Hots on Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 ................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If this were a case of casting someone to play a 20-year-old character, you would probably be right; but age is completely irrelevant to the ability to present a rural affairs show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If this were a case of casting someone to play a 20-year-old character, you would probably be right; but age is completely irrelevant to the ability to present a rural affairs show. i would say it either is, or they just got a better presenters as they seem to say their rating did go up with the new person. might also be that they moved to prime time at the same time. with the advertising and obsession with youth though, it seems no one want to see 'old people' on the screen. or they want to see them but 'in their place'. the ratings and such can't be lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 If this were a case of casting someone to play a 20-year-old character, you would probably be right; but age is completely irrelevant to the ability to present a rural affairs show. We can't go down the road of judging ability when it comes to presenting TV shows; any number of celebrities could do the job competently, its about who the producers think is the right person(in their opinion) in terms of looks, personality and the general persona of the individual to attract the most viewers...its a very subjective thing and therefore age discrimination laws shouldn't come into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Not sure I entirely see the logic in this decision since they kept John Craven on and he was 68. Must say I do quite like Julia Bradbury though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laineyiow Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 As Richard Madeley and Fiona Phillips pointed out on Radio 2 this morning this shouldn't really have been an "ageism" thing at all but "sexism". If you look at the number of TV presenters who are "of a certain age", the majority of these will be MEN!!! It seems to be only female presenters that are given "the elbow", so I feel that they were right when they said it was a "sexism" issue rather than an "ageism" issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Not sure I entirely see the logic in this decision since they kept John Craven on and he was 68. yeah, but he's been bumped down to a five minute "serious" report. Countryfile has been seriously dumbed down, and seems to be a similar clone of Sunday morning's "Country Tracks" - which ironically features a lot of old Countryfile reports. And the plugging of the Countryfile calendar every episode is now very irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glennis Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If this were a case of casting someone to play a 20-year-old character, you would probably be right; but age is completely irrelevant to the ability to present a rural affairs show. She was good as well. I was really disappointed when they moved this show from a Sunday morning, to the evening slot ... and Julia Bradbury is just irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If they can't fire somebody because she is old and wrinkly, will they stop hiring people because they have big blue eyes? ... or other physical attributes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12168422 Surely in show business the age discrimination laws shouldn't apply; produces/directors etc are free to cast, high and fire who they want for whatever reason...its just the nature of show business. Why should show business be different from real life. My only surprise is that she coul dprove it whilst not actually being employed by the BBC - she was freelance and i would have thougt they'd have the right to employ or not. They also apparently sacked Michaela Strachan from the same show who's only 44(or is she 54?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.