This article was first published at The National Times

As our lives become increasingly saturated with technology, digital media and the internet, it’s no secret that our younger generations are spending less time in the great outdoors. Whether it’s hours spent in front of the TV, surfing the internet, playing on a games console or a combination of these, kids today seem far less inclined to enjoy the natural world than in previous generations.

While older generations have long bemoaned a decline in the time spent outside, there has been growing speculation that such a shift might also have negative health implications for those involved. According to Dr William Bird, health adviser to Natural England, a lack of exposure to nature has the potential to adversely affect the mental health of society’s youngest members.

But while Generations Y and Z are more likely to spend time playing video games than recreating the adventures of Enid Blyton’s ‘Famous Five’, they are not without inspiration when it comes to enjoying what nature has to offer.

Bear Grylls is a former member of the British Special Services and has carved a place for himself in the popular consciousness through his TV show, Man vs. Wild. In the show, Grylls encounters various types of hostile terrain and places himself in stressful situations in order to demonstrate survival techniques.

The show has attracted some notoriety due to Grylls’ willingness to subject himself to otherwise-repulsive scenarios – eating unappetising critters for example – but it’s his passion for the outdoors and an unbridled sense of adventure that has the potential to inspire younger viewers to get off the couch and head outside.

As well as his Man vs. Wild adventures, Grylls has had a leading role in a number of truly impressive expeditions. In 2003 he led the first team to cross the North Atlantic Ocean in an ‘open’ rigid inflatable boat, in 2000 he led the first team to circumnavigate the UK by jet ski and in 1998, at the age of 23, he became the youngest Briton (at the time) to reach the summit of Mt. Everest.

But if Bear Grylls has the potential to motivate otherwise-sedentary TV viewers into action, then the efforts of Ed Stafford should be enough to spark an adventuring revolution among our younger generations.

Earlier this month the former British Army captain became the first person to hike the length of the Amazon River. The epic trek took Stafford 859 days to complete in which time he faced hostility from local indigenous communities, the constant danger of not finding enough food and unwanted attention from all manner of creepy crawlies.

Stafford’s journey began in April 2008 when he reached the summit of the Nevado Mismi, a peak in the Peruvian Andes which is widely credited as the source of the Amazon River. At that point Stafford had the company of friend Luke Collyer but after the two had a falling out and the latter left the expedition, Stafford continued on alone.

Five months into the trek, Stafford was joined by Gadiel ‘Cho’ Sanchez Rivera, a local Peruvian who planned to accompany Stafford for five days. When Stafford reached the mouth of the Amazon two years later, Cho was still by his side.

While it’s pretty hard not to be inspired by Stafford’s efforts, not everyone is going to find the idea of a two-and-a-half year hike all that appealing. In fact, only a small percentage of the population would even consider embarking on such an expedition.

According to to Dr Brad Wright, a lecturer in the School of Psychological Science at La Trobe University, it is a sense of ‘hardiness’ that sets the likes of Stafford and Grylls apart from the majority of the population.

‘Hardiness is defined by higher levels of commitment, challenge and control’, he said.  ‘Those with a drive to push themselves to achieve often gain immense satisfaction from achieving their ambitions.’

Sure, the efforts Bear Grylls and Ed Stafford might be beyond the reach of most people, but that’s not to say they shouldn’t be cause for inspiration. And, at a time when our younger generations are spending less time outside than ever before and the average Australian adult spends 90 per cent of their time indoors, there are certainly worse people we could be looking up to.

This piece first appeared at The Punch.

If you are a fan of reality TV then there’s every chance you’ve imagined yourself as contestant on one of the genre’s many shows. Maybe you’ve thought your singing ability could make you the next Australian Idol, perhaps your love of the outdoors made you feel like you could be the next Survivor or maybe you thought a childhood spent playing with table-tennis balls was worth $500,000. If The Amazing Race is your reality show of choice, your dreams of becoming a D-list celebrity could well be on their way to fulfilment.

Channel Seven recently announced that it will be producing an Australian version of the popular US reality series, giving a handful of Australians the chance to race around the world for a ‘massive cash prize’. The show has been running in the US for nine years in which time CBS has managed to pump out an impressive sixteen seasons, with a 17th due for broadcast later this year.

For those that haven’t seen the show, take the biggest scavenger hunt you’ve ever seen, add pairs of clueless tourists, some Big Brother-style 24/7 surveillance and the most stressful elements of travelling, mix them together and you get something that vaguely resembles The Amazing Race.

Hundreds of teams are likely to apply for this ‘opportunity’ and if you thinking of throwing your hat in the ring, be aware that the 16-page application form provides would-be racers with more than a few hoops to jump through.

For starters, you’ve got to be willing to divulge some fairly personal information, including your weight, your relationship status and the names and ages of any children you might happen to have. If you’ve been arrested you have to provide full details and if you’ve ever hit someone ‘in anger or self-defence’ you have to explain why you did it.

If the personal questions are a little pointed then the questions about your relationship with your teammate are even more so. ‘What is the worst experience you have had with your teammate?’ doesn’t seem to be all that constructive a question and ‘What is the biggest disappointment you have experienced from your teammate?’ is not a whole lot better.

Of course it’s all about building a profile of you as a potential contestant and there are several questions within the application that will help the producers to narrow the field. For example, answering ‘no’ to ‘I am available for 5 weeks between September and December 2010′ is likely to see your application rejected before they even get to read your name. An answer of a disparaging nature to ‘What is your opinion of foreigners?’ is equally likely to terminate your prospects of appearing on the show.

As pointed and personal as the application is, it’s the fine print that will determine how much people are willing to sacrifice in order to get their faces on TV. One section explains that applicants ‘agree to comply with all requests and directions given by the Producers’ with a later paragraph insisting that such cooperation will be on a ‘twenty-four-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week basis’.

But if the desire to get your face on TV outweighs your desire not to be a Channel Seven pawn, it’s worth considering the contestant pool from previous versions of the show. For example, if the US version is anything to go by, the 11 teams are likely to cover a mixture of ethnicities, relationship types, ages and sexual preferences.

There will be an old married couple, a gay couple, the young female friends who provide eye-candy in the promos, a non-Caucasian team, a team of brothers or sisters, a father/son or father/daughter team and, being an Australian version of the show, a team of bogans. Tailoring your written and video applications to one of these combinations is likely to be the best route to the audition process.

But of course your application needs to be special in order to stand out from the hundreds of entries that Seven are likely to receive and it’s the video application that presents the best chance of catching the producers’ collective eye. You should try to engage with the viewer, convince them that the show would benefit from your presence and as the application form says, ‘personality counts!’

But if you want a serious advantage in making your application stand out then John Safran’s 1997 audition tape for Race Around the World is just about the best audition tape you are ever likely to see. Not only is Safran aware that the producers need a way of labelling him but he uses his otherwise-annoying voice as a way of selling himself.

Having said that, Race Around the World did see Safran running naked through the streets of Jerusalem and placing a curse on his ex-girlfriend.  Whether or not these sort of antics will be included in the ‘requests and directions’ given by producers of The Amazing Race Australia remains highly unlikely…

This article first appeared at Crikey.

It’s been a long time coming, but Skins is finally back on Australian TV. It’s been four months since the show’s fourth season concluded in the UK and now, finally, Australian audiences get to see it.

For those that are new to the award-winning British drama, Skins follows the exploits of a group of friends as they negotiate the ups and downs of teenage life in Bristol. Season four sees the return of the previous season’s cast, including some of the most memorable and believable characters in the show to date.

James Dean-wannabe Cook (Jack O’Connell) is a stand-out and is as entertaining as he is repulsive, the school’s new headmaster — the hilariously harsh Professor David Blood — is played to a tee by stand-up comedian Chris Addison, and Hugo Speer is chilling as a psychiatrist later in the series.

Focusing on the exploits of family-man and occasional DJ Thomas Tomone, tonight’s season opener sets the tone for the series in more ways than one. The episode’s dark overtones are a fixture throughout the entire season and the tragic events of the episode’s opening minutes serve to drive a main plotline for over half the series.

Unfortunately, season four is the shortest Skins season to date at a measly eight episodes long. This comes as a bit of a disappointment when US dramas like Gossip Girl manage to churn out 20-plus episode per season. Still, the age-old quip about quality vs. quantity is most apt here, and the length of the season is just about the only drawback to be found.

Skins’ strong point has always been its ability to combine heavier, more dramatic events with the more whimsical moments of troubled youth. Just when an episode feels like it is being weighed down by tragedy and the trials of teenage angst, a lighter moment is invariably introduced to balance the mood. Similarly, the show’s lighter moments never feel like they are allowed to dominate the tone of the show and a more dramatic moment is never far away.

All the ingredients of angsty teen drama are here — the unbridled passion of first love, the tragedy of a broken family, the waxing and waning of old friendships. But what sets Skins apart from the likes of Home and Away and Neighbours is its ability to go beyond the soap-opera clichés and embrace the hedonistic and oftentimes dangerous world of teenage life.

There’s frequent drug use, explorations of s-xual orientation and a peek into the frightening world of mental illness and they all make for truly compelling viewing. This is gritty, believable and honest storytelling that works overtime to engage the viewer on an emotional level. Not to be missed.

The details: Season four of Skins starts tonight at 10pm on SBS One.

For those that were fortunate enough to miss my torrent of Twitter and Facebook spam two weeks ago, I had an article published on News Limited’s opinion website, The Punch. The silly little piece about Channel Seven’s new US-import Hung attracted criticism from a large percentage of the 84 readers that commented, leaving me feeling a little despondent.

As well as attracting a whole slew of comments, the Hung piece also attracted the attention of one reporter at the Sydney Morning Herald. She was keen to find out more about my distate for the show and after interviewing me over the phone, my comments made it to her story the next day.

Keen to get another article in The Punch as soon as possible, I penned another piece, this one critical of the Nine Network’s choice of programming. Nine’s RBT, a show about random breath testing (hence the ultra-stylish acronym), premieres tomorrow night and I thought it a worthy target of some sarcasm-laden criticism.

The folks at The Punch said the piece was good and that they would get back to me on Thursday about publishing it on Friday. I didn’t hear back from them and I’m not quite sure why; it’s not like there was a major political story unfolding that day or anything.

So, without further ado, here’s episode two of ‘The Discarded’, ‘Front-line heroes…’

With around a third of Australian road fatalities being directed related to drink-driving and with millions of drivers being breath tested every year, you’d think that people would start to realise that drink driving might be a bad idea. Apparently not, given that the percentage of alcohol-related road fatalities has remained constant over the last two decades.

This Sunday, with the premiere of their snappily-titled reality show RBT, the Nine Network will do their bit in the fight against drink-driving. Or, to put it another way, Nine will now start capitalising on people’s inability to separate the acts of alcohol consumption and motor vehicle control.

For those that are a little confused by Nine’s trendy acronym use, RBT stands for Random Breath Testing; a decidedly less marketable title you might agree. According to a press release from Nine, the “compelling new series goes behind the lines of the NSW Police force on breath testing operations”.

While it’s true that RBT is a “new” series for Nine, the idea of going behind the scenes of a public department or service is about as original as the songs being played by the cover band at your local watering hole. The “front-line heroes” formula has produced a number of forgettable shows for the commercial networks in the last few years; Ten’s Bondi Rescue, Nine’s Customs and Seven’s essentially-xenophobic Border Security, just to name a few.

The “front-line heroes” show is a close cousin of the “feel-good” reality show, examples of which include Seven’s RSPCA Animal Rescue, the soppy Find My Family and Nine’s equally emotional Random Acts of Kindness. Both genres are in the business of thriving on their emotional impact; the “front-line heroes” show drawing strength from a feeling of pride in the admirable work done by our community services, the “feel-good” show drawing us in with the promise of tears and emotional fulfilment.

As well as drawing respectable audiences such shows have the added bonus of being very cheap for their respective networks to produce. After all, why bother paying someone to write and create an original show when there’s money to be made by sending a crew to film the everyday workings of an existing department or service?

While I’m not nearly important enough to get my hands on an advanced copy of RBT, I have been privy to the fleeting promos for the show’s upcoming premiere. And, while this isn’t a review of the show, I’m willing to hazard a couple of educated guesses at what one might see, should they decide to tune in to RBT in its run on Nine;

What you will see

-          A disproportionately high number of drivers being caught under the influence of drugs and alcohol

-          Nine hamming up the “front-line heroes” angle

-          At least one concerned-looking police officer proselytising about how “kids these days think they’re invincible”

-          Commercial breaks featuring the latest alcohol-awareness ads

What you won’t see

-          The overwhelming majority of Australian breath tests that show drivers to be free of alcohol or drugs.

-          Commercial breaks full of Carlton Draught and Victoria Bitter ads

-          A nuanced analysis of what makes people decide to drink-drive

So as we head into the weekend and many of you head to after-work drinks I’d like to propose a toast to the 33 per cent of Australians who have admitted to drink driving. Without you lovely folk providing work for breath testing officers we wouldn’t have the likes of RBT on Australian TV.

Cheers.

Update: Once the dust had settled on the Labor leadership spill, the folks at The Punch got back to me and said they still wanted to run the piece. So, I tracked down the first episode of RBT on the Nine Network’s website, had a watch and re-wrote the piece. The finished product is now online at The Punch.

In the world of five-star hotels the serving of breakfast seems to be inextricably linked with the serving of breakfast television. Until a few weeks ago our news-tainment provider of choice was Channel Seven’s Sunrise, hosted by dynamic duo Kochie and Mel. Nowadays, at the behest of “the man”, we fill our restaurant with the sounds of Karl Stefanovic and Lisa Wilkinson of Channel Nine’s Today. According to the powers that be within our reputable establishment, Nine’s breakfast offering is “better” than Seven’s. It isn’t exactly clear what “better” means in this context but I’m willing to hazard a few guesses.

Perhaps the celebrity gossip on Today is “better” than the gossip featured on Sunrise. Perhaps the advertising spots on Today are of far greater quality than those seen on Sunrise. Or maybe it’s Today‘s ability to sensationalise recent news stories better than Sunrise that makes it the pick of the breakfast viewing.

On yesterday morning’s edition of Today the team ran a story about the recent stabbing death of 12 year old Brisbane boy Elliot Fletcher. The story began with several parents discussing the apparent increase in violence in Australian schools before cutting to host Lisa Wilkinson reading through a list of incidents that demonstrated such an increase. As if Today‘s angle on this story wasn’t clear enough already, they concluded the story by “interviewing” Norm Hart of the Queensland Association of State School Principals.

As a journalism student I have been taught that interviews should consist largely of “open” questions rather than questions which lead the interviewee to a specific answer or force a simple “yes” or “no” answer. In the case of the story in question, something like the following might have been appropriate;

“What does the recent stabbing death of Elliot Fletcher tell us about safety in our schools?”

But no. Apparently that line of questioning is a little too boring for Ms. Wilkinson who decided to go with something a little different;

“Should parents be worried as they send their kids off to school this morning?”

To Mr Hart’s credit he participated in the interview as well as could be expected given that he need not have been there at all. I mean, why would you bother inviting someone to give their expert opinion on an issue if, when concluding the interview, you are going to completely disregard everything that they’ve said thus far?

“Understandably a lot of parents (are) not feeling that’s the case today but we do thank you very much for your time this morning”.

Sure, you could probably argue that Lisa Wilkinson isn’t technically a journalist in her role as co-host of Today but if you are presenting news items and interviewing relevant authority figures related to said items, then surely some minimum standards of journalistic integrity must apply? You know, like presenting information in an rational and objective way rather than trying to sensationalise important issues.

Let’s keep things in perspective here – a 12 year old boy getting stabbed to death while at school is truly horrific and of real concern to parents and teachers alike but that doesn’t mean that kids around the country are suddenly unsafe at school. There are a lot of kids going to a lot of schools on a lot of days of the year, I hardly think a couple of isolated incidents of school yard violence are cause to keep the kids at home.

But it’s all about the kids. The mainstream media loves nothing more than a “kids are at risk” story but most of the time such stories are dependant on deliberate scaremongering in order to provoke emotional responses from concerned parents. That’s not to say that the issues at hand aren’t important, they should just be dealt with rationally and in a considered fashion.

Speaking of fashion, most people know of Miley “Hannah Montana” Cyrus but far fewer would be aware of her younger sister, Noah. Nor should they be because Noah is a little girl of 10 years old – not that you would know it from her choice of attire.

In October of last year Miley’s younger sister “made headlines” when she donned a “dominatrix-inspired” costume for Halloween celebrations and in the last couple months there have been rumours circulating of a lingerie line being released by junior Cyrus and her friend Emily Grace Reaves. Thankfully such rumours appear to be false and the clothing company in question, Ooh! La! La! Couture, seems to make tutus with tanktops rather than girls’ lingerie.

Noah Cyrus is only one example of an apparent shift toward the sexualisation of young girls and social commentators like Mia Freedman have written extensively on this issue. To a significant percentage of the community, young girls dressing and acting as if they were far older results in the corruption of childhood and the premature loss of innocence. “They are growing up too fast”, the older generations often remark, with advertising, the media and the internet often copping the blame.

Regardless of one’s own thoughts on this issue, it’s hard to deny that it is an issue that a lot of people feel very strongly about. While the solution to the problem isn’t as easy as banning the sale of lingerie for young girls, for example, it’s clear that parents have an important role to play. If you are concerned about your little girl growing up too fast then it’s probably not a good idea to let them watch Beyonce film clips at six years old.

The mainstream media has an important role to play as well. Rather than the aforementioned scaremongering that the commercial networks love to fill their “current affairs” and breakfast shows with, there should be a greater focus on programs that facilitate meaningful discussion about serious issues. The ABC’s Q & A is a perfect example of such a program and it makes for brilliant viewing.

The weekly show features a panel of expert guests who discuss topical issues as directed by the audience and moderated by one of Australia’s greatest interviewers, Tony Jones. Of course he isn’t “Australia’s best interviewer” because that mantle belongs to Tracy Grimshaw of Nine’s A Current Affair. Step aside Andrew Denton, stop tryin’ Kerry O’Brien, Ms. Grimshaw has you both covered…

You know it’s time for bed when those religious programmes come on TV. You know the ones – they start about 3am and invariably feature the effervescent preachings of middle-aged American men. I thought I’d watch a couple such programs after work this morning, you know, for a bit of a laugh.

As I watched I found myself consistently amazed by the strength of conviction possessed by these men. Unfortunately for our overnight-evangelists though, confidence in one’s beliefs does not make such beliefs any less wrong.

One of the delightful programmes that I sampled was Life Today, a faith-based lifestyle program that, this morning at least, featured a plea to help Africa’s starving multitudes. You can picture the scene – middle-aged American gentleman and his good lady wife, talking into the camera about how viewers must find it in themselves to donate to Life Outreach International, their associated charity. Throw in some footage of hideously malnourished African children and some tears from the hosts and you have compelling viewing.

I mean, they have a point right? Who doesn‘t feel like they should do something to help out the millions of kids that are far less fortunate than ourselves? I’m pretty sure human compassion will lead us to that feeling everytime without being guilted into it by teary-eyed believers.

Speaking of human compassion, how about this tasteful effort by Life Today‘s South African missionary who gave up his professional rugby career to spread the word of God. After a teary introduction by the show’s hosts, James and Betty Robison, the programme cuts to footage of a child so badly malnourished that he can’t muster up the strength to blow the flies off his lips. Perched over the child and dressed in a snappy outfit is the decidedly healthy looking missionary who delivers the following compassionate analysis;

“This child could die any second – I’m literally watching children die before me. Who will be next?”

At this point, the missionary turns to where a throng of not-quite-as-badly-malnourished children are sitting, clearly bemused by the spectacle. He places his hand on the head of one of the smallest children and hypothesises thus;

“Will it be this child?”

There is a very serious challenge that must be put to the Robison’s and all of those that believe God has compelled them to aid starving children. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent and perfectly good, as the majority of Christians seem to think, why would he let children starve in the first place?

To me that’s almost an “I win” button for atheism but, of course, there are those that offer potential explanations. Are we to believe that God rates freedom of choice and freedom of action so highly that he is prepared to sit back and let millions of innocent children suffer every day? Are we to believe that God has given us all the necessary tools to fight poverty and starvation but that any failure to do so is a failure on mankind’s behalf?

Well, that last idea isn’t so bad, but to paraphrase Pierre-Simon Laplace via Dawkins and Hitchens, it works fine without the idea of God.

Finally, I couldn’t help feeling a little sorry for the gracious hosts of Life Today as they recounted, tearfully, the story of a child they met some years back;

“When we were in Africa we visited little Matthew in hospital. As we left his bed the nurses told us that he wouldn’t make it through the night. But we went back the next day and Matthew hadn’t died during the night. We went back a year later and we were kicking a soccer ball with him. Matthew didn’t die, he was a miracle of love”.

This sort of reasoning is laughable at best, and at worst, deliberately misleading. Why is it that one child’s survival against the odds is put down to divine intervention and yet, when thousands upon thousands of other children are dying through starvation, dehydration and AIDS, God is nowhere to be seen? What did that one child do to deserve life that countless others didn’t?

Those who find it within themselves to aid those in need are truly worthy of praise. God, however, is not among them…

So I made the mistake of checking out the first episode of Channel 7′s new comedy/drama series ‘Packed to the Rafters’ tonight. Suffice to say that I wasn’t overly impressed. For an ‘all-star Australian cast’ the acting and dialogue were decidedly awful and even screen veteran Michael Caton, in the role of the maternal grandfather, looked like he wasn’t overly interested.

I should have known better – any TV show that names their characters solely for the purpose of a joke in the show’s title is in a bit of trouble. That’s right, the family’s surname is Rafter, get it, ‘Packed to the Rafters’ – genius.

So where has all the good Australian drama gone? Where are the likes of Seachange and, well, Seachange? You know, a good, interesting and genuinely funny comedy/drama that doesn’t rely on dick jokes in order to sell its pilot episode? For those of you (fortunate people) that missed it, indulge me as I recreate one of tonight’s many, many cringeworthy moments;

After taking a cliche-tastic three viagra pills on the night of his 25th wedding anniversary, Dave Rafter finds himself in agony after his ‘old fella’ won’t go down. Concerned, he and his wife head to the emergency department of the local hospital in order for him to get examined by, you guessed it, a hot nurse. Upon informing Dave that she would need to drain the blood from his penis in order to prevent potential gangrene, she utters the unforgettably terrible line – ‘for a silver wedding anniversary, that’s a whole lot of wood’.

Seriously, is this the best Aussie drama that we can muster up these days? If this show makes it past it’s second episode without being axed I will be quite amazed. Perhaps I’m being a little unfair as the show did have one moment which almost made for compelling viewing. Mind you, it was in the last 30 seconds of the episode and involved the Rafter daughter returning home after being (apparently) beaten to a pulp by her boyfriend. Awesome…

Now let me start by saying that I’m a firm believer in the age-old adage ‘shit happens’ – people make mistakes, I know that, but oh boy, this is a big one.

So the TAC have this competition right, it’s called MAFMAD, otherwise known as ‘Make a Film, Make a Difference’. It calls for budding young film-makers to create their own short films which will ‘make your mates think twice before taking risks on the road’. You can get all the details at the MAFMAD website so my description need not be too involved.
Anyhoo, last Wednesday evening I happened to be viewing the much publicised ‘fuck’-fest that is Gordon Ramsay’s ‘Hell’s Kitchen’ and during one particular ad-break I chanced upon a commercial for the aforementioned competition. While the placement of this ad is far from remarkable, follow it with this ad and the situation changes somewhat.
Now if you ask me, the ad for the Suzuki Swift is already a perfect example of irresponsible and exploitative marketing, but place it so that it follows an ad which campaigns for safe driving, especially among younger drivers, and, well, I’m genuinely speechless.

Actually I’m not. The dead-shit in the ad knows that the roads are slippery; he knows that there have already been accidents so far that day, and he has been told in no uncertain terms that the conditions are ‘treacherous’. But oh no. Mr I’m-too-good-a-driver-to-let-the-conditions-affect-me goes ahead anyway. And still we wonder why young guys drive like fuckwits and get themselves, their passengers and others, killed. Well here it is Your Honour – Exhibit A.

Shame on you Suzuki for exploiting stupid young drivers in order to sell your product, shame on you Channel 9 for not having the brains to check your ads-playlist before hitting ‘shuffle’ and shame on you MediaWatch for not putting the story to air at first opportunity…

If this guy doesn’t make you double over in fits of laughter and/or make you want to find the nearest train bridge and jump from it then I don’t know what will.
For those of you fortunate enough to have avoided being bombarded by the multitudinous number of ads on Channel 10, this is Travis; one of the housemates from the upcoming season of Big Brother. Leaving questions of the show’s creative or educational merit to the side for a second, let me just say this; this guy will single-handedly make people watch Big Brother.
Regardless of whether you think he is an outspoken but interesting guy, or more probably just some annoying fuckwit who sounds like he has had his bollocks ripped off in a game of tug-of-war with an angry rottweiler, you have to admit that watching this guy embarrass himself on national TV is an appealing thought…

‘G’day guys my name’s Travis…Traaaa-vvvisss!’

*Finds nearest railway bridge*