Lotto revamp 'long overdue'

Press, 27 January 1988, Page 15

Lotto revamp 'long overdue'

By DAVE WILSON It is one of the shortest programmes on television, yet probably one of the most watched. Just five minutes on a Saturday evening when viewers can learn if they have become a million dollars richer. Like most other viewers, I have sat rivetted to the set at 8.30 p.m. on a Saturday, little com-puter-printed Lotto ticket nearby and hopes high in the room. To date, not one cent of Lotto’s fortunes has been disbursed our way. Such is life. But recently, a thought separate from pure monetary greed has crossed my mind during these Lotto draws. The thought that as a piece of television, the Lotto draws are rank amateurism. What television game show would give away a million dollars on a lurid cardboard set? And the three anonymous scrutineers who each week sit behind a bench that makes them resemble Muppet characters, what earthly function do they serve in the televising of the draw? At present the programme consists of a rather swept-up clothes tumbler that refuses to disgorge the balls with our numbers, and a pair of "gee-whizz” presenters who annoy me by telling me about the happy folk who won (when we lost) last week. Human jealousy aside, Doug Harvey and Ann Wilson are a personable couple who go about their business well, although quite why a five-minute programme needs two presenters is, beyond me. Last Saturday Mr Harvey insisted on burbling away about the cricket in Australia when the viewing population was probably saying “Get on with

it, make my day!” If that view is shared, that the chatty banter is not necessary, then how should the Lotto draw be revamped? Quite simply, I would submit. All we need, or might want, are the six winning numbers and the bonus number. The draw does not have to be live, this programme could be condensed to about 30 seconds. And a very lucrative 30 seconds is really all this show is about. Cricket, or the overdosing of it, forms the conclusion of this review. Television One, for reasons it quoted as overwhelming national interest, decided to bump off most of its Sunday afternoon and evening schedule in favour of the game in Australia. However, I can accept there are people, large numbers of them, for whom the outcome of the game is more important than life itself. Fair enough. I accept that Until they axe Tony Hancock in favour of the cricket. All week I look forward to “Hancock’s Half Hour” on Sunday evening. It is the one bright light in-the programming week, the little gem in the dross of summer programmes. Axed, Dropped. Rescheduled in favour of silly mid on and deep fine leg. Mind you, dropping a piece of classic comedy for cricket is nothing when you consider this same channel will shunt aside its prime evening news bulletin for the same game. There was a time when the 6.30 p.m. news was regarded as cast in stone and immovable. Now, obviously, it is at the whim of any cricket team. Third channel, please hurry. You are needed.