Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Apprentice
It is a pity that programs like "The Apprentice" are probably amongst the best non-factual TV programs in the UK, and rightly therefore are very popular.
Basically the motivation seems to be greed, and a post-Thatcherite worship of business by "Thatcher's children", in replacement of a real objective God or striving. After "The Apprentice" in terms of popularity come the even more corrupt "Big Brother" programs which can show an almost American liking for probing the less desirable nicities of today's human experience, but I think in the long term programs like "The Apprentice" are even less desirable and even more corrupting.
That is not to criticise Mr. Sugar, who appears to be a nice, kindly man doing his best with the dross around him, in his own way. You would simply think that those who produce programs could do something a bit more morally uplifting and positive, to encourage growth and insight in a new and more awakened Britain, and not to pander to an imagined audience of "Royle Family" types as such program producers seem to have confused that the characters in that mildly amusing series with its audience. At least, I certainly hope so.
In fact it seems that Mr. Sugar is criticised by Katy Hopkins in this article, who appears annoyed that pieces have been "left out". The reason for this is like in the situation where in a quiz show a contestant gives a wrong answer, disputes the verdict, they then look it up in an encyclopedia or somewhere and find that the contestant is wrong and she is obliged to repeat the incorrect answer without interruption. In these structured shows that is completely normal, in fact throughout the Apprentice series, snippets have openly been made in a way which is usual, to preserve viewer's interest.
Sir Alan said it would be "condescending" not to ask a mother of children with potential who was applying for a job in London from outside the capital how she would manage in practical terms. And whilst undercurrents can clearly be perceived, nonetheless Mr. Sugar is right and one could hope that any potential employer would have been as considerate. It is like the classic case where a series of choices are placed in a non alphabetical or other apparently non ordered style, with the aim that both sophisticated and non sophisticated choosers may readily choose the first item on the list. That sort of thing can make a program interesting.
Basically the motivation seems to be greed, and a post-Thatcherite worship of business by "Thatcher's children", in replacement of a real objective God or striving. After "The Apprentice" in terms of popularity come the even more corrupt "Big Brother" programs which can show an almost American liking for probing the less desirable nicities of today's human experience, but I think in the long term programs like "The Apprentice" are even less desirable and even more corrupting.
That is not to criticise Mr. Sugar, who appears to be a nice, kindly man doing his best with the dross around him, in his own way. You would simply think that those who produce programs could do something a bit more morally uplifting and positive, to encourage growth and insight in a new and more awakened Britain, and not to pander to an imagined audience of "Royle Family" types as such program producers seem to have confused that the characters in that mildly amusing series with its audience. At least, I certainly hope so.
In fact it seems that Mr. Sugar is criticised by Katy Hopkins in this article, who appears annoyed that pieces have been "left out". The reason for this is like in the situation where in a quiz show a contestant gives a wrong answer, disputes the verdict, they then look it up in an encyclopedia or somewhere and find that the contestant is wrong and she is obliged to repeat the incorrect answer without interruption. In these structured shows that is completely normal, in fact throughout the Apprentice series, snippets have openly been made in a way which is usual, to preserve viewer's interest.
Sir Alan said it would be "condescending" not to ask a mother of children with potential who was applying for a job in London from outside the capital how she would manage in practical terms. And whilst undercurrents can clearly be perceived, nonetheless Mr. Sugar is right and one could hope that any potential employer would have been as considerate. It is like the classic case where a series of choices are placed in a non alphabetical or other apparently non ordered style, with the aim that both sophisticated and non sophisticated choosers may readily choose the first item on the list. That sort of thing can make a program interesting.
# posted by uv : 3:11 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
