The longest running radio ‘music’ programme in the world is broadcast weekly here in Britain courtesy of the BBC and is entitled ‘Desert Island Discs‘. It was first broadcast on the 29th January 1942 and is still going strong. In that time it has had just 4 presenters which is really quite remarkable. Each week a famous or worthy person sits in the studio having selected the 8 pieces of music they would like to have with them should they ever find themselves stranded on a desert island. This is really just an excuse to have a little biographical chat with the presenter.

I have to assume that in 1942 it was expected that the castaway would be in possession of a wind up ‘gramophone’ and was restricted, of course, to old 78rpm recordings with just about 4 minutes a side. Today, the guests have to pretend that they wont want to have their Bose stereo or iPod with their huge collection of recordings. They still just get the 8.

I do not listen to this program – even though sometimes the guests can be most interesting – but I caught the end of it the other day when I turned on the radio in the car and realised I had forgotten part of the package. On top of your 8 musical choices you are also allowed one book and one luxury item (and no – the luxury item can not be a cruise ship). As to the books, you are not allowed to choose either the Bible or the works of Shakespeare because, apparently, these are already magically there on the island waiting for you to arrive.

Now speaking personally I have to admit that Shakespeare was quite good at what he did, the Bible does have the odd interesting bit and they both have the advantage of being extremely lengthy. I also realise that some people read one for entertainment and the other for, er, whatever it is they read it for. But in both cases, I am not one of them. I am not even sure if the abundance of paper these two books would give me would be at all helpful with the possible exception of a long line of paper hats to help keep the sun out of my eyes while I read and re-read the third book.

The third book, as the only one to read, becomes a seriously difficult choice. I don’t know about anyone else but I think I’d want something uplifting. After the trauma of being marooned I wouldn’t want anything too literary or scholarly either – I would go for escapism. I’m seriously tempted to opt for an omnibus edition of ‘Biggles’ to be honest.

The one ‘luxury’ object is an even more difficult choice to make. Well – not difficult if it could be Keira Knightley but I suspect that wouldn’t be allowed and anyway, Keira probably wouldn’t agree to it. I think I have to be very sensible about this one and choose wisely so I am going to opt for my William Henry penknife. I think I’ll ask about Keira first though… just in case.

What I don’t understand about all of this is why it is referred to as a ‘Desert Island’. It might not be quite so catchy but should it not be ‘Deserted Island’? And if I have my Omnibus edition of ‘Biggles’ and Keira, will I actually want to be rescued?

As usual I am late with this one but I wanted to give the good old BBC plenty of time to mention it. As far as I can tell, however, they seem to have ignored it. So, back to the recent item Now They’ve Got It In For My Wine. Anyone watching the BBC news broadcasts regarding the report that so many of us are drinking too much will have noticed that they really went to town. Big splash, dire warnings, catchy headlines, end of the world stuff.

So it seems rather sad to me that the follow up news story seems to have been ignored. But you can read it at Times Online headlined: How ‘safe drinking’ experts let a bottle or two go to their heads.

In a nutshell, the claims that we were all falling into alcoholism and about to die of liver disease was based on the recommended maximum daily alcohol units published by the Royal College of Surgeons back in 1987. These recommendations have been used by health professionals everywhere since then and were the measure for last weeks scare report. The problem, now exposed, is that the levels they cast in stone 20 years ago were absolutely meaningless.

Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal and a member of the college’s working party on alcohol, told The Times yesterday that the figures were not based on any clear evidence. He remembers “rather vividly” what happened when the discussion came round to whether the group should recommend safe limits for men and women.

“David Barker was the epidemiologist on the committee and his line was that ‘We don’t really have any decent data whatsoever. It’s impossible to say what’s safe and what isn’t’.

“And other people said, ‘Well, that’s not much use. If somebody comes to see you and says ‘What can I safely drink?’, you can’t say ‘Well, we’ve no evidence. Come back in 20 years and we’ll let you know’. So the feeling was that we ought to come up with something. So those limits were really plucked out of the air. They weren’t really based on any firm evidence at all. It was a sort of intelligent guess by a committee.”

In other words – it was a complete and utter lie and a worthless recommendation. Time, methinks, to get the corkscrew out.

Whilst the unnecessary death of anyone, anywhere, is a tragedy, the four news workers who died when their helicopters collided over Phoenix, Arizona were a part of a more serious tragedy than many, which is the state and quality of American news coverage.

Anyone who habitually watches news coverage in Europe – or like me was weaned on the BBC and ITN – can remember that moment when they first sat in a hotel room in the USA and watched one of the network news programmes. If they were like me their jaws would have been sagging in amazement and they would have been slowly shaking their head in disbelief.

Don’t get me wrong. I am aware that news broadcasting in England has also taken a qualitative dive in recent years. But much of that, I believe, was caused by the arrival of Sky News and Mr. Murdoch. At the same time, US news broadcasting dived even lower when the same organisation launched Fox.

That being said, US news has always, as far as I can remember, been far more sensationalist and more moralistic and preachy than it has about calmly reporting world, national and local events. When it really matters it can be just as good as anywhere else – I watched much of the US reporting on Hurricane Katrina for example and much of it was admirable. But they also spend a lot of coverage on events that don’t matter. The four people who tragically died were covering nothing more important than a police car chase. And for this, there were no fewer than five news helicopters overhead. I can only assume that they all hoped to sell their footage later to be compiled into one of those dreary reality TV cop shows that litter the TV schedules on satellite and cable.

It is, in fact, a wonder that such a collision has never happened before.

It comes as no real surprise – he is, after all, 72 years old now – but the announcement that the Autumn run of chat show ‘Parkinson’ will be the last still heralds the end of an era.

I don’t catch it that regularly these days but that is largely because the guests are so often ’second-raters’. I recall the reason Parkinson no longer has the calibre of guests on his show that he had back in the 1970’s and the show’s heyday. He said that back then, when he invited a current movie star or even movie legend onto the show, they turned up and they talked. But today, everyone has their publicist and minders, the questions have to be vetted in advance and unless the interviewer agrees to what he can and cannot discuss, then no guest. It is all about promotion. And Parkinson refuses to play that game – which probably makes him fairly unique in itself. And it means that the great shows of the 70’s – which were compulsive viewing at the time – are no longer possible.

This is a shame and today’s generation of celebrities, be they from the world of music, film, sport or whatever, are missing the point that talking honestly about yourself to a skilled interviewer can connect far more with the public than the narrow, safe ‘glossy magazine’ soundbites their publicists insist on.

Parkinson is also right, in my opinion anyway, to be critical of the younger generation of chat show hosts. Compare him, for example, to the dire Jonathan Ross or Graham Norton. If you are actually interested to know anything about the guest you are likely to find out with Parky. For Ross and Norton it is all about them, their ego and their appalling jokes. Guests on their shows find it almost impossible to get a word in yet alone complete a sentence.

Parkinson is just another one of those constants that has been a part of my adult life. But I can understand why he is throwing in the towel. And I wish him the very best for his future.

I do not understand why, for the past few weeks, the BBC and other media classify the early death of an ex-Playboy bimbo gold-digger who seems to have slept with as many men as she has dollars in the bank, as ‘Entertainment News’.