MediaGuardian reports more deeply on George Lamb's victory as a "rising star" of radio at last night's Sonys:
"Although attracting listeners with his engaging banter and quirky approach to presenting, George's diverse music tastes form the heart of his show, taking in dancehall, rap, rave and beyond," the body added.
The trouble is, this sounds like someone desperately trying to explain why something won rather than a description of the programme. Unless we've missed the redefining of "surrealist" to mean "fifth-generation copy of late period Vic Reeves". And "tongue-in-cheek antics"? Antics? Are they hoping to have Nev The Blue Bear co-host?
It's the "irreverent interviewing technique" that's the real problem, though. Okay, if you're talking to Paul Daniels, fair enough. But a lot of his interviews are with the bands who play the Hub sessions - who, yes, are well chosen and probably account for much of the show's audience (doesn't everyone just spool through to 1 hour 43 and listen for ten minutes?). Why do I want an irreverent interview with a young band who I might not yet have heard an interview with? Okay, you might not want The Ting Tings interviewed as if they were senior clergy, but it would be nice to find out something about them rather than hearing Lamb's piffle-panted queries. And even if you like his line of questioning, his style is poor - he'll ask a question, get a reply, which he'll then repeat back slowly to the interviewee like a confused Brit asking for directions in central Luxembourg, before clucking and doing a Lee Green style "Awwwright".
Sure, there's a time and a place for George Lamb's style of presentation, but it's not on 6Music. The sooner his spiritual forebear Steve Wright retires and Lamb can move off 6, the better.
Not that it matters. You can just put last night's Gideon Coe on the listen agains.