[LEE]

I think this GUARDIAN ONLINE ARTICLE is completely spot on. I agree 100%.

[bananarama]

Frankly I think the article is a lot of phony intellectual mumbo jumbo by someone who has watched a program that has not turned out the way that person wanted...Tough.... If the writer wants to miss a year...Fine....But don't speak for everyone else.

[jog2001]

You seem to have misunderstood the article - the sentences "That's why I won't be watching Big Brother next time around. Probably. Let's just take it a year at a time." just strengthen the message that people watch the program even if only to complain about it.

[bananarama]

No. I have not misunderstood the article. I have read enough of that "type" of journalistic nonesence to last three life times. I have long since got past the stage of being fooled into thinking such writers are giving a sophisticated verdict.

[jog2001]

I'm sorry, you could complain that the article was not well written, but although you may not be 'fooled', you don't seem to grasp the point that the writer was making. This is probably because you obviously don't regularly read Barbara Ellen, or like her style.

[bananarama]

We could go round in ever decreasing circles with this little debate. The point you are missing is the name and style of the writer is immaterial. It is the article and it's conclusions that matters. You like it or agree with that's just fine. Others like it or agree with it that's just fine... I don't. Can't change that. Sorry.

Ooooh! Handbags at 10 paces!!!

After that I had to have a read, and I have to say that they article makes a few valid points, a few invalid points and the buries the whole lot in great heap of similies, metaphors and sarcasm, disguised as wit. And yes, whenever "quality" journos write what is essentially a "tabloid" article they add all the extra polyfilla and pseudo-intellectual phrases to make it look better than it really is.

It pains me to say it, but I'm sure the Sun could have got all those points across in about four sentences!