Friday, 17 April 2009

Piers Morgan is sh1t muncher of the month

Totally and irredeemably a sh1t muncher.
Look at his big shiny sh1t-munching plate of a face.

There's a superb article by Tanya Gold on the Guardian website.

I don't know if you've seen the video of Susan Boyle on Britain's Got Talent already. I am not, let's say, an avid watcher of the show – so it was new to me. Have a watch, won't ya?

(I would embed the video here, but the arsemouths have disabled embedding. Because, heck, that might actually mean that more people would watch their crappy excuse for a programme. And what a tragedy that would be.)

Anyhow. Gold's article is particularly fabulous, I think, in its descriptions of the judges. She gives us the following almost novelistic gems:

'Simon Cowell, now buffed to the sheen of an ornamental pebble'

'Amanda Holden, the female judge, a woman with improbably raised eyebrows and snail trails of Botox over her perfectly smooth face'

and, also of Holden:

'Can't "ugly" people dream, you flat-packed, hair-ironed, over-plucked monstrous fool?'

Fvck on. This is good work. And that's saying nothing of the inspired description of Alan Sugar, which I'll leave you to find yourself.

... And Gold is absolutely right about the judge's responses. Especially that of Piers Morgan, who is possibly the most wretched drizzle of sh1t on the reality TV circuit (now there's a superlative for you). What a nasty, spite-shriveled little w^nker of a man. What a repulsive, morally wizened arseh0le.

Often, reality TV pundits are nasty. And often their nastiness is scripted and deliberately exaggerated for the cameras. But Morgan's is all the more appalling, being neither – but instinctive. Inbred.


Anonymous said...

Yes, I think the strangest thing was this sense that it was some kind of 'given' that it ought to be surprising that this woman might be able to sing. Like as if there is a 'likelihood' scale...and that it was somehow made implicitly clear she wasn't at the high end of this. Bizarre. I've never known, and cannot imagine a premise, (unless one's vocal cords might be dangling on one's exterior) where this might make sense. I don't know what 'ugly' really means, so I am not sure either about the Tanya Gold's article. Or rather, I'm not sure that 'ugliness' is necessarily what is in question. It is the element of a seemingly widely accepted notion of inherent surprise that surprises me.

Perhaps most disturbing of all was the way in which Ms Boyle felt, for whatever reason, a need to do a mock 'sexy hip-wiggle dance' and say "and that's just one side of me" suggestively. This was in response to one of the panel's questions. It was sad to me that she felt a need to show a sort of self awareness in this way - feeding into what ironically is fuelling the stereotype - and indeed helps define it. She was, perhaps, without the confidence to feel ok with being herself, and used a sort of nod toward this other guise by way of some kind of justification - she expects this to be a surprise to the audience. It's as if she (along wih many others) has been subtly intimidated into inadvertently apologising for herself, relative to accepted 'norms'. Either that or she's preempting her own PR plan....I for one was not surprised that a woman who dressed like someone old before her time, and appeared to have the image stereotypically associated with, I dunno, a Christian church group member - could wiggle her hips in a 'sexy' manner. I was perhaps a little embarrassed that it is automatically assumed I would or ought to be, and that I might be expected to nod, wink and say "you GO girl", when really all I want to do is hear the woman sing.

If people were embarrassed or ashamed to watch this - then they should have been - but something tells me that if they were, then it wasn't for the reasons I would hope they might be.

Sorry Hooligan - this is too long for a comment. But I was on a roll. Flower Fairy :-)

Anonymous said...

ahh yes, I re-read the guardian article - she makes the point better than I realised on first reading. Great stuff.

Anonymous said...

ahh yes, I re-read the guardian article - she makes the point better than I realised on first reading. Great stuff.

Billicatons said...

Yes, Flower Fairy. The hip-wiggle was saddening. And that was a great comment. Not too long by any stretch.

The hip-wiggle and general bearing gave away, as you say, a certain self-consciousness and pre-emption of the way in which she'd be perceived.

And it was this that I thought it was so fucking *poisonous* of Morgan to pick up on in his arse-wipe of a comment. What was it he said? "Everyone was laughing at you. No one is laughing now."

It's pretty unpleasant when a roomful of people titter at someone who's already to some degree aware that people are going to titter.

But it's a fucking morally worthless fvcker who feels the need to point the fact out, and crystalise it into a power statement. SH1T FACE.

Related posts