Extinction looms!

  Forum Editor 17:33 11 Dec 2006
Locked

Vote now to save the cuddliest, most appealing animal from the brink of the precipice.

Did anyone else see the programme hosted by Trevor McDonald and,like me,think it was about the sickest chunk of prime-time, bad-taste telly in a long time? have we really sunk to such depths that we need to be entertained by the likes of David Suchet saying "Oooh, aren't they cute?" about baby Pandas, so we'll vote for them to be saved, instead of Polar bears or Tigers?

Or are you all texting like mad, and can't wait to see which animals make it to the semi-finals?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 17:42 11 Dec 2006

One would hope that all of the Z-list 'celebrities' who probably are unable to tell an Eagle from a warlrus, are extinct well before the end of this programme for saddos.
Gutter+hit+bottom.

G

  Totally-braindead 17:44 11 Dec 2006

Well humanity is responsible for wiping out a lot of the other species and bearing in mind mans inhumanity to man I suppose its not reasonable to vote for homo sapiens. And lets face it most of us aren't cute and cuddly either.

Fraid I never saw the program you refer to but judging by your description I'd probably have switch it off after about 20 seconds. Never really been all that impressed by Pandas much more impressed by the likes of Polar Bears or Tigers they would be more likely to get my vote.

  knockin on 17:54 11 Dec 2006

I didn't see this either, but it sounds crass.
It seems that no TV company is prepared to fund its' programmes without the viewers paying even more money via expensive, phone-in, voting schemes. Maybe programmes are geared for this now?
How about phoning in to get your region's weather forecast every day? The region with the most votes gets to hear the Meteorological Office best guess for their area. The rest of us rely on the seaweed as we usually do.
Stop voting for rubbish and they may stop dumping it on us

  Kate B 18:13 11 Dec 2006

I caught a bit of it. Naff, naff, naff. But hey, at least it highlights the issue of extinction, which is I suppose a good thing, and if it does it in a populist way at least it reaches people who watch that kind of programme.

  Forum Editor 18:25 11 Dec 2006

The producers justified it in precisely that fashion - 'well at least we're raising awareness'.

They're an underhanded bunch, they really are. It's an nsult to my intelligence to try to have me believe that the producers' sole aim here was to raise awareness. I believe their sole aim was to grab an audience, and the animal extinction thing seemed like a pretty good way of doing it. They have an audience that's been educated to text numbers when told to do so, and the format of a series of programs leading up to a 'final' (come on everyone, it's too close to call! text these numbers now before the lines close!) with a cliff-hanger climax - 'will it be the Panda or the Polar bear, who'll be joining that long list of animals in the hall of extinction, and who'll be the one to get that £1 million survival contract?'

Here we are, contemplating an expenditure of £25 billion on nuclear submarines, and we're running a sick TV programme to try to raise £1 million to help save an entire species of animal from extinction.

All concerned should feel very ashamed of themselves.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 18:33 11 Dec 2006

The kind of people that will watch this programme would probably prefer their animals with 2 veg and gravy. On the comforting side, it is highly unlikely that they will have evolved enough to use the text function on a mobile phone.

G

  Forum Editor 18:41 11 Dec 2006

was to get that well-known nature programme presenter Cloe Ball to co-host the show. The perfect foil to Trevor McDonald's signature ploy of speaking in a rising crescendo, as if to say 'Loud means important, so when I speak very loudly, and enunciate every word very carefully you know it's very important, and you must pay special attention'.

  €dstowe 18:46 11 Dec 2006

Yet another example of "090" television - as so much of it is these days and even the BBC is not immune.

090 television comprises programmes which encourage, cajole, blackmail or do whatever to persuade the viewer to phone in and vote. These votes cost the caller up to £1-50 per minute and in some cases the charge is made whether or not you actually get connected.

Just reflect on the number of programmes these days that have these phone in "opportunities" and think twice before dialling.

On this specific series of saving animals from extinction, everyone apart from the people involved in making the programme would be far better off if these celebrities had stayed at home.

I did have some small respect for David Suchet as an actor but, not any more.

  do-gull 18:49 11 Dec 2006

Never saw the program but if as you say it is going to raise £1 million, it is better than nought.

D.G

  Totally-braindead 18:52 11 Dec 2006

Its sad really but I'm sure lots of people will watch it. I hate all the reality shows with the so called celebrities on it but people watch that.

I have never phoned any of these programs and have no intention of doing so but I'm sure many will.

Just out of curiousity how is £1,000.000 going to be used to save any animal from extinction as it seems to me its a drop in a bucket and I personally find that the morality of this is suspect to say the least.

Its sort of "well we've killed of hundreds of other animal species but heres your chance to help by saving one species and letting the rest die"

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

The Evil Within 2 review-in-progress

InVision Studio takes on Adobe XD and Sketch

Camera tips to take better iPhone photos

Comment transformer un iPhone en borne Wi-Fi ?