TV Home Forum

Loose Women

From TVC - April 2018 onwards (April 2018)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
AL
alexjac0788
JamesWorldNews posted:
I’ve watched the clip back three times now. And, perhaps surprisingly, I conclude that it was Kim who bullied Coleen (specifically referring to LW and not B.B.) rather than the other way around. Also Kim could be accused of bullying Linda Robson as well.

Coleen’s only error (IMO) was when she forgot she was the programmes “anchor” and pointed to Kim telling her she was an “evil woman”, or whatever the description was.

If you look closely, Coleen must have been warned in her ear about that and started to backtrack and sought to “draw a line” from that point onwards.

Otherwise, I note that (after several revisits to the clip) Coleen actually looked saddened and upset by the unfolding events. She was whitened by it all.

If anything, it was Linda (Nolan) who possibly provided the most provocative comments.


Despite Linda Nolan referring to Kim as being 'untalented', both Linda and Coleen making snide comments whilst Kim was discussing her abusive childhood and the audience applauding any point the panel made (even clapping when Kim walked off the stage in tears)? Not sure how any of this makes Kim the bully. What chance did she have at building bridges with such a poor atmosphere?

Kim was told that Coleen would make the first point, hence the "what have you got to say?" comment.
JC
JCB
Whataday posted:
Difference being, Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand didn't present items on bullying on a regular basis.


I'm refering more to the bandwagon jumping, faux outrage element.
BR
Brekkie
JamesWorldNews posted:
I’ve watched the clip back three times now. And, perhaps surprisingly, I conclude that it was Kim who bullied Coleen (specifically referring to LW and not B.B.) rather than the other way around. Also Kim could be accused of bullying Linda Robson as well.

Coleen’s only error (IMO) was when she forgot she was the programmes “anchor” and pointed to Kim telling her she was an “evil woman”, or whatever the description was.

If you look closely, Coleen must have been warned in her ear about that and started to backtrack and sought to “draw a line” from that point onwards.

Otherwise, I note that (after several revisits to the clip) Coleen actually looked saddened and upset by the unfolding events. She was whitened by it all.

If anything, it was Linda (Nolan) who possibly provided the most provocative comments.

The point is the production should never have put anyone in that position in the first place. If Coleen wasn't a regular on the show and the two of them had been guest it would have maybe have been justified, but doing it even with Coleen as a panelist, never mind the host, it is no surprise it ended how it did - especially with her sister (is she even a regular?) there too. The shameful thing is it completely overshadowed Stacey Solomon quite rightly calling out that magazine for printing a string of nasty quotes on their front cover about her, with their defence being the pathetic "it's not our view, it's the view of a couple of people on Twitter".


This incident highlights something many shows like Loose Women have forgotten in recent years - they're there to serve the viewers, not the hosts.
NG
noggin Founding member
Brekkie posted:

This incident highlights something many shows like Loose Women have forgotten in recent years - they're there to serve the viewers, not the hosts.


They are only there to serve the advertisers... Nobody else.
CM
cmatthews13a
Jonwo87 posted:
cmatthews13a posted:

Perhaps not no but I understand why they did it.

I did originally wonder whether or not this is her making a decision to leave the panel (before the Kim Woodburn saga) or the fact that she will be anchoring whilst Christine Lampard is on maternity leave.


I think it's unlikely to be anchoring because Christine's been away for a while anyway so I think it's likely she's leaving



They haven’t technically got a replacement. Just speculating. She might find that it’s time to move onto pastures new. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Can’t wait to see Carol again.
JW
JamesWorldNews
The show has enough in the anchor pool anyway: Ruth, Andrea, Kaye, Coleen, Christine, Nadia......

With Jane, Gloria, Denise and Anne ALL more than capable and experienced in an anchor role too.
TV
TVViewer256
JamesWorldNews posted:
I’ve watched the clip back three times now. And, perhaps surprisingly, I conclude that it was Kim who bullied Coleen (specifically referring to LW and not B.B.) rather than the other way around. Also Kim could be accused of bullying Linda Robson as well.

Coleen’s only error (IMO) was when she forgot she was the programmes “anchor” and pointed to Kim telling her she was an “evil woman”, or whatever the description was.

If you look closely, Coleen must have been warned in her ear about that and started to backtrack and sought to “draw a line” from that point onwards.

Otherwise, I note that (after several revisits to the clip) Coleen actually looked saddened and upset by the unfolding events. She was whitened by it all.

If anything, it was Linda (Nolan) who possibly provided the most provocative comments.

However Kim seemed incredibly distressed, and Coleen I think maybe it was another panellist was heard sarcastically saying 'Oh, we know' when Kim was talking about her troubled childhood
TR
TROGGLES
Itv daytime Degenerating into complete trash tv it seems. Lowest common denominator to the get viewers.
MA
Markymark
TROGGLES posted:
Itv daytime Degenerating into complete trash tv it seems. Lowest common denominator to the get viewers.


I agree, and I’m astounded that individuals in this thread have nothing better to do at lunchtime than watch the sh1 t e
RM
Roger Mellie
noggin posted:
Brekkie posted:

This incident highlights something many shows like Loose Women have forgotten in recent years - they're there to serve the viewers, not the hosts.


They are only there to serve the advertisers... Nobody else.


True to an extent. Brekkie ultimately is right, in that advertisers need television viewers to watch their adverts.
Last edited by Roger Mellie on 1 September 2018 6:18pm - 3 times in total
WH
Whataday Founding member
Very odd comment noggin. Television programmes only serve advertisers if they have viewers.

And The Sun reported that the show lost a quarter of its viewers following the argument.
NJ
Neil Jones Founding member
Whataday posted:
Very odd comment noggin. Television programmes only serve advertisers if they have viewers.


The programmes themselves don't serve advertisers, they just act as bookends to the adverts. ITV airing Jeremy Kyle at 9:25am doesn't in itself make ITV any money. Airing the adverts during Jeremy Kyle is what makes the money (which they spent on Jeremy Kyle), and its Kyle that attracts the viewers who hopefully stick around to watch details of the never ending DFS sales, the power of Cillit Bang and how cheap Lidl is compared to Morrisons.

Newer posts