24 June 2008
THE DOCTOR IS IN
Two years ago, I blogged about ITV1 dropping a repeat run of Afterlife after one episode, and quoted Broadcast's William Phillips - one of the most perceptive writers about television there's ever been - to say that drama repeats don't work.
Well, maybe self-contained crime dramas can be repeated - and Midsomer Murders producer Brian True-May recently complained about ITV repeating his show too often - but I still can't think of one repeat of a drama serial that has proven at all popular. Big series like Cold Feet and even Pride and Prejudice both did next to nothing in prime time repeat runs.
Tonight, ITV1 begins a repeat run of Doc Martin from 2006. Sure, it's a popular series, but who wants to see it again? It's not even the last series, thus making it even less appealing because even if you've come in late, you'll know everything that's going to happen. That's why I'm willing to predict that this series will be dropped long before it finishes the end of its run in eight weeks, and when (not if) it does, I'll come back here to remind ITV1 what a stupid idea it is.
And no, I'm not just saying this for the obvious post title when it goes.
Well, maybe self-contained crime dramas can be repeated - and Midsomer Murders producer Brian True-May recently complained about ITV repeating his show too often - but I still can't think of one repeat of a drama serial that has proven at all popular. Big series like Cold Feet and even Pride and Prejudice both did next to nothing in prime time repeat runs.
Tonight, ITV1 begins a repeat run of Doc Martin from 2006. Sure, it's a popular series, but who wants to see it again? It's not even the last series, thus making it even less appealing because even if you've come in late, you'll know everything that's going to happen. That's why I'm willing to predict that this series will be dropped long before it finishes the end of its run in eight weeks, and when (not if) it does, I'll come back here to remind ITV1 what a stupid idea it is.
And no, I'm not just saying this for the obvious post title when it goes.
12 June 2008
ALL THAT GLITTERS...
In the early days of satellite telly, when there was no way I could get my parents to agree to the expense and hassle of buying a dish, I used to longingly look at the UK Gold schedules in Radio Times, marvelling at the brilliantly obscure programmes that I longed to see.
From '70s instalments of Blue Peter and Record Breakers in the mornings, to complete episodes of Match of the Day and Top of the Pops late at night, with the likes of The Innes Book of Records and Carrott's Lib along the way. Indeed, so committed was this channel to classic TV that it raided the archives for Frankie Howerd's previously unbroadcast Then Churchill Said To Me and was even, with a fair amount of context-setting, prepared to screen Love Thy Neighbour which gets a (tentative) thumbs up for at least crediting the audience with the intelligence to make their own mind up.
Alas, by the time I'd finally arrived in the world of multichannel television, UK Gold had, bar Saturday morning repeats of Doctor Who, completely given up on any genuinely interesting archive shows to become, basically, BBC1-and-a-Half, showing the likes of Only Fools and Horses and Fawlty Towers on an endless loop, as well as stuff like My Hero which was only about six months old.
In recent months, though, things had brightened up a bit with Wogan: Now and Then and The Generation Game: Now and Then proving a tad more imaginative than stringing the same old repeats together. But news has now been released about a rebranding of the channel, which will now be known as simply Gold, and a change to the programming mix.
According to Media Guardian, "In its new guise, Gold's programming mix will move away from retro towards comedy, focusing more tightly on shows such as Only Fools and Horses, Fawlty Towers and Little Britain... the Gold channel has generally focused on classic British programming, [but] the rise of broadband video-on-demand services means Gold is no longer the only place viewers can watch such repeats."
So, because there are too many places you can watch repeats, Gold is going to show even more repeats of Little Britain, because of course you can't see that anywhere else! Eh? Who came up with that idea? If anyone can tell me where on "broadband video-on-demand services" I can watch more '80s episodes of Top of the Pops than the two or three VHS copies currently up on YouTube, I would love to know.
It baffles me why, with all the hundreds of channels available, not one follows the same approach as the original UK Gold and concentrates on genuinely interesting programmes from the archive. The best bet might be Paramount 2 with the likes of George and Mildred and Spitting Image (although I wish, when a channel repeated that series, it didn't always opt for the atrocious first series, which even the production team thought was awful, rather than some episodes from later in the run when it was actually good), and of course the occasional archive show on BBC4 and ITV4. But these are only very rare occurances and most of them show the same old stuff over and over again.
Clearly, though, it makes more sense to have another channel showing nothing but non-stop Little Britain. Well done everyone.
From '70s instalments of Blue Peter and Record Breakers in the mornings, to complete episodes of Match of the Day and Top of the Pops late at night, with the likes of The Innes Book of Records and Carrott's Lib along the way. Indeed, so committed was this channel to classic TV that it raided the archives for Frankie Howerd's previously unbroadcast Then Churchill Said To Me and was even, with a fair amount of context-setting, prepared to screen Love Thy Neighbour which gets a (tentative) thumbs up for at least crediting the audience with the intelligence to make their own mind up.
Alas, by the time I'd finally arrived in the world of multichannel television, UK Gold had, bar Saturday morning repeats of Doctor Who, completely given up on any genuinely interesting archive shows to become, basically, BBC1-and-a-Half, showing the likes of Only Fools and Horses and Fawlty Towers on an endless loop, as well as stuff like My Hero which was only about six months old.
In recent months, though, things had brightened up a bit with Wogan: Now and Then and The Generation Game: Now and Then proving a tad more imaginative than stringing the same old repeats together. But news has now been released about a rebranding of the channel, which will now be known as simply Gold, and a change to the programming mix.
According to Media Guardian, "In its new guise, Gold's programming mix will move away from retro towards comedy, focusing more tightly on shows such as Only Fools and Horses, Fawlty Towers and Little Britain... the Gold channel has generally focused on classic British programming, [but] the rise of broadband video-on-demand services means Gold is no longer the only place viewers can watch such repeats."
So, because there are too many places you can watch repeats, Gold is going to show even more repeats of Little Britain, because of course you can't see that anywhere else! Eh? Who came up with that idea? If anyone can tell me where on "broadband video-on-demand services" I can watch more '80s episodes of Top of the Pops than the two or three VHS copies currently up on YouTube, I would love to know.
It baffles me why, with all the hundreds of channels available, not one follows the same approach as the original UK Gold and concentrates on genuinely interesting programmes from the archive. The best bet might be Paramount 2 with the likes of George and Mildred and Spitting Image (although I wish, when a channel repeated that series, it didn't always opt for the atrocious first series, which even the production team thought was awful, rather than some episodes from later in the run when it was actually good), and of course the occasional archive show on BBC4 and ITV4. But these are only very rare occurances and most of them show the same old stuff over and over again.
Clearly, though, it makes more sense to have another channel showing nothing but non-stop Little Britain. Well done everyone.
07 June 2008
"TIGANA! TIGANA! PLATINI! GOAL!"
I’m never sure why any preview of the BBC and ITV’s coverage of a major football tournament involves pitting the two against each other, as we’ll have to watch both to see all the matches. Indeed, in Euro 2008, for the first time in a generation, no match will be screened on both channels, with ITV1 electing not to screen the final live.
It makes sense – they’re always thrashed by the Beeb when they go head to head, so why bother? And at the current ITV, the key word is “exclusivity” – that’s why their current football rights are heavily weighted towards live action rather than highlights, because it demands that people come to the commercial channel. Far better for ITV to concentrate on their exclusive games earlier in the tournament.
In fact it’s going to be a very low-key tournament on ITV full stop, with all the matches being presented from London, late night highlights on ITV4 alone and no associated programming other than the UEFA-produced preview shows. That said, this might make it a bit more palatable, after they seemed to try and turn Euro 2000 into a triangular tournament between England, France and Holland, and Euro 2004 into England vs France and thirty other matches in support. And what about the 2006 World Cup, with its ludicrously extended series about 1966, which was of course hugely relevant before Ecuador vs Costa Rica?
Let’s hope they make the effort, though, and don’t just present the tournament as if it’s a big-standard Champions League group game, as has often been the case. It’s good to see Matt Smith get some live matches as I think he’s a good host, but it’s less good to see Andy Townsend billed as a pundit on every game. The Tactics Truck may be long gone, but the man remains utterly insufferable, clearly desperate to be promoted to the anchor’s chair. All the other pundits will probably be hopeless as they’re all current players (Gary Neville, Deitmar Hamman) or managers (Harry Redknapp, David Moyes) who won’t slag anyone off because they’re all their team-mates or players.
In the commentary box, meanwhile, ITV are continuing to bafflingly promote the pompous Peter Drury and the perennially befuddled David Pleat above the far superior Jon Champion and, especially, Jim Beglin. Which is a shame.
The Beeb are making much more of an effort (we’ll ignore them shoving Switzerland vs Turkey to BBC2 for the final of The Apprentice). As in previous tournaments they’re presenting everything from a swish studio overlooking all the sights of the capital, in this case Vienna, and I really like their title sequence.
The great news is that, despite not featuring in the press release, the great Martin O’Neill will be one of the pundits, and that’s great because he mixes incisive analysis with demented asides. Who can forget his appearance alongside Leonardo in the last World Cup, where the Brazilian’s achievements were heralded, before Martin announced, “He’s not the sort of boy you’d want to go to a disco with”. Also there is the equally bonkers Gordon Strachan, and let’s hope they get paired up on one of the live matches – although half time would possibly have to be extended to about an hour. They’ll doubtless work best with the great Adrian Chiles, who’ll once more get the opportunity to wax a little wry on the highlights shows.
As far as their commentators, everyone seems to have decided it’s the end of the road for John Motson. He’s still clinging on, but it would probably be best for all concerned if this was his last tournament. Jonathan Pearce remains an acquired taste, but the Beeb do employ the two best commentators on telly at the moment – Steve Wilson and Guy Mowbray both bring plenty of wit and energy to the job while remaining authoritative and easy to listen to.
While both channels are unlikely to enjoy huge audiences for their coverage (and being Welsh, welcome to my world), big tournaments like these remain one of the things telly does best, and I can’t wait to start filling in my wallchart.
It makes sense – they’re always thrashed by the Beeb when they go head to head, so why bother? And at the current ITV, the key word is “exclusivity” – that’s why their current football rights are heavily weighted towards live action rather than highlights, because it demands that people come to the commercial channel. Far better for ITV to concentrate on their exclusive games earlier in the tournament.
In fact it’s going to be a very low-key tournament on ITV full stop, with all the matches being presented from London, late night highlights on ITV4 alone and no associated programming other than the UEFA-produced preview shows. That said, this might make it a bit more palatable, after they seemed to try and turn Euro 2000 into a triangular tournament between England, France and Holland, and Euro 2004 into England vs France and thirty other matches in support. And what about the 2006 World Cup, with its ludicrously extended series about 1966, which was of course hugely relevant before Ecuador vs Costa Rica?
Let’s hope they make the effort, though, and don’t just present the tournament as if it’s a big-standard Champions League group game, as has often been the case. It’s good to see Matt Smith get some live matches as I think he’s a good host, but it’s less good to see Andy Townsend billed as a pundit on every game. The Tactics Truck may be long gone, but the man remains utterly insufferable, clearly desperate to be promoted to the anchor’s chair. All the other pundits will probably be hopeless as they’re all current players (Gary Neville, Deitmar Hamman) or managers (Harry Redknapp, David Moyes) who won’t slag anyone off because they’re all their team-mates or players.
In the commentary box, meanwhile, ITV are continuing to bafflingly promote the pompous Peter Drury and the perennially befuddled David Pleat above the far superior Jon Champion and, especially, Jim Beglin. Which is a shame.
The Beeb are making much more of an effort (we’ll ignore them shoving Switzerland vs Turkey to BBC2 for the final of The Apprentice). As in previous tournaments they’re presenting everything from a swish studio overlooking all the sights of the capital, in this case Vienna, and I really like their title sequence.
The great news is that, despite not featuring in the press release, the great Martin O’Neill will be one of the pundits, and that’s great because he mixes incisive analysis with demented asides. Who can forget his appearance alongside Leonardo in the last World Cup, where the Brazilian’s achievements were heralded, before Martin announced, “He’s not the sort of boy you’d want to go to a disco with”. Also there is the equally bonkers Gordon Strachan, and let’s hope they get paired up on one of the live matches – although half time would possibly have to be extended to about an hour. They’ll doubtless work best with the great Adrian Chiles, who’ll once more get the opportunity to wax a little wry on the highlights shows.
As far as their commentators, everyone seems to have decided it’s the end of the road for John Motson. He’s still clinging on, but it would probably be best for all concerned if this was his last tournament. Jonathan Pearce remains an acquired taste, but the Beeb do employ the two best commentators on telly at the moment – Steve Wilson and Guy Mowbray both bring plenty of wit and energy to the job while remaining authoritative and easy to listen to.
While both channels are unlikely to enjoy huge audiences for their coverage (and being Welsh, welcome to my world), big tournaments like these remain one of the things telly does best, and I can’t wait to start filling in my wallchart.
06 June 2008
QUESTIONS ABOUT CORRIE
1 - If Jerry's had a heart attack, why hasn't the absent eldest daughter come back to see how he is? And what the hell happened to that grandad?
2 - How come Kenzie and Chesney are in the same year, yet the former looks about five years older than the latter?
3 - Do smokers have to go behind the bar and to the hallway to get to that shelter?
4 - Why has work suddenly ceased on the new flat development?
5 - Who owns that joinery firm at the end of the road that we see in every episode?
6 - Why did bosses keep Jane Danson's real-life pregnancy off our screens but aren't doing likewise with Julia Haworth's?
7 - Was that Casey woman ever put on trial?
8 - What happened to Eric the bookie, played by Tony Slattery - given that Lloyd's debt, called in by Harry, was to an unseen bookie not called Eric?
9 - Given that his son has driven his car into a canal and wound up in jail, and his step-daughter got married, where the hell is Martin Platt?
10 - Why is this programme, for all its niggles and faults, still by far the best thing on television?
2 - How come Kenzie and Chesney are in the same year, yet the former looks about five years older than the latter?
3 - Do smokers have to go behind the bar and to the hallway to get to that shelter?
4 - Why has work suddenly ceased on the new flat development?
5 - Who owns that joinery firm at the end of the road that we see in every episode?
6 - Why did bosses keep Jane Danson's real-life pregnancy off our screens but aren't doing likewise with Julia Haworth's?
7 - Was that Casey woman ever put on trial?
8 - What happened to Eric the bookie, played by Tony Slattery - given that Lloyd's debt, called in by Harry, was to an unseen bookie not called Eric?
9 - Given that his son has driven his car into a canal and wound up in jail, and his step-daughter got married, where the hell is Martin Platt?
10 - Why is this programme, for all its niggles and faults, still by far the best thing on television?
"YOU LOST ME AT CARROTS, WHICH WAS THE FIRST DRAFT OF 'YOU HAD ME AT HELLO'"
As the Big Brother season once again holds us in its grip (is this the worst crop of contestants we've ever had?) I thought I'd note two things. Firstly, that unlike the previous few years, E4's schedules haven't been cleared to make way for live coverage from the house, with only an hour's worth of shouting peaking through in the middle of a weekday afternoon, then through the night footage of them either sleeping, trying to sleep, being drunk, or doing some more shouting. Secondly, the channel has suddenly seen fit to begin broadcasting one of my favourite series of this past decade, the Emmy Award-winning Gilmore Girls , with the same daily episode appearing at 8:50am and 11:30am.
Gilmore Girls began in the US late in 2000 and quickly became one of the highest rated shows on network television. The premise sounds twee and horrible. It's about the relationship between a single mother and her daughter - the daughter having reached the age the mother was when she gave birth. They live in a small town. The daughter, Rory who's smarter than everybody, is going through the usual teen angst about not being the most popular girl in school and fancying some boy. Her mom, Lorelai, is the manager of a hotel and has her own issues dealing with her own - up until recently - estranged mother.
I was hooked after the second minute of the first episode.
A woman, who we later discover is Lorelai, walks across the street. On the soundtrack is There She Goes by The Las. Which is a bit of a cliche, but keep watching. The woman walks into a coffee shop and approaches the counter. The owner won't serve her coffee. He's cutting her off. She pleads with him and eventually he relents. Somewhere in there I realise that it's being played as though she's a junkie and he's her dealer. Then I remember that one of the few things most TV producers (and Sixpence None The Richer when they covered the song) also miss is the fact that There She Goes is reputed to be about heroin. "The racing through my veins" lyric being a dead giveaway. At which moment I realise this show is intertextual. It selected the music and then played a scene based on the audience being able to understand a really, really zetgeisty pop culture reference. Wow.
Then the real dialogue begins to flow between the woman and her daughter and it's funny. Not in a forced, sitcom, stream of punchlines way, but like a 1940s screwball comedy, reams of smart dialogue. Apparently each script for a 40 minute episode ran to eighty and it shows. I'll say it again. It's really, really funny. At one point, the dynamic between mother and daughter is compared to the Iran-Contra affair. This is one of those occasions when the premise of a show and its potential plotlines are transcended by the script, the performances, the direction, the editing and the production. It doesn't treat the audience like idiots, yet manages to be accessible. Just look at this mile long memorable quotes page at the imdb.
It feels authentic. It has realism. People pay for taxis. They have snappy arguments that don't mean anything in the long term. People have to catch a bus to get places. But there's a weird undercurrent of darkness too. Something that isn't being said. It's Capraesque that way. Everything seems sweetness and light but ... It's set in a Bedford Fallsian town and you really get the sense of a community trying to be a what a community should be like. One of the (very) few problems I always had with Dawson's Creek was that you never felt that there was anyone living in the place outside the main cast. Stars Hollow is teeming with people, people saying hello to each other even if (and this is important) they're not a massively important element of the plot of the week.
The show eventually ran for seven seasons, the first six of which were largely written by creator Amy Sherman-Palladino (before an unresolved contract negotiation led to her and her husband leaving the series), aided by the likes of Jane Espenson, a Buffy alumnus who would go on to write Battlestar Galactica. It has wobbles here and there, apparently in the later seasons which I haven't had a chance too see yet. But the first three seasons are as good (in their own way) as any of the imported series which have tended to be lauded over here and if this had been broadcast in a prime time slot I'm sure it would have been mentioned and remembered along with the likes of ER or Desperate Housewives (even though its certainly more entertaining than that). Instead it'll hopefully build a loyal following in these early slots, even if it deserved much better treatment.
Gilmore Girls began in the US late in 2000 and quickly became one of the highest rated shows on network television. The premise sounds twee and horrible. It's about the relationship between a single mother and her daughter - the daughter having reached the age the mother was when she gave birth. They live in a small town. The daughter, Rory who's smarter than everybody, is going through the usual teen angst about not being the most popular girl in school and fancying some boy. Her mom, Lorelai, is the manager of a hotel and has her own issues dealing with her own - up until recently - estranged mother.
I was hooked after the second minute of the first episode.
A woman, who we later discover is Lorelai, walks across the street. On the soundtrack is There She Goes by The Las. Which is a bit of a cliche, but keep watching. The woman walks into a coffee shop and approaches the counter. The owner won't serve her coffee. He's cutting her off. She pleads with him and eventually he relents. Somewhere in there I realise that it's being played as though she's a junkie and he's her dealer. Then I remember that one of the few things most TV producers (and Sixpence None The Richer when they covered the song) also miss is the fact that There She Goes is reputed to be about heroin. "The racing through my veins" lyric being a dead giveaway. At which moment I realise this show is intertextual. It selected the music and then played a scene based on the audience being able to understand a really, really zetgeisty pop culture reference. Wow.
Then the real dialogue begins to flow between the woman and her daughter and it's funny. Not in a forced, sitcom, stream of punchlines way, but like a 1940s screwball comedy, reams of smart dialogue. Apparently each script for a 40 minute episode ran to eighty and it shows. I'll say it again. It's really, really funny. At one point, the dynamic between mother and daughter is compared to the Iran-Contra affair. This is one of those occasions when the premise of a show and its potential plotlines are transcended by the script, the performances, the direction, the editing and the production. It doesn't treat the audience like idiots, yet manages to be accessible. Just look at this mile long memorable quotes page at the imdb.
It feels authentic. It has realism. People pay for taxis. They have snappy arguments that don't mean anything in the long term. People have to catch a bus to get places. But there's a weird undercurrent of darkness too. Something that isn't being said. It's Capraesque that way. Everything seems sweetness and light but ... It's set in a Bedford Fallsian town and you really get the sense of a community trying to be a what a community should be like. One of the (very) few problems I always had with Dawson's Creek was that you never felt that there was anyone living in the place outside the main cast. Stars Hollow is teeming with people, people saying hello to each other even if (and this is important) they're not a massively important element of the plot of the week.
The show eventually ran for seven seasons, the first six of which were largely written by creator Amy Sherman-Palladino (before an unresolved contract negotiation led to her and her husband leaving the series), aided by the likes of Jane Espenson, a Buffy alumnus who would go on to write Battlestar Galactica. It has wobbles here and there, apparently in the later seasons which I haven't had a chance too see yet. But the first three seasons are as good (in their own way) as any of the imported series which have tended to be lauded over here and if this had been broadcast in a prime time slot I'm sure it would have been mentioned and remembered along with the likes of ER or Desperate Housewives (even though its certainly more entertaining than that). Instead it'll hopefully build a loyal following in these early slots, even if it deserved much better treatment.
04 June 2008
"JUST SAY SORRY"
Crikey, almost a month since the last OTT blog entry? Well, allow me. I've just watched the Sky Sports exclusive interview with Sir Alex Ferguson, as conducted (and executively produced) by Sir David Frost.
Now I find Frost hard to warm to. I love the grainy images of him playing the part of Disraeli on TW3, using a 19th century First Lord of the Treasury to have a big pop at Alec Douglas-Home, but as he aged, he switched sides. His days as the leading satirist of his generation (can you believe that this obsequious, slurry-spoken, red-socked knight of the realm used to be more highly regarded than Rushton, Wells or Ingrams as the leading satirist of his generation?) are but a distant memory, and for most of his days in colour television he has given political figures and the powerful and pompous a notoriously easy time.
So, we get to him and Ferguson. I was very cynical as I tuned in. I'm no supporter of Manchester United but I adore football and its hold on the country, and I am an admirer of Ferguson's achievements and fascinated by his life. For all that, I want Paxman to grill him ("so then Alex, you assaulted your star player with a spare football boot, didn't you?") but that clearly won't happen, irrespective of who Paxman's employers are. What on earth can one knight who never offends draw from another who never bites?
Well, I was pleasantly surprised. Tagged as Ferguson's first feature-length interview for a decade, Frost asked him about selling Jaap Stam and whether it really was about the unwise revelations in the Dutch defender's autobiography which forced Ferguson's hand. Nope, an Achilles injury, a loss of pace and a massive offer from Lazio. We can choose not to believe Ferguson, of course, but that depends on whether you support Liverpool or Manchester City or have dinner regularly with Laurent Blanc's agent.
Also, Ferguson's relationship - or utter lack of - with the BBC came up. I was genuinely shocked and very pleased it did. Ferguson simply wants an apology from the corporation (he's refused to speak to the Beeb for many years since a documentary said unkind things about his son Jason's dealings as a football agent) but admits he is unlikely to get one. It remains very unsatisfactory to United fans and football fans in general to listen to Carlos Quieroz bleating about refs each week on Match of the Day but at least we've heard Ferguson's word on it now.
Frost didn't press Ferguson on his hypocrisy over referees - calling for them to be respected and supported one week, then laying mercilessly into them the next - but apart from that this was the most fulfilling piece of television I've seen Sir David complete since he dribbled over Debbie Greenwood on Through The Keyhole.
Now I find Frost hard to warm to. I love the grainy images of him playing the part of Disraeli on TW3, using a 19th century First Lord of the Treasury to have a big pop at Alec Douglas-Home, but as he aged, he switched sides. His days as the leading satirist of his generation (can you believe that this obsequious, slurry-spoken, red-socked knight of the realm used to be more highly regarded than Rushton, Wells or Ingrams as the leading satirist of his generation?) are but a distant memory, and for most of his days in colour television he has given political figures and the powerful and pompous a notoriously easy time.
So, we get to him and Ferguson. I was very cynical as I tuned in. I'm no supporter of Manchester United but I adore football and its hold on the country, and I am an admirer of Ferguson's achievements and fascinated by his life. For all that, I want Paxman to grill him ("so then Alex, you assaulted your star player with a spare football boot, didn't you?") but that clearly won't happen, irrespective of who Paxman's employers are. What on earth can one knight who never offends draw from another who never bites?
Well, I was pleasantly surprised. Tagged as Ferguson's first feature-length interview for a decade, Frost asked him about selling Jaap Stam and whether it really was about the unwise revelations in the Dutch defender's autobiography which forced Ferguson's hand. Nope, an Achilles injury, a loss of pace and a massive offer from Lazio. We can choose not to believe Ferguson, of course, but that depends on whether you support Liverpool or Manchester City or have dinner regularly with Laurent Blanc's agent.
Also, Ferguson's relationship - or utter lack of - with the BBC came up. I was genuinely shocked and very pleased it did. Ferguson simply wants an apology from the corporation (he's refused to speak to the Beeb for many years since a documentary said unkind things about his son Jason's dealings as a football agent) but admits he is unlikely to get one. It remains very unsatisfactory to United fans and football fans in general to listen to Carlos Quieroz bleating about refs each week on Match of the Day but at least we've heard Ferguson's word on it now.
Frost didn't press Ferguson on his hypocrisy over referees - calling for them to be respected and supported one week, then laying mercilessly into them the next - but apart from that this was the most fulfilling piece of television I've seen Sir David complete since he dribbled over Debbie Greenwood on Through The Keyhole.