Anyone got this week's Time Out (23rd-30th)

[Dubversion]

bit harsh dubers?!

you've obviously missed Hackney's previous 'insights' on the matter of Smoke

 

[dolly's gal]

you've obviously missed Hackney's previous 'insights' on the matter of Smoke

probably, yes.

 

[Monkeynuts]

you've obviously missed Hackney's previous 'insights' on the matter of Smoke

I think I saw them but didn't really get involved. I could see where people were coming from but I'd only ever had a skim in the queue at Waterstones so wouldn't feel qualified to comment.

You seem a bit sensitive about it all though, do you write for it?

 

[Dubversion]

I think I saw them but didn't really get involved. I could see where people were coming from but I'd only ever had a skim in the queue at Waterstones so wouldn't feel qualified to comment.

You seem a bit sensitive about it all though, do you write for it?

No, I just found Hackney's rantings particularly puerile and ill-informed

 

[Dr. Furface]

No, the opposite in fact. Those celeb interviews cost them nowt, being pushed by PR companies as they were. They stopped printing them because every other friggin magazine on the stands had the same celebs doing the same tired interview circuit. Pointless for a magazine that is supposed to be about London.

Give it another look, it really is a hell of a lot better than it's been in years.

I accept that they might have done away with the celeb interviews for reasons other than costs, but as I said before, the interviews in TO were generally more interesting than you found elsewhere - and it usually wasn't 'the same celebs doing the same tired interview circuit' at all. If TO thought that they were in direct competition with the likes of HEAT or UNCUT, then I think they were mistaken. TO was and is fundamentally a listings magazine and what it lists is mainly arts and entertainment events - so what was so incongruent about it also featuring articles about artists and entertainers who were either Londoners themselves or would be appearing in London (either in person or on film), and therefore of interest to their readership? I'm not saying they should have actors and musicians on the cover every week - they never did do - but a bit of variety would be welcome. It used to strike a good balance between the arts and features on London, but it doesn't now.