occasional talented moth to the flame but I haven't followed closely enough to know if they got through - looking at the judges, I sincerely doubt it. The bits that I have seen have been horrific. I had much more fun watching a repeat of Popstars this morning at 1:30am. Did people really dress like that in the 90s? I don't remember owning a top that was a handkerchief in the front held by pieces of string across the back ... then again maybe I did and have used selective memory to block it out.

Speaking of pieces of material being held together with string, Dancing with the Stars will be back on air soon. Oh what joy, oh what celebration (where's that sarcastic font when you need it). Have you seen the contestant list? One commenter on the channel 7 forum stated quite rightly that someone should sue the station for false advertising. There are maybe one or two people that might fit the description of 'star' but otherwise, the cast is populated with people that aren't even loosely related to stars. 

Alex Fevola is an ex-WAG who's only claim to fame is being cheated on by an AFL player. Whoop! Hold the phone; she has published a coffee-table book! Phew, that justifies that then. Tamara Jaber is the wife (read "PR pet-project") of a man who is famous for being a wanker and/or being dumped from a reality show judging panel. Loooong bow people.  

The most entertaining thing about the show is reading the creative license taken in the bios of the supposed stars. My favourite is Jo Beth Taylor;

Jo Beth Taylor – dancing with Dannial Gosper
Beginning her singing career at the tender age of five, Jo Beth Taylor began performing professionally at the age of 13. In the early 1990s she began a successful music and television career. At just 22 years of age, Jo Beth hosted three weekly tv shows making her the youngest person to ever host a prime-time show on Australian television.  

Right. So what's she been doing in the last 15 years? Way to focus on when she actually had a career - in 1994.

So, we have the usual mix of channel 7 'personalities', miscellaneous sports stars, a musician or two and some vaguely familiar faces (if only from the covers of FHM next to the Kit Kats at the servo). There's no disabled person and no one particularly old or overweight so I'm not sure what the gimmick will be this year ... oh right ... the whole show. Australia, you so disappoint me.

So count me out again - I'm proud to say I've never watched a whole DWTS episode, let alone followed a series. I'd rather shower in acid with a sun-bed chaser. Speaking of which, be sure to look out for the 'natural' tans on the contestants of both DWTS and Beauty and the Geek.  

Baby it's Cold Outside

I love my laptop because it keeps my legs warm while I whinge on Twitter about how cold it is in my flat. I'm complicated like that.

Saturday night was one of Melbourne's coldest nights, with the mercury in the city sitting on 4 degrees in the wee morning hours. And while my spoiled arse was wrapped up in a doona dreaming of pancake stacks and ponies, around 23,000 Victorians were experiencing some form of homelessness. That's right, twenty-three THOUSAND, in Victoria.

SO WHAT'S THE BIG ISSUE?

Last year I had the pleasure of spending some time with several of Melbourne's The Big Issue vendors (as well as the brilliant editor, Alan Attwood and deputy editor, Melissa Cranenburgh). The vendors were strong, articulate, inspiring people. I try to buy the mag from a different seller every fortnight - mostly because I want to spread the love but also because having a chat with the seller always brightens my day. 

A few weeks ago I had a wonderful conversation about George Clooney's endearing charm with an equally charming vendor on Exhibition Street. A few weeks before that I purchased my Big Issue from a severely disabled woman outside Myer. As I approached with purse in hand I got a reassuring smile. I took the tattered magazine which she had been clutching tightly from her hand and helped her put the money in her bag. 

It was empty. 

I was the first person who had approached her all day and it was nearing 4pm. People had been walking past her as though she was invisible. I saw them turn their heads to look at nothing in the opposite direction or suddenly check their phone as if an important SMS just came through. 

I'm not wanting to brag about how awesome I am. I'm just as self-absorbed as the next person. But I was shocked at how many people clearly find it so confronting dealing with homeless or disabled people. 

The GiveNow website has a handy page that outlines some facts as well as ways to help.

Also, I created a short audio mash-up from my talks with The Big Issue peeps - you can have a listen here.

VINNIES CEO SLEEPOUT

The St Vincent de Paul Society in Victoria will be hosting the Vinnies CEO Sleepout next month on June 17th to raise money and community awareness for the important and escalating issue of homelessness.

More than 40 Victorian CEOs and business and community leaders have signed up to give up their beds for the night and experience homelessness for themselves.

CEOs so far on the list include Guy Dobson (Austereo), Rhys Holleran (Southern Cross Media) and Eugene Arocca (North Melb. Football Club). They'll be joined by DMG Radio General Manager, Sam Thompson, ALP Victorian Branch State Secretary, Nicholas Reece and 2010 Australian of the Year, Professor Patrick McGorry.

You can get involved or sponsor a CEO at the website www.ceosleepout.org.au. For some added incentive you should know that the Sydney CEO Sleepout has raised more funds so far than the Melbourne one - come on Melbournians, it's a case of State vs State!

It's so easy to live inside our little bubbles with our headphones on and our faces buried in books (or checking Twitter on our iPhone) - but it's also easy to do something, however small, to assist those in our community that need help. 

I'll stop whinging about my lack of heating ... now.

 

One more thing, check out Rudely Interrupted's new single 'Close my Eyes' produced by Scope.

Why I hate Australian Rules

I hate AFL. I don't watch it, I'm not interested. 

One of the reasons I hate AFL is because it celebrates people like Jason Akermanis.  His article in today's Herald Sun made me want to smash my computer. 

How is it that this person, and people like him (I'm looking at you Sam Newman) have a public voice where they can spout their archaic, homophobic, misogynistic bullshit and the public lap it up like the archaic, homophobic, misogynistic lemmings that they are?

People like Jason Akermanis shouldn't have a public voice - because their opinions can't be backed up with anything even slightly tangible. Here is a supposedly heterosexual man  spouting some half-cocked idea about how he thinks gay people should lead their lives. He's not gay, he's not a psychologist, he's not a sociology major, he's not an expert in sexual health or in suicide prevention - he's a footballer, and that is all. He has no place to publicly comment on the issue of homosexuality in sport. He has no place commenting on anything other than football - the actual game - not whatever does or doesn't happen in the locker room.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion and everyone's opinions are more frequently heard thanks to new media. But Jason Akermanis' opinion is broadcast on commercial radio and printed in commercial newspapers. This gives him 'voice of God' status - meaning that to some people, his opinions are seen as fact. It also means that in the public sphere, other people who think his opinions are fantastic can stand up, pump their fist in the air and say "Yeah! I'm a homophobic asshole too and I say NO gays in sport!" - and they can feel that they are completely justified in saying this, because JASON AKERMANIS thinks so.

I've been trying to write this for a while now, but due to the fact that I am furious, disappointed and ... furious ... it is very difficult to be as articulate as I'd like to be. 

Jason Akermanis is a scared little man. Scared that a gay teammate might glance at him in the shower and he might feel a twinge in his nether regions - which would obviously make him gay. Scared that a group of people he has spent his life assuming were beneath him might actually stand up for themselves against him and people like him and prove that they collectively have more talent, intellect, guts and masculinity than he has in his little finger (or any other *little* appendage he might be compensating for).

I know that not all AFL players are idiots. This article by Adam Gooodes in The Age is excellent. Unlike Akermanis, Goodes actually can talk about Indigenous players because he actually has some experience being one.

I don't care how much Akermanis tries to defend his comments with "I don't hate the gays, some of my best friends are gay" type comments - he is a stupid little man with idiotic opinions that he should keep to himself. 

A fantastic response here from Jack Marx and Ian Roberts speaking on 2UE here. 

Here is the Western Bulldog's official response and I particularly like the photo advocate.com have chosen for their story.

The AFL Footy Show is, as I type, very formally backing away from Akermanis' comments - although Sam Newman's lisping pronunciation of 'homosexual' makes it quite clear what position he takes (- missionary, one would assume).

I want to hear informed, educated opinion from people who know what they're talking about - unfortunately the voices that we hear in Australian mainstream, commercial media are more often than not uneducated, uninformed, bigoted and downright idiotic. 

I'm off to watch Christopher Hitchens on Lateline. Thank Dog for Tony Jones. 

Let the study results show ...

So many things bothered me yesterday - to kick off a generally shitty day there was this tweet;

It struck me as a bit odd. I'm no mathematician, but one in three Australians saying they won't pay more to fight global warming means that two out of three would or were at least thinking about it - as in (and I'm sure this is already quite clear to you) the majority of Australians probably are willing to pay. 

Which means that the headline in the paper, rather than stating "We won't pay" should more accurately have said "We will pay for climate change".

In fact, the news.com.au article only gives the stats on the won't side of things. So we don't know how many respondents were willing to cough up some cash or even the metrics of the study (i.e. if there was an "undecided" option). 

Here's the Sydney Morning Herald's article on the study and here is where you can find the actual results of the study from the Institute of Public Affairs website. 

In fact, besides the 35% of respondents that said they wouldn't pay anything, it was only 3% of respondents that were undecided - leaving a massive 62% of respondents willing to pay between $100 and over $1000 in extra taxes to combat global warming.

I know, I shouldn't expect much from news ltd. 

I'm just saying, it annoyed me. But I'm not done yet.

THEN to finish my busy, stressful, almost insufferable day, I see this tweet;

I'm sure I don't need to say too much about why this one bothered me. 

Here's the two main reasons;

(1) Way to perpetuate stereotypes boys (and you know it was a man that did this study*). As if it needs to be reiterated that in popular culture large, mostly fake breasts draw more attention. I hope the follow-up study is about young women and plastic surgery, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, promiscuity and suicide.

(2) Could you waste time on a more useless topic? I'm pretty sure there's more important studies that could be done ... what about a study on why stupid American professors with no prospect of sex develop fixations on the mammary glands of the waitresses at their local Hooters so create a research project based on them in an attempt to initiate conversation and/or intercourse?

Take a breath. 

Right, so Twitter really got me riled up yesterday. I think I might do my own study on the number of times I slap myself in the forehead wondering how people so stupid manage to live and/or prosper.

Rant End.

* For the record, it was this guy. Professor in Food and Beverage Management eh?, nice title. I wonder if McDonald's has that doctorate in their education program.   

It Doesn't Blow

Chris Taylor and Andrew Hansen from The Chaser have a new project with Triple J called The Blow Parade.

It's a spoof radio program where each week "Captain Blow" (Andrew Hansen) looks at a year in pop-music. There are interviews, gossip, hilarious songs and some seriously dodgy characters.

I've just had a chance to listen to the first two episodes and was laughing out loud all through it. I really like the medium of radio for comedy - particularly scripted, creative comedy like this, it really gives you a chance to make of it what you will. - It helps that The Blow Parade is so tightly edited and well made too.

You can subscribe to the podcast here. The website has a bio, ringtones and a lovely ad for "Putney Currys" - the major sponsors of the show and supposedly a delicious topping for ice-cream. The best bit of the site though is by far the Quiz - do it.

Jolly good show chaps!

Build a Bridge: Logie Tweet-gate

The Logies on Sunday was the usual mess of bad jokes, pretty frocks, undeserving awards and golden moments (thank you Shaun Micallef). I never expect much from the event - if I don't fall asleep it's been a good show and if I'm not hiding behind the couch cringing at the overly-scripted "casual chatter" between presenters, even better.

But seemingly there are people out there that take the whole thing a little too seriously - besides the cast of Home & Away, who's only chance to prove to their parents that they indeed have 'made it' is to take home a "most popular male/female talent" award. There are viewers that are obviously a little too sensitive about their favourite soap/reality stars.

The Herald Sun today has shamed Melbourne comedian Catherine Deveny, calling her Logie tweets acid-tongued and offensive. Really? I thought they were hilarious. In fact, thanks to Deveny, Wil Anderson (who also got a spray from news ltd.) and a few others, the Logie broadcast was made almost bearable. 

What better topic for Australian comedians than our laughable rabble of 'celebrities' on their night of nights? John Mayer spends half his life saying stupid shit - we can't be shocked when he gets bagged for it. And seriously, Bindi Irwin? She's not so much a child as a social construction - there's nothing child-like about her, but for her appearance. In any case, comedy's hit and miss, what I find funny, others might not - but let me have my fun please - and I'll let you keep watching Hey Hey it's Saturday.

Meanwhile, the idiotic tweets of people wondering who KD Lang was and making snide remarks about the fact that she performed barefoot were far more offensive - here's the trick kids, when you actually have talent you don't need the pomp and circumstance of the Gabriela Cilmi number - you can just sing.

"Entertainment Reporter" Pete Timbs on The Circle this morning had a go at both Wil Anderson and Catherine Deveny. He said Wil was a "so-called" comedian (among other things) and was so disgusted by Deveny that he couldn't even talk about her tweets - though he did put a lovely picture of her on screen - nice one Dev. Besides the fact that Pete Timbs was once on a reality tv show generally populated by bogans and boof-heads, what exactly are his credentials to comment on media and/or celebrities? Ohhh, he works for TV Week you say? Well, that clears it up then.

Besides the Twitter storm-in-a-teacup the program wasn't all bad. Bert did a safe performance, KD Lang was amazing, Shaun Micallef shone every time he stepped on stage and tributes to Don Lane and Brian Naylor were respectful (though I'm not sure of Lane Jr. singing at every Australian media event ... we can stop that now, yes?)

Claudia Karvan looked stunning in classic lines - the diamond bracelet, the black gloves, the oh so revealing neckline, the wave in her hair. Perfection. Again, I'm not sure why the top story on news.com.au yesterday was that her nipple was slightly exposed when she leaned forward on the red carpet - it was the least of the 'reveal' issues of the night - I'm pretty sure you could see what Brynne Gordon ate for breakfast whether she was leaning forward or not.

Jessica Marais was gorgeous as usual, as was Margot Robbie. Ruby Rose looked like a contestant on Bret Michael's Rock of Love (and I don't mean that in a good way), though I loved her silver hair.

Overall it would have been a very dull night without Twitter - so I salute Wil, Catherine and the like and look forward to the next otherwise snore-fest event being made bearable by the T-wit-ter pros.

EDIT: Catherine Deveny's been fired from The Age ... what a load of crap. So utterly disappointing. 

 

A BIT OF EVERYTHING

Well, I haven't blogged for a while! Sorry about that. As usual life takes over.

Here's just a quick wrap-up of what's been happening (or is coming up).

Artsy stuff I'm loving;

1) Kill Your Darlings literary journal. Not only is it an amazing collection of writing, reviews, interviews and awesomeness but it looks so sexy. It's worth the moula for the cover pic alone (by Melbourne-based artist Jeremy Ley). There's so much goodness here - do yourself a favour.

2) The Wheeler Centre: Books, Writing, Ideas. This is why I love Melbourne. The Wheeler Centre is all about creating discourse around writers and writing - does that sound boring to you? Well you would be wrong there - check out the videos of events that have already happened - including this amazing performance by Paul Kelly at the Gala Evening of Storytelling - and prepare to concede defeat.

I attended the Gala night on February 13 and let me tell you there was a spark in that very large room - the air was electric with anticipation. Not just for the evening of speakers ahead but at what The Wheeler Centre means for Melbourne and where it might take us. Booking online is easy, many of the events are free and if not, are very reasonably priced. The Wheeler Centre has added further evidence to the "there's always something to do in Melbourne" argument, and how.

3) Melbourne International Comedy Festival. Yeah I know, it's over, but bloody hell I love Melbourne ... did I mention that? I managed to catch a whole lotta Comedy Fest. this year but there were two stand-outs for me. Firstly, Good Evening, with Shaun Micallef and Stephen Curry. If you've read this blog at all you know I have a serious crush on Micallef, but don't let that make you think I'm bias in my very high opinion of this production. I know it was the big-name ticket of the festival but there's a reason that these two gentlemen are so loved; they are brilliant. And that is all.

My second pick is Catherine Deveny's God is Bullshit: That's the Good News. It's so hard to love Deveny because she's so hit and miss. One minute you're reading her column shouting "Right on Sister!" and the next you're cringing behind the couch watching her on Q&A, wondering why she told that really bad joke and was glaring at Peter Dutton as if her retinas were burning. 

So I attended her show hoping for the best and was really, wonderfully impressed. She wasn't cracking a string of one-liners - she was telling a story that was close to her heart and it really worked. You didn't have to laugh, you didn't have to agree, you didn't have to understand. I especially liked the references for us post-Catholic-childhood Atheists; liturgical dancing? check. She was wonderfully entertaining and I do love a good "Fuck You!" to organised religion. And the really good news? She's doing a return season at Trades Hall from the 5th to the 8th of May. In the meantime, check out her Lunchbox/Soapbox at, you guessed it, The Wheeler Centre! Whoop!

TV stuff I'm loving;

1) The fact that The Pacific out-rated Hey Hey it's Saturday on its debut Wednesday night.

I watched a bit of Hey Hey and was suitably appalled at the nanna jokes, thinly-veiled racism, not so thinly-veiled sexism and general cringe-worthiness. It's just so wrong. It's like someone tore a hole in the space/time continuum and vomited in it. I didn't watch The Pacific, I'm not really into war-porn. I will try to watch some of the Melbourne episode tonight though (or one of the seven hundred 'encore' repeats on 7 digital).

2) Wilfred (SBS, Monday night 10pm). That mangy dog is a heart breaker, but oh, how I love him. This season is brilliant, my favourite so far is episode 2 where Sarah takes the boys to Nambour and Wilfred has an interesting existential conversation with a Cocky played by ... what do you know? Mr Stephen Curry! (I'm really tying things together here, huh?)

Other stuff;

Underbelly - Episode 1. I watched the first 15 minutes, the last 15 minutes and some bits in between. The dialogue is crap, the acting is average, the voice-over is intolerable - let's see, that leaves tits, stabbings, guns, tits, money, tits, drugs and tits. The most interesting thing about it was following the boob-count on Twitter. Underbelly; where television soap stars go to die (in a knife fight in King's Cross of course). The most horrifying bit was when the voice-over stated that the good-girl-turned-hooker had "liberated" herself by becoming a whore. Seriously? For fuck's sake.

MTR AM - Melbourne's new boys club AM radio station. You can expect bigoted commentary from program director Steve Price and his mates Andrew Bolt, Sam Newman, Steve Vizard and Jason Akermanis, to name a few. Any women you ask? Well a woman does the news updates, and then there's a program on Sundays that's co-hosted by a woman. Take THAT glass ceiling! I am loving thinking of things "MTR" might be an acronym for though; More Tiring Rants is my current favourite.

Roberta Williams - Since the death of Carl Williams on Monday we can expect to see a whole lot more of Roberta (well, whatever there's left to see after her lads mag shoot *spews in my mouth a little bit*). Supposedly New Idea is offering $250,000 for her story and ACA and TT will no doubt be returning to the story every day with "new angles" - i.e. What did Carl eat for breakfast that day? Was he a boxers or briefs kinda guy and did that have anything to do with his homicidal tendencies? - You know, the important stuff that the public want to know.

Masterchef is back - I'm kind of watching it, in that I'm watching it but not actually looking at it because I'm doing other stuff (like cooking a masterchef-worthy dinner). It's all tears and coulis really isn't it? "I'm doing this for my family", "I didn't want to look back and realise I wasted my life", "This is the most intense thing I've ever done" and from the judges, "I'd sell this in my restaurant", "Who would have thought a *insert occupation here* could cook" and "We want you to continue your journey" ... there's the recap for you.

Twitter - I love Twitter. I especially love living vicariously through Twitter. Watching Q&A whilst following Twitter makes it almost bearable when a planted Young Liberal asks a stupid, irrelevant  question (almost). Reading all the hilarious responses to the latest scandal is especially fun - my favourites are @thingboganslike, @firstdogonmoon, @trubnad, @domknight, @scrivenersfancy, @catherinedeveny and @wil_anderson.

Right, so there's a bit of a lot of stuff that I've been musing on - hopefully I get a chance to blog a bit more frequently soon.

In the meantime - follow me on TWITTER ... it's over there on the sidebar ... do it ... do it now ...

Get the Lowdown

The new ABC1 comedy Lowdown looks fantastic;



It's taking Hungry Beast's spot at 9pm on Wednesday nights from April 21. I just adore Adam Zwar and his brilliant series Wilfred which is currently screening on SBS - am very much looking forward to this one.

Bindi and the Bottle

Comedian Fiona O'Loughlin is in the small paper today after a throwaway comment on Wednesday night's Spicks & Specks (8:30pm ABC1). 

Page 7 of the Herald Sun ran a banner "Fellow stars, viewers slam boozy comedian for 'slap' remark". The article even had a breakout box with a blow-by-blow account of the events on screen - excessive? Yes.

The first line of the article read;

Alcoholic comedian Fiona O'Loughlin has sunk to a new low, calling Bindi Irwin a creep who needs a slap in the face.

But by midday the online article had removed the terms "boozy" and "alcoholic" with the only reference to O'Loughlin's former alcohol dependency in italics at the end;

O'Loughlin discusses her battle with the booze in an interview to be published in Saturday's Herald Sun.

Well, well, well. How convenient for the Herald Sun that they should stumble across this "public outcry" just days before their very own feature on O'Loughlin.

The article claims that the ABC's online message board was "awash" with criticism. Really? At midday there were just 22 comments on the thread regarding Wednesday's episode of S&S - hardly a public outcry.

Mind you, there are over 400 comments on the HS website in response to the article. Many of them are along the lines of "how is this news?" and many more along the lines of "it's called comedy, get over it". Sure there are the "who will think of the CHILDREN" lot but I'm pretty sure they all come from the same church-group and flood the comments section en masse whenever the 'moral panic' bells ring out and they are called to action.

Cheap self-promotion from the Herald Sun - not entirely shocking.

Perhaps O'Loughlin can sue for defamation seeing as she is not, in fact, a boozy alcoholic at this time. Whereas Bindi Irwin is, in fact, slightly creepy.  

Bee in your Bonnet?

Up until now, if you wanted to make a formal complaint to a commercial tv station you had to send or fax an actual letter - I mean putting actual pen to actual paper and purchasing an actual envelope (yes, they still make them). 

Well, times they are a changin' and we have this newfangled gadget called the in-ter-net nowadays - and FreeTV Australia has caught on.

SO - if you want to make a complaint about a commercial free-to-air station you just have to go here and fill out the webform. Easy as that.

Perhaps you'll complain about the frequency of Two and a Half Men episodes being aired? - every two and a half minutes as far as I can tell (or that they're aired at all). Perhaps you'll complain about Benny Hill episodes being aired in prime time on channel 7TWO when the youngens can watch and learn his vomit-inducing skills in objectifying women and terribly unfunny what-I'm-assuming-are-supposed-to-be jokes? Maybe you'll complain about the lack of ethnically diverse characters on Neighbours? Or how about that old chestnut of the advertisements being ten times louder than the programs? (I should point out they have a whole page addressing that very issue - which should by no means stop you complaining).

Ohhh, there's so much joy to be had in whingeing. Come on Australia - this is what we do best - and now it's been made easy! Just two minutes away from your Facebook stalking could have you receiving carefully worded emails from the stations explaining to you that your comments have been taken into careful consideration! Pure JOY!

Obviously you're not reading this anymore because you're already over there telling Mel and Kochie just exactly what you think of them ... ahhhhh, so much potential.

* I should point out that the page states;

This Electronic Lodgement System can only be used for complaints under matters covered by the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. Code Complaints include program classification;  accuracy, fairness and respect for privacy in news and current affairs; the amount of non-program matter on television; and placement of commercials and program promotions.

But there are links to other feedback avenues so don't let that stop you.

Vulva Vulva Vulva

If you're to believe the Herald Sun people are supposedly up in arms about Hungry Beast's segment on vaginas, labiaplasty and magazine censorship which aired last night at 9pm and is repeated tonight at 8:30pm on ABC2. Obviously the Beast is attracting a good audience these days - has everyone forgotten a rather confronting feature documentary aired on SBS last June titled The Perfect Vagina? It showed far more graphic scenes of the surgery and of the female anatomy in general. There has also been a similar documentary regarding male genitalia aired several times over the last few years on SBS.

So why has Aunty showing us a few "graphic" images got everyone's knickers in a knot? 

Let's see, is it that Gen Y (Hungry Beast's target demographic) are prudes when it comes to female genitalia? Doubt it. 

Is it that no one actually watches SBS? Refuse to believe it. 

Or is it that people are quicker to make complaints about the ABC because it's the main public broadcaster and clearly should not be using its funding to educate the masses on the correct representation of the vulva? Methinks it's the latter. After all, it's your ABC, you pay taxes, so you get to put your two cents in about every little thing that may or may not be to your tastes.

The thing is, it is our ABC - as a collective - and most people on Twitter thought the segment was informative and gave it much kudos. Who are the people that found it offensive? Are they not aware of anatomy? Should their children not be aware of the misrepresentation that the censorship laws are creating? Perhaps they should spend their time complaining to the commercial stations about music videos or to their local service station for shoving Krystal Forscutt in their children's faces. 

God forbid the kiddles see an anatomically correct vulva without diamantes or a playboy bunny symbol anywhere near it.    

I thought the segment was well made and not at all innapropriate. I'm not sure whether the magazine censorship laws can be blamed entirely for women's warped visions of what we are supposed to look/act like - but it was a reasonable argument expressed well. Perhaps the sensitive dears not wanting to view the female anatomy could have changed the channel after the first, or second, warning.

Here's Kirsten Drysdale's blog re the issues of censorship covered in the segment.

Wicked Crime-Drama

Wicked Love: The Maria Korp Story scored 1.3 million viewers last night for channel 9. Starring Rebecca Gibney and Vince Colosimo it told the tale of murdered mother of two Maria Korp in 2005 - a tale that included sex, intrigue, lies, swingers and a good dose of Colosimo-esque ego-mania. It was very watchable.

I wonder though, whether it might have been better to use different names for the characters rather than those from the real life case. With the success of Underbelly has come a trend for real life crime-drama on Australian television. The thing about drama is that the story is embellished to create it. Facts are included or excluded for entertainment purposes. Events are changed, assumed, embellished.

Many people watching last night would have developed an opinion by the end of the telemovie. 

Whether it was that poor old Joe Korp had a personality disorder that was evident from childhood (thanks to some grainy childhood flashbacks of little Joe in 'cowboy' mode) or that Tania Herman was a misguided fool-for-love led astray by her dominating lover - viewers are making assumptions about people in real life based on the character portrayals by some of their favourite actors.

I found it interesting that Maria Korp was portrayed (by Gibney) as a normal albeit long-suffering wife of a cheating husband but that her obsession with psychics, spirituality, animal sacrifice and penchant for the "swinger" lifestyle was touched on only slightly. Her 'eccentric' behaviour was definitely shown as only being a result of her husband being unfaithful.

Tania Herman was portrayed almost as an innocent. A lonely single mother looking for a good time on the internet who was convinced to commit a crime by her lover. A far cry from the tough, muscle-clad Queen of the Jailhouse as some news reports have suggested more recently.

Then there's Joe Korp, eerily portrayed by Vince Colosimo as an unhinged, egotistical, dominating smooth-talker. He is quite plainly the villain of the piece and is unlikeable from the very first moment we meet him - perhaps because we know how the story unfolds.

But these characters are not, in reality, accurate portrayals of the actual people involved in the case - how can they be? Yet some viewers have been commenting on forums and blogs today about the case as though they had read all the court transcripts and had a deep understanding of the actual events.

As a crime-drama Wicked Love was quite good. But it's not a documentary - if it were, then such attractive actors would not have been chosen and there would have been no voice-of-God narration from the dead victim. Even the title suggests that this is indeed the "Maria Korp Story" - not a story based on actual events.

In fact it is based on a novel that is based on actual events called The Maria Korp Case: The Woman in the Boot Story, by Carly Crawford - which I haven't read.

It seems to me though, that in using actual cases for these crime shows that networks are making the viewer the judge, jury and executioner of the people involved in the real case. 

It's an interesting genre and I do find these programs fascinating, but to be honest I'd rather watch Australian Story and get the facts from the actual people involved (if they want to tell them) - even if they are less attractive and there are no soft-focus sex scenes.