Addressing the thread-title ..
They keep harping on about Jon = boring. Jon talking about Star Trek, yes. Jon himself, no. Strange, yes (in an Eddie Izzardkind of way). Valid case there. But again, boring, no.
I'd call it more unusual, than strange (but then there ARE those who worry about motility-issues, synthetic progesterone in drinking water and its effects and its future or even current impacts).
The paper's use of word bizarre - read readership-increasing judgemental put-down. Their we are defining things for the good of society stance is anything but. Attention-getting, yes. But then so is an OAP farting in a rush-hour tube. And just as good for society?
If anyone else goes on about Jon and boring (on BBLB or C4) the minds gonna do an instant shut-down and reboot.
It's not so much a bias as having literally DEFINED the whole of many shows!
Get ON with it. Move on. Enough already.
There is plenty of fascinating stuff to focus on ( well, apart from Fed, yet).
He (Jon) is not TRYING to be anything, just himself. Even if he was the only one in the house he would/could still entertain himself AND anyone watching. If believing all that's been written/shown about him hasnt blinkered the perceptions already.
You don't have to LIKE him. You just have to make your own mind up (and being critical, curious, open) when watching BB.
Using voting to keep only those in the house you LIKE is disastrous.
---------------
Once again (as with HD, Crystal and all) not replying to Rose's post as such, just the thread.
Word re-use (ie 'strange', etc), is only to use associations that have been generated (for impact) but not picking up on/replying to, previous posts issues.
Its just general airing of a view really.
I know its a bit of a heart-stopper having a long post follow yours.
I am going to create new threads to keep mid-thread flow. It is inspired by the thread so seems right to put it there.