M. Winners 'move' to News Review

[peterpumkino]

I know that many people on this site hate Michael Winner which is why I like to rattle their chains a bit as I personally find him interesting (sorry Tony and Simon, I read him to be entertained).

Now that the powers-that-be have moved his column from the Style mag to the News Review my question is this: is this an acknowedgement that his column is entertainment and NOT a food column and is therefore a kind of promotion and he'll be around for many years (Tony?) or is this the Sunday Times way of saying his days are numbered and he is on his way out?

[Simon Majumdar]

I think he is on his way out. To go from a full page in a glossy section to the backpages of an "inky" bit to make way for some more much needed pages on fashion, cannot be seen as a good thing.

I suspect his days at The Sunday Thunderer are numbered.

S

[macrosan]

I noted this yesterday. I don't understand the mindset of newspaper editors (is that an oxymoron?) so I don't know if this is officially a promotion or demotion. But purely visually, I suspect the latter. His "column" is indeed exactly as Simon described it --- buried in the inky bits on the back page of a newsprint section that I never read

I am desperately trying to remain confident that Simon's comment about the "much needed pages on fashion" is an example of sarcasm, although having seen his snappy outfits a few times, I am slightly dubious.

Peter, it cannot be true that many, if any, people on this site hate Michael Winner A few people (excluding me incidentally) have adverse views on his critical capacity, but that falls far short of hatred. I think you're getting him mixed up with him of the stuttering initial, AA Gill

I thought you were cruising to Vigo !!!!!!

[Tonyfinch]

I've never been able to hate Michael Winner since I saw the stunned look on his face as he sat in the audience at the Royal Variety Performance while Jackie Mason "questioned" Jenny Seagrave

"Im not implying you're with him for his money. Far be it from me to imply such a thing. But let's face it,you're not with him for his looks are you? I mean anybody can see that. And it's certainly not for his talent because I'm told he hasn't got any. So tell me this. Would you still be with him if he drove a truck?"

Anybody so humiliated on prime time TV deserves a titchy grain of sympathy.

[britcook]

Ah the mindset of newspaper editors. Every once in a while they look at their publication and think, "How can I 'improve' this?". Never mind that people read it for what it is now, a major "redesign" is called for. So it is with the ST. We now get a new supplement, Driving with Mr Clarkson, and the Style section has gone glossy and is now almost entirely devoted to fashion. Mr Winner is many things but fashionable ain't one of them so move he must. Whether it is a promotion, demotion or sideways move really doesn't matter.

The most dreaded phrase for publications, as well as food, must be "new and improved"

[peterpumkino]

Well, so far your leaning towards demotion (surprise, surprise) my own feelings are different 'though (surprise, surprise).

Could it be that the ST editors decided that he is mainstream rather than Style (which, as Britcook says, he is definately not fashionable) and is giving him a bigger , NOT a smaller, audience?

Tony, that's funny and I wish I had seen that, trouble is he is quite talented (his film The System is one of the best ever IMHO) and, irregardless of whether it's money or not, can anyone on this site say he's not doing badly with pretty ladies and a jet set life and great food! I always remember Mrs. Merton interviewing Paul Daniels' wife asking her, 'Tell me what was it that first attracted you to the multi-millionaire Paul Daniels?'.

nb when I said that you 'hate' him I wansn't being over-serious.

[peterpumkino]

Macrosan,

I WAS in Vigo (on a cruise) but have returned. I'm returning in two weeks.

Take care,

Peter

[Simon Majumdar]

Well, so far your leaning towards demotion (surprise, surprise) my own feelings are different 'though (surprise, surprise).

Could it be that the ST editors decided that he is mainstream rather than Style (which, as Britcook says, he is definately not fashionable) and is giving him a bigger , NOT a smaller, audience?

I think one would have to know what the readership ( or viewing ) of each of the sections would be to make a comparison. Perhaps their Ad rate card might give a clue

I am reminded of the manager in Spinal Tap who when asked if they are becoming less popular says "No, it is just that their appeal is becoming more selective"

S

[Charlene Leonard]

I think one would have to know what the readership ( or viewing ) of each of the sections would be to make a comparison. Perhaps their Ad rate card might give a clue

[Tyke]

He talks out of his arse, maybe he has managed to see through the brown eye too !

[KaryLou]

I doubt they'll show him the door. Not only does he get stacks of reader letters but, as I understand it, he writes for £0 payment and claims £0 expenses. So he's hardly an editorial liability.

[peterpumkino]

Right on.

Personally I think it's a promotion but you all (of course) disagree with me! Anyway while your trashing Winner remember that he is much more succesful than you, he is much richer than you, he has travelled to more countries than you and, here's the clincher, has eaten in far more excellent restaurants than you. Who's laughing?

And, as Oscar Wilde said, there is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about. (Mark Twain said that he didn't care what they said about him as long as they spelled his name correct). So, the question is, when did they last talk about you?

NB: I do mean the 'you' plural and not singular (that would be 'thou').

[macrosan]

I do mean the 'you' plural and not singular (that would be 'thou').

Nawww, that would be "thee"

Peter, they're all talking about us all the time. It's just that they're not including you in their conversation.

Never forget the bad things Michael Winner has to put up with, like being escorted around by nubile twenty-something-year-olds, and ....

hmmm... can I get back to you on this ?

[Basildog]

Personally I think it's a promotion but you all (of course) disagree with me! Anyway while your trashing Winner remember that he is much more succesful than you, he is much richer than you, he has travelled to more countries than you and, here's the clincher, has eaten in far more excellent restaurants than you.  Who's laughing? about you?

Peter, you define Winner in interesting terms.

I knew i was doing something wrong with my life.thanks for putting me on the right path.

[TatarsHat]

Who died and made you "King Pumpkinhead"?

I must say I was appalled at your arrogance and ignorance.

If you must waste your time and ours wanking over Winner that is your perogative but please don't expect me nor others here, whom opinions I respect to do the same.

Your hypothetical evaluation of egulleteers and anyone else for that matter regarding wealth, travel, and culinary experiences of Winner only proves how narrow that little Pumpkinhead is.

And to think your job entails the public..

[Tonyfinch]

I promise that's not me under another name Peter.

[peterpumkino]

That's funny Tony!

As for 'Shady' - well, some people just don't get it, do they? Pity. Shady read Macrosan's comment - on second thoughts don't as you obviously have no sense of humour.

[Tonyfinch]

Winner may not be altogether serious and readers may understand that. But I think his cavalier attitude condemns him overall.

His stock in trade as a reviewer is to judge places as either utterly fantastic or utterly worthless-the latter much more often than the former.

This may make for some occasionally amusing reading but I do sometimes wonder about the effect of his OTT slaggings on the lives and livlihoods of the staff of the places he's condemning.

If he was a serious critic with a serious approach one might argue that he was only doing his job and that restaurants have to expect it

But to be so cavalier with other people's lives and to potentially harm their businesses for the sake of smug jibes and winks is a misuse of his position.

[peterpumkino]

Tony, just for five seconds I was tempted to agree with you, just for five seconds.

[macrosan]

Those must have been the longest five seconds of your life, Peter

[peterpumkino]

They were indeed Macrosan, they were indeed.

[TatarsHat]

Sir Pumpkinhead,

How amusing! Pity from the pitiful? And you said I had no sense of humour?

aka Tonyfinch