Hooray, she's gone!

[Clinton1]

Peter,
With all due respect - everyone has a choice as to how they will live their lives.

If someone chooses to peddle that tripe, then regardless of whether it is 'just a job', I think it is fair to judge them on their merits.

Each to their own though.

[Groggy]

What a load of vitriolic outpourings against Naomi Robson. I am abhorred and disgusted at such nastiness. Whilst it was said that it was nothing personal they are surely very personal attacks against her.

Since you've quoted my "Nothing personal" comment (and I was the only one to use those words) I have to assume you are referring to what I have said is "vitriolic, nasty and very personal". I think you should say what, specifically, meets that description Peter. I have referred to the show, not her personally - except for the comment about the teleprompter, that single comment was, perhaps, unfair; unless you listen to the link below.

And why ? Just because she retired from hosting Today Tonight which she has done for the last ten years and, incidently took that program to its highest ratings ever, something that previous hosts were unable to do.

Peter, here you give her credit for taking the show to new heights but two paragraphs down you claim the host is NOT responsible, you can't have it both ways and expect it to go unchallenged.

Yes TT (or ACA for that matter) isn't a current affairs program. Its pap to the masses appealing to the lowest common denominator in the masses in order to sell advertising dollars, but so is every program on commercial television. The host has little to say as to what goes in the program and the next host will not have any say as well as it's the producers and writers that decide the nature of the program.


Those who think that the host is responsible for the content or nature of the show have a lot to learn about TV shows as well as a bit of personal restraint and common decency when discussing Noimi's role and personality.

These shows intrude on other peoples lives, especially those in the public eye, claiming "public interest" as the reason they can say whatever it is they are saying. Trying to stop the public from commenting on them would have to be introducing a double standard.

Since you raise common decency and her personality (I didn't as it is off-air), here are 34 seconds of her life "off-air" from the SMH (<- caution, lots of swearing).

[Flowboy]

Peter and CLinton,
You are both pretty close to the mark IMHO.
I see it this way. There's an old saying "I sold my soul for Rock'n' Roll. This implies that the unhappy rocker out of greed or desire for money, gave away his right of artistic creativity in the music he writes and the way it is recorded. People like those mentioned here are responsible for taking the positions they did and effectively said to hell with my credibility. So be it, thats the way they want to exist (I wouldn't call it living), but by taking this position, they identify their opinions with that of the show they are presenter (or talking head) for.
They put themselves in the public domain and thus are open to ridicule and adoration. Eventually they must pay the piper. Jana Wendt left channel nine because she felt the show's and her credibility would suffer with a change of format for Sunday. Like her or not she has credibility through her education and work in news journalism early on. Naomi Robson and Jessica Rowe are in my opinion, shallow, devious and concerned only with the furtherment of their own situation. Perhaps Ms Robson has now begun to realise that you have there's no such thing as a free lunch, so she's getting out, albeit considerably richer financially, but not in character. Lets hope its not too late.
So Peter, you can't delete a thread where people are giving their opinions of something in the public domain and Clinton, you are right that we all have the right to live our lives, but never forget the repercussions of actions you perform every day. We do have a responsibility to each other.

This was in no way designed to cause angst or grief, its just the opinions of a broken down old phart

Regards,

Rob

As for lowest common denominator TV, get used to it. The LCD can only go lower.

[Sturdee]

If someone chooses to peddle that tripe, then regardless of whether it is 'just a job', I think it is fair to judge them on their merits.

Each to their own though.

Quote:

" hope they replace her with someone who can think without a teleprompter"

and

"the female shark from today tonight jesus id to be in her sights . unless she had sex in mind that is "

and

"she is a HORN BAG......Let's put it this way; I wouldn't roll over her to get to you!"

and

"my dog gets randy when he sees her on the idiot box..."

and

"good riddance to the mung cow"

and

"the biggest floater in the septic tank"

and

"The posessor of an outstanding set of mammaliam protrubrences, she is."

Unquote.


I suppose you think the above comments are a fair judgement of Naomi's merits. I happen to disagree, they are neither fair nor accurate nor appropriate and in fact highly libellous.

[martrix]

Flowie, literally could not have said it better myself...


Sturdee, are you in love with her?:confused:

[Sturdee]

Peter, here you give her credit for taking the show to new heights but two paragraphs down you claim the host is NOT responsible, you can't have it both ways and expect it to go unchallenged.

Greg,

Whilst the host is not directly reponsible for the contents she did ,through her delivery and the manner in which she linked the various topics, raisde the program to be the top of its field. Not trying to have it bothg ways but her hosting talents raised the show. Something that the many others before her failed to do.

These shows intrude on other peoples lives, especially those in the public eye, claiming "public interest" as the reason they can say whatever it is they are saying. Trying to stop the public from commenting on them would have to be introducing a double standard.

No problem with criticising the show or its contents but as I've posted before some comments made of her personally are IMO totally unacceptable.


Peter.

[Sturdee]

They put themselves in the public domain and thus are open to ridicule and adoration. Eventually they must pay the piper.

Rob,

No problem with fair comment or even ridicule but the comments made are neither.

So Peter, you can't delete a thread where people are giving their opinions of something in the public domain

I said that the thread ought to be deleted and I'm still of that opinion which the Moderators and Administrators can do.

Peter.

[Groggy]

No problem with criticising the show or its contents but as I've posted before some comments made of her personally are IMO totally unacceptable.

Your post indicated that I made those comments, and I do not like the implication I did. You said:

"Whilst it was said that it was nothing personal they are surely very personal attacks against her."

In fact, I made only one of the comments (that you later listed) and explained why in a later post.

[Sturdee]

Your post indicated that I made those comments, and I do not like the implication I did. You said:

Greg, the comments quoted were from several posters to this tread and indeed yours was the first one quoted. If the post implied that you made them all then it was done inadvertently and not my intention. If this caused you embarrassment then I unreservedly apologize.


Peter

[ozwinner]

Ok I think this thread has run its course.

Al