This morning I was on SkyNews on the Saturday live programme debating blogging. It was one of those discussions the media in the UK has started to have, as in… these bloggers are not going away, so let’s make them sound a bit ridiculous and question whatever it is they do. Yawn.
I was in the studio with Bobbie Johnson, a blogger and technology correspondent of the Guardian, and Iain Dale, a former Conservative party candidate, political commentator and.. wait for it.. a blogger. We had fifteen minutes to argue with the presenter about what is a blog, are they any good, shouldn’t blogs be like journalism, what is the bloggers’ responsibility, is it good or bad that they are undermining and stretching the current rules and frameworks etc. So three years ago, dahling…
The questions were extremely basic and there was no time really to answer anything other than try to get a sound-bite in. Perhaps that is why I could not take the whole thing too seriously. Both Bobbie and Iain were good and made the experience rather enjoyable…
The best thing about this morning was an excellent tip from the studio make-up person – she recommended a smudge-proof eyeliner that will do what I want from it, i.e. stay put and make my eyes look smokey. For those interested it is MAC fluidline eye-liner gel. Perhaps the traditional media has something going for it…
And here is a gratuitous pictures of me, with the make-up on.
And yes, it was rather sunny today.
Cross-posted from Media Influencer
Update: Tim Worstall actually watched it! I wish he had been there too but flying all the way from Portugal for the sake of a few silly questions about blogging just does not seem worth it.
Gorgeous 🙂
That eyeliner looks fabulous! No chance of finding it here, I’m afraid, although if it’s available in the US, I can have an American friend pick some up for me. Great tip! Thank you!
Far be it from me to be cynical, but… Did Adriana simply post this because she looks very good in that photo?
Not that anyone should be above naked self-publication.
Great photo, though I doubt I’ll personally be taking the make-up advice 😉
Well, this is cross-posted from my personal blog, Media Influencer, where I often post photos (of me and other stuff).
Actually, I posted this one cos it’s a weekend, blogging is rather slow, and you can’t actually see half of my face, so I can live with it.
Shame the make up advice is wasted on you!
Oh, and naked self-promotion.. excuse me?! 🙂
I find, in the newspapers (and on-line mostly), the best bits are the leaders, opinions and (especially) the letters. [Or is this just a (sad) phase.]
Blogging is, surely, more of this, more immediate, and more on-line.
Also, I’ve never had a letter published in a newspaper. Blogs are kinder; they publish 100%.
[Nice photo. I read Tim Worstall decided not to join you, and now regrets it.]
Best regards
Beauty and intelligience—a devastating combination.
Adriana has to do our media appearances coz the rest of us look just HORRID with eyeliner on.
Blogs are a challenge to what I will term “edidicatorship.” Print publications and other media decry blogs because they lack what the traditional media provides–editorial control.
Do we really need such control? Do we need traditonal media to tell us what is important? Or do we get to decide for ourselves?
Blogs are good, and if that ruffles the feathers of the edidictators, then so be it. Do not fear the future.
“…try to get a sound-bite in…”
A sound bite ? In TV a “look bite” is maybe more important. So, judging by the photo, you made yourself heard loud and clear.
Yowza!
Foxy… I’m smitten.
Kinda bummed they don’t post up much video on their website, would’ve like to have seen that.
I have never understood why TV can interview people at random in the street and make them look perfectly OK, but as soon as they get into a studio under controlled lighting they have to waste their time being ‘made up’ at considerable expense.
Isn’t it just a makework scheme?
David, it’s all in the lighting. In a street, it’s fine, natural light makes you look, well natural. Lights in a studio on the other hand are very strong and direct and most people would look like death warmed up.
It’s the artificial nature of the environment and the make-up, which both men and women have to wear, compensates for that. It’s not very heavy actually and these days they do make it look rather natural.
Well, now you know. 🙂
Plus vox-pops are meant to have a slightly off-the-cuff, naturalistic element to them 🙂
Adriana,
I suspect one camera shot of you did more to advance the cause of blogging than any amount of hot air from Ye Olde Media types could do to impede it.
… what veryretired said….
Very nice photo. I would have liked to have seen the program.
Sounds like they were hugely generous with the time. Sky News’s attention span is very short. I’ve been on twice for a live interview: once was a relatively trivial, soft, PR item for a book promotion, over in 30 seconds. The second was a discussion of the whole of the ID issue, at 6:30 on the morning of a key parliamentary debate, with two presenters against me, including Eamonn Holmes at his most aggressively populist… It lasted almost 3 times as long, nearly a minute-and-a-half.
TV make up and studios: Adriana is absolutely correct, it’s all about the lighting. If you’re in a studio with no make up then you look like a week old corpse they’ve just dragged up from the bottom of the lake. Exceedingly white and pale.
The root cause of this is that they are using metal halide bulbs to provide that lighting and they specifically use ones with scandium iodide in them to get the intensity and spectrum they want.
Which rather makes it all my fault as I’ve been the supplier of scandium to the light bulb industry for the past decade.
So you can, if you wish, blame me for that photo of Adriana and her smudge-proof eyeliner.
No no, no charge for this service.
May I second veryretired as well? It’s lurve baby….
Which immediately prompts the question of *why* is the studio lighting like that?
In the bad old days it had to be because early TV cameras (and early movie film) was too insensitive to be able to take a decent picture in the appropriate fraction of a second (pretty much the same for film and PAL TV) in normal-strength light.
But what’s the excuse now? They’re not still using 1950’s TV cameras are they?
You’d thing some of the lads here had never seen a photo of an attractive woman… Now, put your tongues back in, gentlemen!
Anyway, to all English folk here, may I wish them a happy St George’s Day.
“I was on telly this morning, the interviewer was rubbish, and here’s a picture of me pouting.”
You’re so vain, you probabaly think this blog is about you.
Gidders, phew, I was getting really worried that nobody rubbished me yet!
You forgot to mention the picture is over-exposed and not that great anyway….
But pouting…? ouch, that hurt. 🙂
Too bad that we decide what this blog is about… and this blog is about me too! Yep, I am vain and greedy.
gidders,
Seeing as Adriana is one of the editors of Samizdata, this blog is about whatever she wants…
Adriana, seeing as you are about…
…the values of personal liberty and several property.
From the Samizdata “definition” in the RH column.
What is “several property”?
I guess you never read Hayek then. It means private but in the sence of being non-collective rather than as opposed to ‘public’. ‘Personal’ property if you like.
Nick M, well, it’s to do with private or individual property but meant to counter-balance the notion of collective property.
It’s a phrase coined and used by F.A. Hayek to argue against socialism in favour of classical liberalism.
Hey, it seems the Samizdata editorial Pantheon is in accord. The harmony of spheres has been restored… 🙂
Pantheon? You get on Sky and develop delusions of divinity! For shame.
Sky? Oh, pwease… What is it with you, people? Just check out our editorial policy for the real source of our delusions of divinity.
Yeah, seen that. Seems more of a trinity than a pantheon.
For real divinity, for only USD9.99 –
http://www.monkeyspit.net/beagod/
In the Samizdata Editorial Pantheon, Dale is like Neptune, a distant but mighty figure who only pops in once in a while.
For only popping in once in a while, David Carr has Dale beaten in spades. It must be at least a year since he posted. Admittedly, he’s not an editor, but still …
Speaking of editors, though, could you tell us why some of the commentariat’s names appear in blue and are clickable for emails and others of us have our names appearing in white with the click-thru facility disabled? It’s a puzzle.
Verity,
The Trinity have created a digital hell of unclosed blink tags for people who dare ask such questions.
I suspect it’s down to whether or not your email address is in the little form you use to post comments. Try that first, before angering thy Gods.
Yes, of course my email address is in the little form. I don’t think you can post if the form is incomplete. Email click-thrus seem to have been disabled during the Great Spam Glut of ’06. I just wondered if they were going to be restored (like David Carr), that’s all.
Sorry, Verity. I’ve just realised that my name doesn’t click thru either! I’m an idiot at time. In my defence I’m multi-tasking on two 21″ screens: Samizdata-ing, designing CSS and trying to get a VOIP phone to work without nixing my speakers, while enjoying a shandy…
I think it used to be (and is supposed to be) optional as to whether you leave a click thru email address. I like doing it because otherwise it looks like I got something to hide. I’ve got plenty of stuff to hide, but my email address from you good folks ain’t one of ’em 😉
Looking good, Adriana 🙂
Adriana, interesting post and delightful photo. I did a bit of TV training a while back and it is interesting to note the key lessons, such as:
Do not wear certain patterns, as this encourages a sort of “strobe” effect; speak more slowly than in your normal conversations; avoid very long hair, for guys, avoid facial hair; also avoid certain colours that distract the viewer; try to smile or at least look as if you are a cheerful person; and avoid little movements, scratches of the hair, jiggling about, etc.
And if you’re a woman in a short skirt, stressful as it is on the muscles, keep your thighs off the seat, otherwise they look fat. If you’re a man in a short skirt, well, I guess you’ve bet the ranch and it doesn’t really matter.
Adriana: GOR-JUSSSSS……….
Johnathan: Now I know……..once did a Disney commercial……once!
You have not answered my question, simply (and inadvertently) given several reasons why people should be photographed au naturel– not hauled into temples of deliberately bad lighting called ‘studios’ to have their time wasted being primped and powdered.
I always suspected most of the mystique of TV production was bovine ordure and job creation. I’ve seen pictures shot with a Dixons camcorder in ordinary indoor light as good as you get from the ‘professional ‘ broadcasters.
Verity, re. men in short skirts – bravo! One of those rare laugh-out-loud moments in the blogosphere.
Whatever the merits of blogging photos like this are good for attracting traffic. This week Samizdata, next week Zoo, Nuts and FHM. It’s all in the eyes, you see.
Click.
Wow!
“Darling, I adore you and I cannot live without you so if you don’t marry me I’ll kill myself.”