Am I the only Guardian reader who is fed up with all these no names presented like they are celebrities? Example: "Wouldn’t it be lovely if I could shut up?’ Meet Lola Petticrew, TV’s most fearless actor" - who TF is this person?

[localnotail]

Basically, as my title. Its not the first time I'm reading an article about some one I never heard of who is presented as someone famous. This article really took the bisquit. Who is this person? They? WTF? Why does it matter what THEY think, say or do?

Or am I being unreasonable and this is actually someone who IS famous?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/dec/25/lola-petticrew-interview-say-nothing-trespasses

OK ladies. I guess you might have gathered I was a bit bored. Thank you all, and Merry Christmas! Got to go now, my guests are here soon. Have a lovely evening lovelies!

Stand in front of the mirror first thing in the morning and last thing at night.

Point at the person staring back at you and repeat 5 times in a row:

”The world does not revolve around you”.

Yours is an advanced case so may take about few months for treatment to take hold.

Am I the only [person] who is fed up with all these no names presented like they are celebrities?
Can I join the club. Who the heck cares what actors (celebrities or otherwise) think? They are not Great Thinkers of Our Time, they are (1) people who need publicity and (2) fill media's column inches / airtime.
It is, sadly, no deeper than that.

Me too. Glad I'm not alone.

😂😂😂

I've found the Guardian unreadable for years now. It was the heavy-handed editorial bias that did me in, but for a while there the pop culture section was still decent. You'd get funny tv reviews and the occasional interesting interview about how something was made.

But I noticed a shift a few years ago, where it became obvious that every interview they did with a celebrity was pushing for a topical, click-bait headline. Every interview with an actress, they were digging for her to share her #MeToo experiences, even if she obviously wasn't comfortable. Every interview with a gay actor was about being gay. Every interview with a black actor was about being black.

And that would always be the headline, even if it was only one brief sentence in the interview itself. The actor would have have said all these really interesting things about their creative insights or an upcoming project, but none of them would be deemed interesting enough to hook the reader. Every single time, without fail, they'd be pushed back in their identity box, and that would be presented as the most interesting thing about them. You could sense how irritated some of them were with the interviewers, as time went on. It was so reductive.

So they should stick to printing articles about strictly come dancing and I'm a celebrity? No thanks. Both Trespasses and Say Nothing were fantastic dramas and Lola Petticrew was fab in both. How on earth do people broaden their horizons if they insist on living on an echo chamber and immersing themselves in the same old stuff?

Meet this sleb - "I'm nothing like the others slebs honest, I'm soooo distrinctive".

I do love the Graun but it tries my patience with its clickbaitiness lately. And the flogging the Observer business . Oh and the editors bore of a husband.

Main Character Syndrome? Because she gets a bit annoyed with having interviews with micro-celebs pushed in her face every time she opens the Guardian?

I’m with the OP on this, I’d rather read about people who’ve actually done something significant - otherwise why pick this person rather than thousands of equally obscure others?

Quite like the girl’s hair though, despite the comment that it is “90s”. Makes a change from centre partings anyway!

Personally I like dramas with unknown actors in them. They have no 'baggage' and I don't have to try and forget their previous roles. The same goes for reading about new talent instead of the same people we've heard from a million times.

Say Nothing was a great drama that stays with you. LP and the actor that played her sister were both great.

It's not just the Guardian, I've never understood why newspapers interview actors rather than scientists, campaigners, writers, artists, etc. I know they sometimes do but actors seem to outnumber anyone else 10 to 1.

700k viewers is about 1% of the UK population. I think it’s relatively safe to say that very few people are talking about the show. It’s crazy how low viewing figures are now even for “popular” shows.

Yeah, I got a few replies haughtily telling me that this person is not any of an influencer, a pop newcomer or a minor soap actor. True, she’s even more obscure than those!

700k viewers. Not impressive. And on C4, apparently. So a complete backwater.

Some of those threads are just adverts, I expect. You see them for proff it’s too often. Ten people in a row come in to best each other about how essential to their lives is some product or other. Usually costing a fortune.

Because they need the 'advertorial' for their latest film. Lots of writers are also interviewed when they have a new book out.

Totally.

How tiring must it be to write like that?

"They say, They've been, They are....."

That's why the actors want to be interviewed but I don't understand why the newspaper want to feature them. On the whole they're not the most interesting group.

Cheap for the newspapers I guess.

I'm another one who has not heard of this actress or the TV show in question. And I do watch a lot of television, especially decent dramas.
So I have to concur with the OP on this.

Watch it. Then you will have heard of her. Both her shows have been shown on C4 in the last month.

Do you listen to much Radio 4? They're really good for this sort of thing, for example The Life Scientific.

There were threads on MN about both dramas. MN approved both programmes.