As I already said, I like Michael. But he and Dan both gush too much IMO. And the others would be even worse. It's a shame they're so determined to swipe at PP at every opportunity. And then they will defend anything Ron does and call it "brilliant". The disparity is too severe to even make a pretense at being unbiased.

I know... shouldn't they be happy that PP is trying to revive the soap genre.. I know their hard-ons for Ron and Frank is getting way too old

I'd take Dan Kroll and Michael Fairman over the others.. At least they don't make their biased fanboy agendas known at all, unlike the others

This is rich coming from you.

I can't with anyone who doesn't find Fairman to be biased. He's as bad as Nelson when it comes to the Cartini workship.

This is rich coming from you.

I can't with anyone who doesn't find Fairman to be biased. He's as bad as Nelson when it comes to the Cartini workship.

IKR! Could he have been rimming them any harder in his Best of 2012 article?

I bet if PP chose Newcomb/Giddens or even a baby baboon to present the show, the knee-jerk PP defenders would slobber at how it's such a "great pick".

Oh, Fairman's fine. This isn't hard hitting journalism they are putting on here

As long as the actors are also free to do interviews with other folks it's all good. I long ago have ignored most of the NB/JG type folks-makes a soap fan's life easier..

I bet if PP chose Newcomb/Giddens or even a baby baboon to present the show, the knee-jerk PP defenders would slobber at how it's such a "great pick".

I don't think so.. especially considering how they both saying PP is doomed

All the soap journalists are pretty much the same except for the hardcore crazies like Branco. There's virtually no difference in what they put out. Acting like Fairman or Logan or whoever else is any different than any of the others - at least in style and output to the public - is silly. I don't care what any of them have done to each other, and neither does anyone else outside that weird little circle-jerk. I don't particularly care for Michael Fairman in general, but I don't care for almost any of them, really, nor is it some horrifying choice. I'm not sure what I should be so upset about. Please, tell me if you figure it out. I'll be over here not giving a [!@#$%^&*].

I can't with anyone who doesn't find Fairman to be biased. He's as bad as Nelson when it comes to the Cartini workship.

Yes he's so damn biased.

Admittedly, I give no [!@#$%^&*] about this venture (I'd rather have more shows than more ways to talk about the shows) but I find it amazing how "Cartini" has become such a toxic influence on the genre that the credibility of the press is now almost completely determined by whether or not, and how strongly, they support RC/FV.

They're like the syphilis of soaps. Once we know you've been infected, it's just a matter of whether and when you've been cured or if you've had it so long that it's affected your cognitive functions.

Edited June 11, 201312 yr by marceline

At least half of those "journalists" are now basically sitting on their hands, fidgeting and waiting for Ron and Frank to "get their characters back" so yes, it has become toxic. That's no way to look at things, and I watch all three shows.

I agree with AMCGal that I hope the actors will be free to do other interviews also. I don't loathe Michael Fairman, but I am not confident the show will be great.

I agree with AMCGal that I hope the actors will be free to do other interviews also.

I'm sure that they will. It's not in PP's interest to shut that kind of thing down.

Admittedly, I give no [!@#$%^&*] about this venture (I'd rather have more shows than more ways to talk about the shows) but I find it amazing how "Cartini" has become such a toxic influence on the genre that the credibility of the press is now almost completely determined by whether or not, and how strongly, they support RC/FV.

They're like the syphilis of soaps. Once we know you've been infected, it's just a matter of whether and when you've been cured or if you've had it so long that it's affected your cognitive functions.

My apathy about Fairman is from the "Cartini" worship, but also from the Crystal Chappell fondness (she's just gone a little off the rails in recent years), and those headshots plastered on his website that look like a has been singer trying to revive his career with a standards CD on sale only at Dollar Tree.

I don't think he's as bad as the DC cadre, or Nellie Olsen, as I get the feeling they don't care about the genre in any way beyond what makes them feel special and important, and because they have been involved in endless hypocrisy and agendas and gameplaying. Nellie in particular. Fairman at least does seem to care about soaps. And if those other people are out of joint, then I'm happy for him.

Roger Newcomb said on Twitter he wouldn't have been able to do this, but he would've been a great choice. He's fair and has great knowledge as a soap historian. I could see him putting together an interesting show with lots of great facts and tidbits. We Love Soaps is an excellent website. Michael Fairman has decent interviews, but he never asks tough questions or delves into anything that interesting. This is why I'd prefer Newcomb over him. I feel he'd be respectful, but more interesting. This was a very vanilla choice, which is what they wanted.