Tory MP Nick Fletcher blames crime in young men on female Doctor Who

Not at all, I'm interested in hearing why folk think it lost half its audience.

Since Tennant left the job the viewing figures have plummeted, the new format has helped it die but it was slowly fading anyway IMO.

20101512 hours 10 minutes8.30m
20111410 hours 50 minutes7.75m
201264 hours 43 minutes8.28m
2013108 hours 11 minutes8.09m
20141310 hours 49 minutes7.34m
20151310 hours 27 minutes6.16m
201611 hour 0 minute7.83m
20171310 hours 20 minutes5.64m
2018108 hours 25 minutes7.96m
201910 hour 59 minutes7.13m
2020108 hours 51 minutes5.40m
202154 hours 45 minutes5.05m
 
Since Tennant left the job the viewing figures have plummeted, the new format has helped it die but it was slowly fading anyway IMO.

20101512 hours 10 minutes8.30m
20111410 hours 50 minutes7.75m
201264 hours 43 minutes8.28m
2013108 hours 11 minutes8.09m
20141310 hours 49 minutes7.34m
20151310 hours 27 minutes6.16m
201611 hour 0 minute7.83m
20171310 hours 20 minutes5.64m
2018108 hours 25 minutes7.96m
201910 hour 59 minutes7.13m
2020108 hours 51 minutes5.40m
202154 hours 45 minutes5.05m

Yeah, Smith was okayish, Capaldi awful, and Whittaker just meh. Storylines on the few I saw were rank.

Needs a major rethink/reboot.
 
White people played people of colour for decades in film and tv and if anyone says it's not right then certain people scream "cancel culture" Woke" "pc gone mad" yet, if non white actors get more roles or heaven forbid play fictional characters not previously played by people of colour then the same certain people scream "cancel culture" "woke" "pc gone mad"

Curious.
and those same certain people throw around the term 'permanently offended' with no sense of irony
 
TV is a good example as it's generally at the spearhead of such movements. I'm really not angry, it's not something that affects my life. I've just stated that it's so blatantly overdoing it on the equality casting that I find it obvious to the point I lose the message of the Ad.

but the deeper fallout of this is that I am concerned about positive discrimination however and it's long term impact. That's what I'm talking about here and that every other poster has purposely avoided to engage. Do I care what colour, creed or sexuality people on TV ads are? Not one ounce. But Positive discrimination is dangerous and divisive. An example was a Scottish business fund exclusive to minorities. Why should a governing body be handing out grants with ethnicity as a driving factor? And it's a problem that has spread all over the corporate sectors.

Positive discrimination is as you so rightly said, a progressive PR strategy. If we wanted real equality why wouldn't these companies remove gender, sexual orientation, names (linked to ethnicity) and age from their recruitment processes and instead give each candidate an automated number. But we don't and won't because companies want a company image of some sort of American stock photo laughing over their Chai Latte's.

But back to point of positive discrimination (aka discrimination). I'm yet to hear of any real world benefits? We both know companies are recruiting with diversity in mind, meaning ability and experience are being forgotten on a crusade of discrimination disguised as equality. The founding principle of modern day equality is in itself creating inequality. Surely that's not hard to understand is it?
I think the two of us can absolutely agree that major companies and business brands rarely have the benefit of society at the forefront of their thinking when coming up with their latest campaigns. When John Lewis made their Christmas advert this year, I don't think they included a black family out of the goodness of their hearts. As you say, it's all about image management. John Lewis put a black family in their advert this year because they want to be perceived as a company that's modern and progressive, and they seem to think that employing black faces is a fast-track way to ensuring that people believe that about them. I think, on some level, it speaks to the homogenous hypocrisy at the centre of neoliberal globalisation that a massive name like John Lewis can just wade into centuries-long discussion about black liberation and freedom in the Western world and look like the good guy when all they're trying to do is protect their falling profits. I prefer it when they make cute adverts with cuddly animated animals for that reason.

However, I think you're conflating the cynicism of corporate elite marketing strategies with the good ethics of long-running, established movements set up by marginalised and minority groups to preserve and protect their human rights. I don't like the John Lewis advert this year, for what it's worth, but what I don't have a problem with is the effect that advert might have on the general public's perceptions of black families. It's only a theory, but I believe that the more we see of people who don't look like us, the more normalised it becomes, and thus the better we all treat each other. Throughout history, for as long as humans have have been keeping track of themselves and writing things down, we've always had a fear of "the other". As far as I'm concerned, the differences and inherent "otherness" we all have should be celebrated so that we fear each other a little bit less every 10 years or so. The advert hasn't been made with honest intentions but that shouldn't distract from the potential of a white boy at home who watches the advert and treats the black boy in his class a little better the next day.

I'm not saying the advert alone has solved racism, because that's a laughable notion, but the advert is taking place within a larger cultural shift that will nudge us a little bit nearer with every generation that passes. I think MLK Jr. himself said that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" - which is to say that equality isn't something that springs up overnight and doesn't take prisoners, it's just something that slowly gets to wherever it needs to be over hundreds of years.

I'd argue that what you're seeing right now is capitalism and mainstream society catching up to, and then co-opting, progressive movements that have been around for longer than either of us have been alive. And because it's all a bit new to quite a lot of people, none of us really know the right way to approach the subject, so bits of it come off as over-earnest or a bit twee. I think your anecdote about the non-binary casting call, and your general anxieties about positive discrimination, is an example of this happening in real life. I imagine it's because the casting company (or whoever they were) think that casting a non-binary actor is the "right thing to do" because, with the best of intentions, they're trying to give more opportunities and better representation to a group of people who've been ignored and dismissed for a long time. That comedian Bo Burnham refers to this as our "period of over-correction", where lots of people suddenly become aware of a long-term problem and try a little too hard to solve it.

It's a bit like what's happening with the NHS right now. The pandemic exposed to millions of us just how poorly run and underfunded the NHS really is, so we're all doing that extra bit more to try and "protect" it at the moment, even though it's the NHS' job to protect us! It'll settle down eventually and we'll all go back to abusing the NHS and taking it for granted like we did up until March 2020, and I imagine the same will happen with things like diversity quotas and (your words, not mine) "positive discrimination" in company hiring policies and acting roles. We notice a problem, we go to great pains to solve it and end up creating new ones by over-solving it, then someone says "Hang on a minute, should we calm down a bit?", and then the pendulum eventually settles somewhere in the middle.

I'd really strongly urge you to seek out alternative viewpoints that haven't been meddled with by elite hands, because sometimes the sanitised nature of corporate-approved "progressiveness" makes it unpalatable for lots and lots of people. I'd read up on smaller political organisations that prefer methods of egalitarianism over equality; find genuinely radical art and entertainment that's been created by real people in marginalised groups who really have something to say. I don't agree with the idea of removing gender, race, sexuality, etc. from these equations because that's eerily close to cultural assimilation and part of the problem with a neoliberal globalised mindset that wants us all to be the same. As I said, our inherent "otherness" to each other is something that needs to be celebrated and discussed.

Anyway, I'm getting off my point now so I'll round up. Basically, everything is going to be fine. You might see the odd diversity box being ticked on TV and you might occasionally hear of friends and family members losing out on opportunities because a black transgender lesbian furry showed up at the last minute and stole the gig, but everything will just sort of roll on as it always has done.
 
Yeah, Smith was okayish, Capaldi awful, and Whittaker just meh. Storylines on the few I saw were rank.

Needs a major rethink/reboot.

It's opinion obviously, but I thought Capaldi and Smith were perfectly fine as the Doctor.

Unfortunately barring a handful, the writing for Capaldi was awful, and it's not been a lot better for Whittaker, mostly coinciding with Chibnall showrunning.

Those figures show that the first Whittaker season averaged very well, but there was a drop-off when there was a year's break. Given that also hit the pandemic period, it's probably too simplistic to put it down to any one factor.
 
It's opinion obviously, but I thought Capaldi and Smith were perfectly fine as the Doctor.

Unfortunately barring a handful, the writing for Capaldi was awful, and it's not been a lot better for Whittaker, mostly coinciding with Chibnall showrunning.

Those figures show that the first Whittaker season averaged very well, but there was a drop-off when there was a year's break. Given that also hit the pandemic period, it's probably too simplistic to put it down to any one factor.

It’s probable that the writing influenced my thinking, equally though I just took against Capaldi. No idea why. Fickle opinion with no rhyme or reason I guess :)
 
Just posted this in Off Topic, but the MP was making this comment as part of the wider International Men's Day debate and to me highlights the danger of taking one person's words without the context. By changing traditional white male heroes into people that straight white men and boys (if there are any left) don't identify with, I can see why he has spoken this way - in the context of the debate.

IMD was Friday 19th Nov in case you missed it.
Again, I find International Men's Day silly. And that goes for any international group too.

Men, women, mother, father, etc. All silly.
 
Again, I find International Men's Day silly. And that goes for any international group too.

Men, women, mother, father, etc. All silly.
Steak and blowjob day is where its at these days...
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.