Crosswords0 min ago
Samantha ' thick as a' Brick is at it again:(
66 Answers
The deluded nightmare that is Samantha Brick has once again ( sadly) put pen to paper and is now having a go at lovely, interesting Mary Beard because she doesn't cnsider her attractive enough apparently. She's still blind to how horrifically vile and shallow she really is. Mind you the Daily Mail are onto a winner with her, everyone's going to read it just because she's possibly the most universally loathed woman in Britain.
http://www.dailymail....omen-ARE-ugly-TV.html
http://www.dailymail....omen-ARE-ugly-TV.html
Answers
To be precise, SB's view isn't that she shouldn't be on TV.
She agrees wirh AA Gill's original opinion that MB is 'too ugly for TV'[
]Many 50+ female tv personalitie
Not...
She agrees wirh AA Gill's original opinion that MB is 'too ugly for TV'[
]Many 50+ female tv personalitie
Not...
17:39 Thu 03rd May 2012
Yeah point taken Mark- just loathe her though and couldn't quite help myself. She's slightly like being possessed by the devil- you feel you need to tell someone so it takes it away form you a little.
A. A. Gill is no better though, he's the reason I didn't go to Haye, I wouldn't trust myself not to pumble his witless, smirking little head in. What is it lately with this culture of being as utterly vile as possible?
A. A. Gill is no better though, he's the reason I didn't go to Haye, I wouldn't trust myself not to pumble his witless, smirking little head in. What is it lately with this culture of being as utterly vile as possible?
i read the Mail, do the crossword, however i have skipped the idiot woman's guide to beauty according to Samantha laid a Brick. She writes drivel. I did read part of the first article she wrote weeks ago, then none since. Mary Beard has already been lambasted for her looks, presenting style, by AA Gill, why i don't know, except as she said some can't get to grips with clever women, and she is, couldn't care less about her looks.
-- answer removed --
I gave up reading the articles after the first one. I thought that 'maybe' her husband might be a normal person - then I saw him posing for a photograph with his big, shiny gun.
My lady cat is beautiful on the outside but she is vicious (and needy and clingy) and even the vet said that she was 'a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic'. >>>That was a catty remark. :-)
My lady cat is beautiful on the outside but she is vicious (and needy and clingy) and even the vet said that she was 'a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic'. >>>That was a catty remark. :-)
I read Samantha Brick's initial article, and posted one of the original threads on here to debate it. on that occasion she was indeed selfpitying and egotistical, and rightly shot down for her inflated opinion of her attraction, and stereotypical view of her gender that apparently loathe attractive women as potential partner-stealers.
This however is an entirely separate issue, and if you read her article, what she says does make perfect sense.
Samantha Brick should not be castigated for stating simple facts, based on data to which she has had access as TV executive - namely that people will switch off if they find a presenter to be unattractive. That is a fact, backed up by audience data, and there is no escape from it.
In the case of Mary Beard, her obvious inteligence and deep understanding of her subject is submerged in the fact that as a presenter, she resmebles a mad woman in an attic - both in appearence and delivery.
It is no use arguing that because someone is intelligent and knowledgeable, TV viewers will simply ignore their visual and aural oddities - human nature does not work like that. It should - but it doesn't.
So when Ms Brick advises that Ms Beard should have had the issues of her visual and aural style addressed in advance, I am in entire agreement with her.
Should people like Ms Beard be required to alter her appearence and demeanour for the camersas when people like the Hairy Bikers can look like unbathed tramps and still score viewing figures? No - but they do because that is the reality of the medium in which they work - and AA Gill made that point, somewhat acerbically as usual, in his Sunday Times column.
The only point at which I got annoyed with Ms Brick's analysis was when she referred to the hostility she received for thinking of herself as 'attractive' - which shows some selective memory on her part - her original article used the word 'beautiful' several times, when confirming that her friends kept their husbands on short leashes when she was around (!)
But to reiterate - here she is correct. Some women are too 'ugly' for TV, but that is less the fault of the producers, or the medium, and more the fault of society which requires visually attractive and vocally appealing people to populate its documentaries.
It may not be a pleasant poiint to accept, but accepting it may be a good step towards doing something about it - and eduacting people that physical appeal should not be a prereq-requiste for a
This however is an entirely separate issue, and if you read her article, what she says does make perfect sense.
Samantha Brick should not be castigated for stating simple facts, based on data to which she has had access as TV executive - namely that people will switch off if they find a presenter to be unattractive. That is a fact, backed up by audience data, and there is no escape from it.
In the case of Mary Beard, her obvious inteligence and deep understanding of her subject is submerged in the fact that as a presenter, she resmebles a mad woman in an attic - both in appearence and delivery.
It is no use arguing that because someone is intelligent and knowledgeable, TV viewers will simply ignore their visual and aural oddities - human nature does not work like that. It should - but it doesn't.
So when Ms Brick advises that Ms Beard should have had the issues of her visual and aural style addressed in advance, I am in entire agreement with her.
Should people like Ms Beard be required to alter her appearence and demeanour for the camersas when people like the Hairy Bikers can look like unbathed tramps and still score viewing figures? No - but they do because that is the reality of the medium in which they work - and AA Gill made that point, somewhat acerbically as usual, in his Sunday Times column.
The only point at which I got annoyed with Ms Brick's analysis was when she referred to the hostility she received for thinking of herself as 'attractive' - which shows some selective memory on her part - her original article used the word 'beautiful' several times, when confirming that her friends kept their husbands on short leashes when she was around (!)
But to reiterate - here she is correct. Some women are too 'ugly' for TV, but that is less the fault of the producers, or the medium, and more the fault of society which requires visually attractive and vocally appealing people to populate its documentaries.
It may not be a pleasant poiint to accept, but accepting it may be a good step towards doing something about it - and eduacting people that physical appeal should not be a prereq-requiste for a
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.