'If anything Jimmy Carr is the odd on out as he has no previous experience of political commentary or debate.' Wrong: Carr is the odd one out because, of the four presenters, he is the only cunt.

Here, and indeed, here, Ian.

I have to disagree with you. You'd wish her experience would show, but it doesn't. That's how she doesn't seem able to lift the 'token female' title off her shoulders. You're right that the sum (the show) is less than the separate parts, and you're right that's not entirely just Laverne's fault. But when I count the cringworthiness per presenter, she gets the most points. I think it has more to do with her not being used to her abilities, rather than that she's talentless, but with her skills in this format it's hard to make the perfect fit.

To give Lauren her dues, she delivered a fantastically funny line the other week, commenting on Charlie Brooker's new haircut.

Forget focussing on Lauren - the whole show is diabolical and three 'talented' comedians are driven by cue cards which I doubt are written by them - but by a load of writers who collectively are desperately unfunny. The person I'm most disappointed in, is David Mitchell - 'Peep Show' and his stint on 8 out of 10 cats (and possibly guest slots here and there - Big Fat Quiz Show and that) he is excellent. But it just sounds like they're delivering others people's 'try hard to be funny so you'll like me' lines. The forced laughter of the audience doesn't help. Do they actually know what they're laughing at?

Actually really disappointed - as the build up ads looked excellent, but were ultimately mis-leading...

I agree and think that Laverne gets the brunt of criticism.....but it's not her fault, the show is just fucking awful. It's not entertainment. It tries not to come across as pretentious bullshit.....But instead comes across as really shit and boring pretentious bullshit. Jimmy Carr is a cunt....

The overriding problem is that the show doesn't seem to know what it is trying to do. Laverne is unfortunate as she's stuck between comedians trying to 'host' a show with no real direction.

Someone that worked alongside Lauren told me that she had her work PC's password and login details written on a note stuck to her monitor. Not quite sure what that says, but I think it says something. Maybe. I dunno.

She's actually a decent presenter, as is Charlie Brooker. David Mitchell, however, is not a presenter. And Jimmy Carr is just an intolerable twat. It doesn't help that the show has such an ill-thought out, poorly-conceived format. Does any TV show actually need 4 presenters?

The charge of female tokenism in a British TV comedy show goes without saaying, like breaking the news that the Pope's a Nazi. Just think of Mock the Week, QI, Have I Got News For You, Never Mind the Buzzcocks... the list goes on and on and stretches back and back in time. It's basically shite and unforgivable.

It's just four Guardian readers working themselves up into a self-righteous froth. And someone needs to tell David Mitchell that making fun of Dementia isn't funny.

I think it's alright.

This show is beyond awful, token woman or not. I was forced into watching the BBC's political comedy offering "Question Time" instead, which I'll have you know was fucking hilarious.

lauren laverne and jimmy carr are both rubbish in this show - they are the window dressing and gag machine. while charlie brooker and david mitchell look like they actually mean all their snarling sarcasm and satire.

it's not sexism, she's just a talentless cunt. lord knows who she's been sleeping with to get the jobs she does. I never thought I'd say this, but I wish Kenicke would reform so she can fuck off my tv for good

Out of order Gok. Laverne is an intelligent and witty woman who is a good presenter, just in the wrong vehicle right now.

The show is way less than the sum of its parts, so Laverne's anchor role is always going to look confused. Charlie Brooker and Jimmy Carr just do what they do in their own shows - if you like one, the chances are you won't like the other (personally i like my comedy smart and acerbic, so I'd rather watch half an hour of Charlie Brooker without any smug cunty interruptions from Jimmy Carr). David Mitchell looks out of place, because the 'serious' political sections don't fit in the format. So no matter how good the anchor is (and on the Culture Show and 6Music Lauren Laverne is one the of the best around), she'll never be able to hold a broken format together.

i have no issue with lauren as a presenter but the show has not been designed to give her a proper role and its that which really jars when she is on screen. i feel the reason for a woman anchor and for her hiring specifically is sexist - a young blonde lady who can be a bit funny at times to ease the bits between sketches - however the show's trying to pitch itself as funny but ultimately a serious look at serious issue, and it is clear lauren does not take any personal interest in these isues, have little knowledge of them and doesn't know how to react when the others are knocking those issues about in a sarcastic way as they are apt to do. The producers are letting her ride rather than giving her a proper job on the show. she clearly cant and should not be pitched as the same product as charlie brooker. but what is she to this show?

you write 'the implication being that because she is a young, attractive female she can’t possibly be on the show on merit.' There's no implication in people's reviews it's explicit, she's not there on merit, she's terrible, therefore why is she there, it must be .... Every line she says the timing is wrong, the tone is inappropriate, she's obviously reading lines that aren't hers. She may have been good talking about music and culture in live environments, but she clearly doesn't have strong views on these topics or the understanding to be able to make insightful jokes about them. Being kooky doesn't work as comedy when you're also trying to be political and hard-hitting

lauren laverne just isn't right for the job - her delivery and timing on jokes is all off, she keeps forgetting her lines and looking at notes when at the desk and even when she's meant to be reading them from autocue she messes up. plus the jokes she tells aren't funny when they are delivered perfectly, as she herself is entirely unfunny. mitchell, brooker and carr are naturally funny and their ad-libs are good. it seems the show would flow a lot better if a naturally funny female comedian/satirist were to present it but as there aren't any at the level of the three men then maybe they should opt for a woman who is either a straight presenter/ social analyst/ comedian instead of one who tries so hard to juggle all three that she inevitably fails with them all, rendering her performance agonising at best.

Sloppy journalism? "A quick look at the three male hosts’ CVs:" I see that researching academic qualifications wasn't worth it? Why don't we talk about David Mitchell's Cambridge degree in History, fuelling his aptitude towards the subject matter. Charlie Brooker has ample satirical creativity, and Jimmy Carr has a degree in the political sciences. So, if their CV dictates their ability to host the shows, the three guys are actually the most up to the job. Now, you're nit-picking. Lauren Laverne doesn't seem to 'fit in' because she statically reads off a teleprompter. There's no character. They've recently tried to spruce up her segments with some patriotic ranting (written by someone else), with a supplementary clip filmed earlier on the same day - but you don't need to be a journalist to realize that she is the most awkward, questionable host of the show. Regarding her hosting the culture show: so what? If they're able to host, they're able to host. Are you implying that without her, the 'live' aspect of the show would turn into a free-for-all full of mistakes and poor production? I'm confused as to what exactly you think she brings; the other hosts bring much to the show. To be honest, based on your points stated above, they could switch her for Davina McCall. It's arbitrary. Picking on Lauren Laverne is lazy journalism? Defending her is even lazier. It's arbitrary. She's fine, sure - but that's not how critique works. There's no CHARACTER, and that's not something you can fix with a "CV".

I think she's absolutely fine.

I Watched it for the first time last night. Never been a big fan of Laverne as I find her sarcastic tone irritating in the extreme. This show has proven that you need more than a sarcastic tone and roll of the eyes when coming up against seriously talented comedy performers/writers. She is continually unable to make a contribution to the free format sections because she has nothing witty to say because without a script she is totally lost. Yes she may have worked on the BBC Glastonbury coverage for years but making "ironic" cracks at inarticulate rap artists is one thing, this is completely different. Sshe is woefully out of her depth and it was painful to watch at times. As for the Culture Show, she reminds me of Winkleman on Film 2012 - she is there for some reason known only to the producers. Mark Kermode and Andrew Graham-Dixon et al are actually serious art critics. Anyway her role in said programme has significantly diminished since 2010. There is a tendency to put women like Laverne into high profile positions on TV shows at the moment which is clearly driven by a perception that somehow these people can enhance ratings . C4 have not admitted Laverne is the problem and have instead cut the show to 45 minute slots - as if that will make a blind bit of difference. Laverne doesn't appeal to people like me who watch it for Charlie Brooker's contribution, and can see through Laverne in seconds. So who does she appeal to? Surely not the younger generation who have never heard of the somewhat forgettable Kenickie. So that probably leaves the 30-something single females, who watch Loose Women on a regular basis. Or maybe she simply has some friends in high places in the broadcasting industry?

I happen to like Lauren as a presenter. In a naive kind of way, I imagine her as a nice person. Admittedly the culture show has left me longing for a cannabis induced coma at times, but instead of calling round to my dealer's house at 6:00 when he won't be in and waiting in the cold for three hours, I switch over to BBC4 or put on the DVD player and watch something I actually fucking PAID FOR. We all get Channel 4 for free, as far as I'm aware. So Jesus, cool your fucking jets, the show isn't part of some collective comedy curriculum (I know that's alliterative and cheap but I like it). And to address those who think she may have gotten the job because she's sleeping with someone important... Fuck off? Even if she is, in what world would it be appropriate to speculate on such a thing in a public forum? And under a fake name no less. I refer to Gok specifically (unless you're actually of Chinese stock in which case I apologise but not for this-->), you utter tit. My personal disappointment with the show comes from my expectation of good satire in the same vein as "The Friday/Saturday Night Armistice" which employed inventive pranks and beautifully derisive language to get its laughs. I'm sad to say that less favourable reviews of 10o'cl are more accurate than I wish they were but meh, I'll still watch it. As long as it doesn't cost me anything and I get to see David Mitchell's beard I'm content.

In response to Ciaron, to dismiss out of hand suggestions on here that Lauren Laverne has "slept her way" to these roles needs to be set against the backdrop of her personal life. She had a relationship with Taylor Parkes (at the time was a music journalist employed by Melody Maker) whilst performing lead vocals in the band Kenickie. This relationship ended pretty much when it was clear her music career was finished. I am not suggesting the termination of the relationship had anything to do with the failure of her music career, that is for the reader to decide. In 2005, at precisely the time her TV career was starting to gather pace, she was wedded to TV Producer Graeme Fisher. Far be it from me to suggest this has had anything to do with her securing TV roles which some commentators have questioned her suitability for. However I am sure being married to a TV producer enhances your TV career prospects rather more than being married to let’s say a dustman!

John, it's clear you've done your research, identified a pattern and presented a case which doesn't include the word 'cunt' even once. Had I a higher opinion of myself I might even commend you for it. I agree with your implication that it all seems rather fortuitous for Laverne but the point I was making is that it's none of my business. If someone wishes to investigate a celebrity instead of, say, anything else in the universe then that's their call. Not to come across as an alco but I'd had a few glasses before finding this page and by the time I'd read most of the comments, my bleeding heart was haemorrhaging wildly (yes, I did have to look up the correct spelling). If she's going to be criticised, let it be for her performance and not for what choices she has made in her personal life, however despicable, admirable or downright boring. If I thought any of you were even worthy of judging a fellow primate so utterly, I might not mind so much.

she is funni. much funnyier than the threee men blokes.

Its got nothing to do with sexism with me. I just Googled "Lauren Laverne not funny" and this was the first page I came too. To be fair I don't really like the show at all. Charlie Brooker who I love on his Swipe programmes is a shadow of himself in this. Jimmy Carr I like in 8/10 Cats and Mitchell is great as a guest on QI and appearing in Peep Show. On paper it looks a great programme but in reality its pants. Lauren Laverne though stands out as being the most unfunny of the lot. I think she should stick to what she's good at, whatever that is. I've seen her in a few things now and I don't think she fits in any of them. Her agent should have a quiet word and ask her what in fact does she want to be marketed as. Because if she is indeed talented, we're yet to see it on the small screen.