ITT an open and frank discussion about the journalist, critic and polemecist Charlie Brooker

Incidentally, Screenwipe starts again on BBC4 in 15 minutes.

Yeh. I'm in. Although I might watch it with a delay, 'cos I'm trying to get some work done first ;)

Why in the fuck am I watching The Book Quiz? Giles Coren and David Aaronovitch, together at last...

Also:

Surely not watching much TV kind of takes away a fair amount of interest in Brooker's schtick?

I watch fuck all telly, really. I watch Brooker so I can remind myself why.

One thing I tried watching recently was Dead Set. It was fucking rubbish.

Giles Coren and David Aaronovitch, together at last

Are they fighting to the death? Otherwise: not interested.

I thought the bit about how Pop Idol and X Factor has led the TV-viewing public to expect to be allowed to have their say on everything broadcast, such as Jonathan Ross's Sachsgate, was rather astute.

Also, by posting this I am proving his point. 1-0 to Brooker.

Bits I loved: his coruscating put-down of newspapers (and indeed pretty much the entirety of the Ross/Brand segment); the increasingly self-deprecating nature of the whole thing; the credits.

Bit that really needs axed, quickly: the "poet".

Bit I wasn't entirely sure about: the unnecessarily brutal mocking of Britannia High's (admittedly clumsy) attempt to deal with dyslexia. But -- to quote Russell Brand -- it was quite funny.

Was it me, or did half of Brooker's introductory links from one bit to the next seem as if they'd been shot in one take? And was it intentional? Did I miss some point about sloppy TV and lower budgets?

The thing about the Britannia High bit - a programme I'd never even heard about: is it a kid's show or a Saturday teatime thing (as I can't believe it would be on in prime time)? - is that, if I didn't know that Screenwipe is a show that comments on actual TV shows, I would have assumed it had been made up as a parody for comedic effect. It really made me think "This can't be real," and that was before I saw the dyslexia bit, which near enough made my mind fall out of my head. ITV shows surely haven't got that bad, have they? Or am I just old now? Go back a few years and Britannia High would have made the S Club 7 TV show look like Songs of Praise.

Alternatively, Britannia High seems like the dramatic equivalent of those times on Sky News or when the stupid graphics or idiotic scripts make me think "Ha! It's just like The Day Today or Brasseye, only real and not ten years ago and ten times more stupid because of those two things".

In short, back in the good old days, it was all fields around here and you kids wouldn't have got where I am today, etc.

Britannia High is kids TV in a Sunday tea-time-ish slot.

I can't believe you're thinking that was the potential parody though. Paul Ross' BIG BLACK BOOK OF HORROR, people!

Poet needs to go, yes.

Britannia High is astonishingly only the third worst programme on at that time on Sunday, behind Antiques Roadshow and Bremner, Bird And Fortune Explain The Recession (Anyone Remember When/If We Were Funny?).

What have you got against Antiques Roadshow?

Don't tell me - it's dumbed down since the golden days when whoeverthefuckitwas did it?

In a nutshell: Fiona Bruce pretending to be happy.

Was it me, or did half of Brooker's introductory links from one bit to the next seem as if they'd been shot in one take? And was it intentional?

I don't know if it's intentional but it's always been like this, i.e. as though he shot all his links in one long night with a webcam set up to point at his coffee table and couch.

In a nutshell: Fiona Bruce pretending to be happy.

― What a broad smile! It is like a delta! (Marcello Carlin), Friday, 21 November 2008 11:44 (39 minutes ago) Bookmark

Bring back Aspel and his suave mannerisms and carefully sculpted barnet.

Antiques Roadshow is one of those TV institutions I would love to take charge of for a short while just to troll its core audience audience. I think Fearne and Reggie could do a good job with it...

> Bring back Aspel

was all downhill after authur negus.

Brooker is just one of a string of people who were allright or even good once, but who've ran their act on for way too long, I think? I remember thinking he was funny years ago, but he appears to have been doing the exact same thing for like a decade or something now.

I actually had to pause it twice last night to laugh like a tool: admittedly, it was at knob gags both times (the "so, the director is shooting a load into the actor's mouth?" and .. cuh, I can't even remember the other one).

And I suppose I did learn something: that advertising manages to be even more O_o than I ever imagined.

very necessary trashing of Dawn Porter and Gok Wan on tonight's Screen Wipe. full marks to Konnie "excellent! let's go piss" Huq too.

last week's episode on screenwriters was great

It was, wasn't it? I liked the old-fashioned format: a bunch of obvious but important questions - basically variants on "where do you get your ideas?" - answered at length by thoughtful people at the top of their game with an interviewer more interested in listening than chipping in with his own observations a la Mark Lawson.

I had a dream last night that Paul Ross had committed suicide due to the mockery his career received on Screenwipe the other week.

Then the tabloids hounded Brooker out of the country, Jonathan Ross style.

It was very entertaining but I'm disturbed by the fact I dreamt about it.

was feelin this series but children's tv is fundamentally boring imo.

yeah it all seemed less interesting coincidentally not long after my 10th birthday

What? That was ace (if only for revealing Johnny fucking Ball Games), and the Oliver Postgate tribute was a genuinely heartfelt and beautifully moving piece of television.

Anyone know what the music used under it (the tribute) was?

If anyone cares: it was Ghosts Of Things To Come, by Clint Mansell, from the Requiem For A Dream soundtrack.

i have noticed that fans of this charlie brooker fellow are often socially awkward young men who may well feel inclined to consider themselves superior to the general population.

can i have a sweetie, now?

who may well feel inclined to consider themselves superior to the general population

Well: there's a raft of psychological evidence suggesting that (in the west, at least) a majority of people feel thus, which is obviously impossible (ie how can a majority be better than average?) ... but yeh, "fans of Brooker tend to be young men" is probably true; young men, or at least the ones who are inclined to watch middlebrow BBC4 programmes, are quite likely to display elements of social awkwardness (though really, who isn't?) ... I'm so sorry, were you trying to make a point or something?

i enjoyed the bit where he was on that morning kids tv show as Angry News Man. he didn't seem as out of place as you might think, but then i grew up watching Mr Bennett and all kinds of other weirdos

I sincerely wish I'd stumbled upon that -- Brooker on Saturday-morning kids' TV -- by accident, with no idea what was going on. That would have made my week.

> (ie how can a majority be better than average?)

because you get to pick your own criteria?

Funny that Dom hates Charlie Brooker so much when he always reminds me of him. Biffo?!??!?!

If ilx hates Charlie Brooker then there is no hope for ilx.

It's taking self-loathing to a whole new level

because you get to pick your own criteria?

Eh? Subjectively, yes, everyone can think they're better than average. But that doesn't stop "a majority being better than average" from being (objectively) impossible.

I think I know more girls than dudes who make a big show of how much they like Brooker

my point is that people focus on different things and there are plenty to choose from. i am better than average because i am more than averagely intelligent. that is the criteria i have chosen. other people will focus on other things, things where they are invariably in the top half and that will be their criteria for being a good person. everybody is better than (an) average because there are a lot of different measures, a lot of different averages.

Why I owe Charlie Brooker a blow job
There may be graphs later.

My main reasoning follows the model that Brooker has given me more pleasure than, let's say, a slightly above average boyfriend would have done a given time period. Let's say over three months.

During the last three months, I have read Brooker's book Dawn of the Dumb, followed his columns in The Guardian and watched the first two series of Screenwipe on Youtube. Conservative estimates show that the book made me laugh out loud or gasp in amusement (often in public) on average every three pages, and made me at the very least grin or even snort every page. So let's say that's one moment of true self abandonment-style pleasure every two pages. 338 pages = 169 moments. And a minimum of one per column in the paper – let's say 20 moments there. And on the telly, I'd say I got giddy with pleasure once every three minutes– so, 10 per episode, nine episodes = 90 moments.

An above average boyfriend...well, it depends on how above average, I suppose. Let us presume moderate bedroom talent, and that I am typically demanding my usual three weeks out of four. So, the enthusiastic little chap gives me what I want five times a week – so, that's 45 pleasure points. And he cracks some entertaining jokes a couple of times a week, and, importantly, indulges my warped attempts at humour (this deserves credit) – so, 5 points a week equals 60 over the three months. Assorted additional marks such as making me a nice cup of tea periodically are accrued – generously, I shall assume a figure of 45.

So, Brooker's exceptional 279 plays fictional average boyfriend's measly 150 (and that's even without deductions made for mitigating stress factors caused by undue emotional attachment). And yet fictional average boyfriend has, over this period, received a bare minimum of 24 instances of fellatio. That's one for every six moments of unadulterated, selflessly-given pleasure. The lucky bastard. And what is Brooker's reward? Nothing (save the money he makes from book sales, TV appearances etc.). I say it's unjust.

And that is why I owe Charlie Brooker a blow job. Technically, 46.5 blow jobs, I suppose.

lol you have clearly nailed whoever wrote that

full marks to Konnie "excellent! let's go piss" Huq too.

― Yentl vs Predator (blueski), Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:51 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

word on that.

especially because in an earlier series brooker did one of his trademark 'wanking in front of the tv' shots when he showed a clip of her.

Most people within my existence are pretty stupid though xxxxxxp

Eh? Subjectively, yes, everyone can think they're better than average. But that doesn't stop "a majority being better than average" from being (objectively) impossible.

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 18 December 2008 11:26 (19 minutes ago) Bookmark

Not of the minority beneath the average are significantly beneath. For example, take 3 numbers, 1, 8 and 9. The average is 6, and the majority of instances is above that average.

Dropping mad science here!

everybody is better than (an) average because there are a lot of different measures, a lot of different averages

OK there, utopian kind dude with your seeing the best in everyone ;)

Without wanting to derail the thread spectacularly: the experiments that have examined this have used the mean of scores from a host of categories. Now, I accept that isn't necessarily the perfect way to do it, but it is an attempt to find an overall "rating" (of both the self and others) that takes various dimensions into account. The effect tends to be the same: everyone (certainly in the US and UK) ultimately thinks they're better than everyone else. (Indeed, one argument is that such an outlook is actually beneficial for overall mental health.)

Am I right in assuming you'll have an Athens login? If you're interested ... Alicke (1985); Silvera and Seger (2004).

Not of the minority beneath the average are significantly beneath. For example, take 3 numbers, 1, 8 and 9. The average is 6, and the majority of instances is above that average.

Yes, but if you used just three participants in a social-psychology experiment then it'd be kinda flawed, no? :) The experiments I'm talking about have, by necessity, involved enough participants to get something approximating a normal distribution/curve.

Yeah you're right, just being a statistics pedant really!

And you're right to do so! This is one of those things I wish I'd never mentioned, because I did such a half-arsed job of explaining it first time round and I'm now trying to fill in the gaps and leaving myself open to attacks from all sides :)

> Am I right in assuming you'll have an Athens login?

you are below average in your assumptive powers 8) but i have read the preciseseses and see what you mean.

> OK there, utopian kind dude with your seeing the best in everyone ;)

you have this wrong as well, as anyone here at work will tell you. i just know that i can happily ignore my own severe character flaws and focus on the good things (and, yes, often write them off as beyond my control). which i think is a common survival mechanism.

"Norwegians showed significantly less self-enhancement bias than did Americans"

go america! USA! USA! etc

you have this wrong as well

Well, yeh: it's not something I'd necessarily ascribe to any ILX0r, come to think of it ;)

A few nights ago i had an amazing dream where i was in bed with Charlie Brooker. He kept trying to go down on me, but i was too shy so i kept clamping my legs together so he couldn't get at me. He was rather annoyed. To try and appease him i asked him what he wanted me to do to him, he said he wanted 'a veggie' and i pretended to know what that meant. But i never found out because he started taking cocaine from a really weird apparatus. Then i spilt some on a pillow, and he was annoyed just because i made a mess, which was odd because we were at my house.