Saturday, 21 January 2012

Supposedly, Holden makes 'brainless' dig at Brook

More views of - or after - Cambridge Film Festival 2011
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


22 January



Nothing nicer than a link so entitled under a picture of the two ladies, smiling nicely enough together - shark-fins, the phantom menace beneath the unruffled surface...

I blogged yesterday (Allegedly, Katy Perry unfollows Russell) tangentially to a so-called story about so-called celebrities. What now has to be asked is:

If Amanda Holden actually had to make some public pronouncement that damns Kelly Brook (rather than, more easily, just allowing it to be put about that she did), who actually believes that said Kelly did not license her to do so, because it is part of some agreed way of trying to boost what they are now calling BGT (and / or their own presence* and careers)?


It would, at the very least, invite AOL users, about to sign in to get e-mail (which is where I saw it, and actually, for a change, knew who both people were), to take a look at what it's all about, and so show Huffington Post attracting readers into the bargain...

And 'BGT'? Doesn't that sound like a reworking of Roald Dahl and his BFG - or a beverage made out of three men who sang (probably still do) with high-pitched voices?

Or maybe the modern attention-span is so short that, just as British Oxygen Corporation thought plain BOC more sexy back in the 1980s (and, after all, they did capture and, under pressure, liquidize many other gases - still do), Britain's Got Talent had too many potential viewers glazing over.

Personally, I don't think it's that at all: all along, the programme has been open to misinterpretation between couples shouting out its name to each other as to what's on, but only now has research revealed the crucial and damaging mishearing, leading to the hostile response:

Oh, I know well enough this country's got that bastard - that's why I'd emigrate, if I could, to get away from his bloody millionaire suspense!'


* Why is it always 'media presence', when doesn't 'presence' say it all, when it is self evident that these people are present - or invisible - to the public?


No comments: