<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://community.brandrepublic.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Search results matching tag 'Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall'</title><link>http://community.brandrepublic.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?o=DateDescending&amp;tag=Hugh+Fearnley-Whittingstall&amp;orTags=0</link><description>Search results matching tag 'Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall'</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2007 SP2 (Debug Build: 20611.960)</generator><item><title>Continuous repeats of Come Dine With Me could be Channel 4's apocalyptic future</title><link>http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/jeremyleeonmedia/archive/2009/05/06/continuous-repeats-of-come-dine-with-me-could-be-channel-4-s-apocalyptic-future.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 10:07:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">0f8ed6bf-041d-4f2c-bb76-9560b958a575:43812</guid><dc:creator>1704826</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Channel 4&amp;#39;s annual report, published today, contains the usualy hand-wringing statements about what might happen if some sort of settlement on its future&amp;nbsp;funding model is decided.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But instead of Andy Duncan and Luke Johnson going on about their editorial highlights of 2008 (of which there are many)&amp;nbsp;while claiming that editorial spend is now going to be reduced by at least 10%, thereby implying that we won&amp;#39;t see such gems as The Inbetweeners and The Shooting of Thomas Hurndall, why don&amp;#39;t they just make policy makers sit through an episode of Come Dine With Me to show how bleak the channel&amp;#39;s future could be?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This series, which appears to be on a loop on More4, consists of boring people holding a dinner party with a camera in the corner. Now I love my food shows - Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, Masterchef and even the Great British Menu - but this series is so bad that if this is the future of C4 then I&amp;#39;m tempted to&amp;nbsp;organise a whip-round myself.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Tesco TV - because every titillation helps</title><link>http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/jeremyleeonmedia/archive/2009/03/24/tesco-tv-because-every-titillation-helps.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:03:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">0f8ed6bf-041d-4f2c-bb76-9560b958a575:40719</guid><dc:creator>1704826</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;When Tesco said it was dropping its in-store TV network, Tesco TV, for something more ‘modern&amp;#39; who would have thought that pornography was possibly being considered as an alternative?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Tesco has always prided itself on being able to get shoppers in, not least with its cheap meat products available, as Hugh Fearnsley-Whittingstall revealed, because the supermarket chooses to adopt the bare minimum animal welfare standards from its suppliers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However visitors to a Southampton branch found themselves getting an eyeful of another cheap meat treat,&amp;nbsp;after seeing&amp;nbsp;porn being transmitted from the now-defunct Tesco TV screens&amp;nbsp;dangling from the aisles.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although Tesco has said that the porn was the result of a customer prank and that it was only on for seconds, other reports suggest that it was on for several minutes before the screens were changed back to regular TV. Plus we don&amp;#39;t know which seconds they were.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless hats off for to Tesco for media innovation and hopefully this will see off those German interlopers Aldi and Lidl who, if they try a similar tactic, will just show big hairy women with blokes called Jurgen.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Time for TV to slaughter the vegetarian Holy Cow</title><link>http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/jeremyleeonmedia/archive/2008/11/14/time-for-tv-to-slaughter-vegetarianisms-holy-cow.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:31:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">0f8ed6bf-041d-4f2c-bb76-9560b958a575:31948</guid><dc:creator>1704826</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;This week the head of Channel 4 Julian Bellamy has defended the right of television to risk offence in its winter programming launch.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘Audiences know what to expect from Channel 4. They want us to push boundaries, challenge orthodoxies, take risks....even if that means our programmes are not to everyone&amp;#39;s tastes,&amp;#39; he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And, to varying degrees, I&amp;#39;m inclined to agree with him.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However this is coming from a programmer whose channel I noticed, when watching Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, insists on broadcasting an obsequious warning before any programme that features an animal being killed or butchered.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The only minority that it is absolutely forbidden to offend, it seems, is vegetarians. How absurd. Why is this? And&amp;nbsp;will Channel 4 ever&amp;nbsp;be &amp;#39;brave&amp;#39; enough to broadcast the reality of animal death without a warning?&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>