What am I doing?

[J T Melsom]

Ben

CJ has a promininent role in an early evening quiz show on BBC2. It is good that we have a President who is recognisable to people who have the opportunity to watch that show, but we really mustn't overstate the extent of his place in the public consciousness by using words like 'famous'. Walk down your local high street with a picture of CJ and see how many people recognise him.

Generally non politicians on QT have a larger celebrity status, and many such as Clarkson are known to have outspoken views, through newspaper columns.

And we are involved in negotiations with the current government over funding, so CJ is not as free to comment on political matters as we might wish. I have seen non departmental bodies run into problems on a wide range of issues because of the overt political bias of the appointed chair.

[benedgell]

When I worked with CJ at the Design Festival, I lost count of the number of people who recognised him and walked up to him asking for an autograph or a photo, so I don't think the tag 'famous' is ill-deserved.
I wouldn't particularly describe CJ as outspoken, and couldn't imagine him making some incredibly controversial comment that would affect the grant.
I stand by my previous statement- here's an opportunity to get the President of the ECF to appear in front of an audience of millions. Could we try to look at this as a positive rather then look for reasons why it won't work and shouldn't encourage it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/q ... 827200.stm

[J T Melsom]

Ben - just because I'm a chess player in favour of raising the profile of the game, doesn't mean that I'm automatically going to support every initiative,and you shouldn't misrepresent 'realism' as negativity. I just don't believe that Question Time is an appropriate forum for any representative of the ECF and don't believe CJ in his own right merits an appearance. Nor would it make me turn on and watch. By contrast I could list Presidents of bodies who would be appropriate invitees because of the interest groups they represent, people such as Kate Humble (President of RSPB), Bill Bryson (CPRE) and Ben Fogle (Campaign for National Parks). High chance of the audience choosing the odd question that might be relevant and people with sufficient public standing to be of interest on issues where they have less expertise. But do any of these bodies necessarily want to be on Question Time?

By all means put a modicum of effort into this initiative but I suspect those choosing the panellists will save us the anxiety/kudos of any appearance by sharing my views.

[Trefor Owens]

Hello everyone,
As the originator of the QT idea, I am obviously biased but I am also somewhat perplexed that so many people on this forum seem to seek out the negative.

The truth is that chess is a fascinating and thrilling game that could AND should have a larger profile in this country but is somehow still partially entrenched in the early part of the last century – I would much rather be a member of a large and all embracing sport than a small secretive organisation happy to perpetuate the myth that chess is only played by men with enormous intellect and tiny social skills.

I was under the impression that CJ was elected to raise the profile of chess, so why not get behind him rather than splitting hairs over how recognisable he is. I work in a building of several hundred people and if I was given £1 by every member of staff who could name CJ from his photo and had to pay anyone £5 who recognised Michael Adams I think I would have enough money to buy a chess book (or two) No disrespect meant to GM Adams!

If CJ’s appearance on Question Time is merely a grain of sand in the great lake of public awareness then we can be assured that one day the ripples will reach the surrounding lands

Trefor
p.s.
I do not have an allegiance to any political party and suggested Question Time as it is a well watched show where the non-politicians normally do well and stand out by
a) being honest
b) Answering the actual question asked

[Trefor Owens]

I agree that Kate Humble (President of RSPB), Bill Bryson (CPRE) and Ben Fogle (Campaign for National Parks) would be good choices for Question Time, but that doesn't mean CJ wouldn't be good as well after all this forum is to help/improve chess I am sure that the above good causes have their own membership fighting their corner

Kind regards

[J T Melsom]

I am a passionate supporter of Wycombe Wanderers who could do with more support. We have even had high profile articulate managers, but that doesn't mean I would have lobbied for Martin O'Neill to be on Question Time.

[Paul McKeown]

I find the idea that chess players lobbying for CJ de Mooi to appear on QT would in any way raise the profile for chess in a positive way simply silly. It might even make the general public think that chess players are even more odd than they do at the moment - can you imagine one of the Red Tops running with THAT theme? And we have no guarantee that CJ de Mooi won't say anything embarrassing - QT often brings out the worst in its occasional non-political panelists - and to be brutal, what fresh opinions would he bring to QT? I could easily name hundreds of people who would be more relevant to the programme. To me this seems more like promoting CJdM than promoting chess. Sorry.

Oh - and the by the way - Martin O'Neill might well be one of those hundreds of more relevant/more interesting people. Nice chap, polite, highly educated - trained as a lawyer iirc, with his own mind, held difficult but responsible positions in the public eye for a very long time. Perfect for a non-politico on QT, I would have thought.

[JohnPaines]

I stand by my previous statement- here's an opportunity to get the President of the ECF to appear in front of an audience of millions.

Erm - I thought he already did...

Could we try to look at this as a positive rather then look for reasons why it won't work and shouldn't encourage it?

If you were talking to the producer of Question Time right now and s/he asked you why CJ should be on the show, what would you say? It's all very well to ask players to lobby for him to appear on QT, and unlike some here I'd be glad to see him appear on the show, but if we aren't able to give a good reason, it's going to look like an obvious put-up job (especially if the producer Googles his name and finds this forum thread).

[Angus French]

...especially if the producer Googles his name...

Surely the need to google would preclude.

[John Wright]

QT is probably not the best platform. As soon as you take a stance you risk alienating half of the audience. The other half are also unlikely to decide that as CJ agrees with their views they will join a chess club.

[Ben Purton]

Ben - just because I'm a chess player in favour of raising the profile of the game, doesn't mean that I'm automatically going to support every initiative,and you shouldn't misrepresent 'realism' as negativity. I just don't believe that Question Time is an appropriate forum for any representative of the ECF and don't believe CJ in his own right merits an appearance. Nor would it make me turn on and watch. By contrast I could list Presidents of bodies who would be appropriate invitees because of the interest groups they represent, people such as Kate Humble (President of RSPB), Bill Bryson (CPRE) and Ben Fogle (Campaign for National Parks). High chance of the audience choosing the odd question that might be relevant and people with sufficient public standing to be of interest on issues where they have less expertise. But do any of these bodies necessarily want to be on Question Time?

By all means put a modicum of effort into this initiative but I suspect those choosing the panellists will save us the anxiety/kudos of any appearance by sharing my views.

Just becuase you have certain views Melsom doesnt mean those choosing panelist will automatically support you.

Also what is this realism quote, you being funny so if someone says Proportional to their relative numbers there are more jews in charge of NFL teams, government held positions and in the Fortune 500. This can be taken either way

If for example you say "Crime is higher among non caucasion youths" Is this a realist remark or what of negativity towards ethnics?

In many sense realism can be used in a negative light

Ben

[Jonathan Bryant]

I find the idea that chess players lobbying for CJ de Mooi to appear on QT would in any way raise the profile for chess in a positive way simply silly.

It's precisely because Question Time stopped being about politics and became more and more a platform for special interest groups to raise their own profile/agendas that I stopped watching it many many years ago.

Whether or not CJdM appearing on QT would actually raise the profile of the game does not interest me in the slightest - although I suspect you're asolutely right. It's probably just a silly idea (whether or not it comes to fruition).

[J T Melsom]

Ben Purton

It's discourteous to address people by surname only, outside of the school system.
I would answer your posting in full but didn't understand it.
I have every confidence that the producers of Question Time would agree with me. Would I be happy to be proved wrong? No - because like other posters this would indicate that Question Time was no longer the programme it once was.
CJ on Question Time is a silly idea.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

Ben,

It's great that you're tackling your publicity role with such enthusiasm. But not all publicity is good publicity. Were CJ to appear on QT, I see little opportunity for him to mention chess in reply to questions that are likely to be about such topics as Afghanistan, MPs's expenses, the state of the economy and so on. That leaves the modest possibility that some people who recognise CJ may note that he's now ECJ President. Against that must be set risks such as he doesn't perform well or says something to upset viewers. Appearing on television in this sort of combative forum takes special skill and training.

I'd be inclined to drop this proposal. But it's great that someone is actually doing something on the publicity front.

Keep up the good work.

[Paul McKeown]

If you wanted someone to represent English chess on QT, then I would suggest Nigel Short. Although bound to cause controversy, he is used to handling awkward questions from the press and would have something to say on many things political. Be warned though: his opinions may not necessarily match your own! But in some ways an interesting candidate: he is British (English), he is better known to the general British public than any other native born or resident player, he has played a match for the World Chess Championship against Garry K., who was also once on QT...

I think he would do a better job of promoting chess to the public than CJdM, although he might well enrage many viewers too!

But really QT is probably not the best vehicle to promote chess...