I wish it wasn't ... Live from Planet Earth

These days when I wonder if it's just me that's feeling a certain way I type a few words into the Twitter search box and see if anyone else is running it up the flagpole. Last night I did that with the words "Ben Elton". If you've had a look at the #benelton stream, I found that I wasn't at all alone in my disappointment.

Ben Elton: Live from Planet Earth debuted last night on channel 9 (to me and a handful of others so the ratings suggest). I'd been quietly hopeful that Elton, who had written British classics Blackadder and The Young Ones, would create an entertaining, quirky, mixed-bag of skits and stand-up that pushed the envelope in a new, fresh way. 

Yes, I know, I'm usually so cynical, I really shouldn't have had any hopes. For starters, it was on channel 9 - not exactly the home of quality Australian content nowadays - but Elton really used to be funny. His books are funny. And he's British - they're generally funny, right? And then there was all that young talent in the ensemble cast. Surely giving young Australian comedic talent a go is worthwhile isn't it?

Well, maybe not. Yes, there is certainly some talent there, but unfortunately Elton wrote the whole thing, so a lot of the 'talent' of the younger cast is being wasted.

Case in point; Veronica Milsom. You would know her from the ABC's Hungry Beast. She's funny, and talented, and gorgeous (which is handy), yet she failed to shine last night on Planet Earth. One particularly horrific skit was a share-house parody where Lady Ga Ga, Beyonce, Lily Allen and Amy Winehouse are shacked up together. Milsom does a great Lady Ga Ga - we already knew this, because she did it on Hungry Beast;

So I guess it was Ben Elton's script that made it so un-funny when Ga Ga and the girls chatted about panties and likened a shit left in the toilet to Mike Tyson's arm. It was just horrific. Even the most talented actors couldn't have saved that script.

All the skits were bad. Why go live if the material is going to be tired and old? A whole lot of the characters were throw-backs from old ones, or just plain rip-offs.

Kylie Mole anyone?

Even Prue and Trude from Kath & Kim made an appearance in the guise of a male/female combo. The thing is that if these homages to past comedic genius had been written well and had a fresh, new angle, it would have been absolutely fine. But it seemed that nothing was new. Take away the overkill on the word 'totally' and take away the innuendo by blatantly referring to female genitalia as 'fanwah' and you have Kylie Mole. Not an homage, a rip-off. 

Where's the imagination in calling a skit about girls share-housing "Girl Flat", or the character of a fat chef "Fat Chef". Live from Planet Earth? Elton seems to be living in Bizarro World where fart jokes and thrush are hilarious and new comedy topics.  

I sound harsh, don't I? And I really wish I didn't because a few of the actors in the ensemble are truly wonderful. Unfortunately, Elton's self-indulgence is stifling anything entertaining they might be able to share. Yep, some of his stand-up was funny and yep, Arj Barker was funny, and yep, Barbara from Bankworld as Elaine Front looks hopeful, but episode one was generally crap. 

I suppose I have to accept that Elton's not going to do anything groundbreaking these days.  He did his groundbreaking 3 decades ago and we are grateful for it. It's someone else's turn now; in the UK with shows like The Mighty Boosh and Garth Marenghi's Dark Place, and right here from Chris Lilley and The Chaser boys.

Still, I don't think Nine should cut it, I'd rather watch Aussies try than another re-run of Two and a Half Men (or some other crap American show for that matter). Maybe Elton will loosen his grip and make it more collaborative - give the actual young people a chance to comment on their world, rather than sticking to cliched, outdated gags.

Finger's crossed the show comes good, or at least has a chance to. There are glimmers of hope there, but channel 9 aren't known for giving programs a chance to grow (and/or redeem themselves). I'm lowering my expectations from 'groundbreaking' to 'entertaining'. Let's see how that works out.

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.