maybe miquita should stop talk, talk, talking that blah, blah, blah

so miquita oliver has been temporarily suspended from t4 for calling tik tok singer ke$ha a very rude name after interviewing her at the nme awards. within the earshot of her management. not a very good idea, of course but should we be surprised? should channel 4 be surprised? should she have been suspended?

my initial kneejerk reaction was 'no' to all of the above. alongside glossy hair, interesting cardigans and general good looks, something which all t4 personalities have in common is their irreverent, awkward and arrogant presenting style which often strays from edgy into downright offensive.
take simon amstell, former popworld presenter and miquita's co-host on the show which launched her career, whose gloriously enjoyable, surreal interview technique ensured interviewees and viewers alike were never quite sure what to expect. i remember he once asked busted which of the sugababes they thought "smelled their fingers" the most - a ridiculously crude, offensive line of questioning of course, but compared with the inane "if you could have anyone round for a dinner party..." type line of questioning from fellow pop presenters ant & dec & cat & fearne & co., simon and miquita's cutting approach was refreshing and entertaining and gained them a cult following, along with a t4 contract for miquita which would run for years to come.

add to this the fact that miquita was also sacked from radio 1 for branding fearne cotton a "devil" and calling for her to be sacked, it seems to me that this recent episode is not entirely out of charcter. it seems frustrating to me that t4 would simultaneously exploit and reprimand the one quality in miquita which attracts so many viewers and fans.

but does this excuse miquita's abusive behaviour? no, of course it doesn't. and despite the fact that the comment was muttered under the presenter's breath and the popstar was never meant to hear the insult, the incident took place in the workplace and therefore for channel 4 to ignore the complaint and not enforce any form of discipline would appear negligent, irresponsible and encouraging of abusive behaviour.

therefore i agree that there must be consequences for irresponsible, unprofessional behaviour whether or not it is deemed entertaining or not. but i wonder how all the other popstars and celebrity interviewees who have endured the t4 treatment without the grace of a public apology feel in the light of this...? like britney, for example, who broke down after a particularly persistant "are you nuts?" line of questioning. poor britters - she got a rough deal compared with ke$ha if you ask me...

there's a time and place for denim

so this week alexa chung's first vogue cover hits the shelves. dressed in classic shirt + blazer + denim and topped off with those chanel clogs, alexa secures her style icon status with this cover. her accompanying article within the fashion bible is an open love letter to denim in which she describes the fabric as "a symbol of youth, sex, rebellion and, most essentially, America." handy for her, this denim obsession, as she'll be sporting rather a lot of it as the new face of pepe jeans. i agree with her that "buying jeans is our first foray into American style" but, unlike alexa, i'm just not that into denim.

sure, i own the obligitary denim basics - shorts (for holidays), cut off denim mini (for festivals) and jeans (for painting, decorating or moving house) - but as you can see i tend to think of these pieces as primarily functional and even at that, they don't feature regularly, as holidays, festivals and moving tend to be annual occurrences in my life.

for me, denim and fashion are not friends. as soon as i see those two words in the same sentence, my mind is stormed by grotesque images of the following designer denim disasters:

denim louis vuitton handbags - as in the one sjp gave jennifer hudson in the satc movie and the type you see on stacey's stall

britney and justin's co-ordinating red carpet denim monstrosities - and we all know how that ended...

admittedly, i'm close-minded when it comes to this twill textile and it's place in my wardrobe but that's not to say i can't appreciate it's universal and classic appeal. so long as it's not stretchy, embellished, matching or too 'fashion', denim does look good on some and i must say i do love alexa's shots in the latest issue of vogue.

guilty pleasures taste so good

after a decidedly low-key friday night-in with my flatmates, pyjamas, cadbury's giant buttons and newly-discovered favourite junk tv, popstar to operastar, i'm left wondering what exactly makes trash so enjoyable?


when it comes to tv, food, music, clothes, magazines and movies, you can't beat a bit of junk every once in a while. heck in the last week alone i've found myself going nuts for jedward ft. vanilla ice at the national tv awards, dancing like a wally to peter andre in a bowling alley and thoroughly enjoying watching a one hit wonder fake a nightmare on the ironically-titled celebrity big brother. hardly life-changing or enriching in any way, right?


but yet still so fulfilling. and so in my quest for understanding, i turn of course to the ever-faithful fountain of knowledge that is wikipedia (well, it got me through my degree just fine), which defines a guilty pleasure as:


"something one considers pleasurable despite feeling guilt for enjoying it. often, the "guilt" involved is simply fear of others discovering one's lowbrow or otherwise embarrassing tastes, rather than actual moral guilt. fashion, music, and food (especially unhealthier foods high in sugar and/or fat) can be examples of guilty pleasures."


very interesting wiki, but i'm not quite sure you've quite cracked this one. personally i think we've moved on slightly from this and in fact rather than a fear of 'others discovering' what we're really into, the guilt stems from an internal awareness and self-imposed pressure to learn and enhance ourselves, continuously.


i'll happily tell the world i love the saccharine nonsense that is mtv's hit series the hills (all six seasons of it). is it lowbrow? sure. am i embarrassed for liking it? no. yet i will describe it as a guilty pleasure because i know it's not good for me. in the same way that by eating half a family pack of maltesers i know i'm not going to get any fitter, the hills won't improve me in any way shape or form. it is pure, unadulterated sugar and it's enjoyment is both instant and soluble. which is, every now and then, just what i'm after.