One-star reviews and calls for it to end - but is it really time to say goodbye to Clarkson's Farm?

Countryfile has existed for donkey's years, and, rarely, are the likes of Channel 5, BBC Two, or More 4 void of wellies and cow muck during each night's programming.

But Clarkson has become a force like no other.

Just try speaking to him as a journalist. Sure, he's willing to interact with the odd fan on X, but sharing a few words about his work? Good luck.

He's one of Amazon's most prized possessions and is treated as such, wrapped in more proverbial wool than the easy-care sheep of Diddly Squat could ever produce.

At the inaugural Farm Fest, for instance - in which I was lucky enough to attend - he navigated the event flanked by security while hordes of adoring fans did their best to pap their coveted selfies.

Think The Beatles in their pomp or any Arab dictator of the 1990s, but rather than Gaddafi-esque Amazonian female bodyguards protecting their boss, it's burly middle-aged men in tweed.

And it's this star power that has been used as a stick to decry the latest series of Clarkson's Farm by naysayers.

The first half of the show's fifth season dropped on Amazon Prime Video this week, providing fans with a much sought-after update from Diddly Squat.

The charm that emerged in season one very much remains. Clarkson's bumbling incompetence complimented by his farm manager Kaleb Cooper's prowess behind the wheel of a tractor still a formula that very much makes for entertaining viewing.

Their snipey back-and-forths have come under scrutiny by critics, but to me, Cooper's face upon seeing his boss return from a heart op proves their frequent butting of heads may be hammed up by producers and not evidence of any underlying resentment.

And the farming enterprise does still remain one of the show's main characters. Okay, Clarkson's health takes centre stage in the season five opener, but its impact is portrayed through the scope of how it affects the day-to-day running of the farm.

Season five doesn't shy away from once again highlighting the plight facing farmers. Land agent Charlie Ireland and Clarkson explain in detail why Rachel Reeves' infamous Budget threatened the future of British agriculture, while a farewell to his pigs shed light on the tough decisions farmers must face to stay afloat.

And elsewhere in the series, Clarkson, Cooper, Ireland, and co also do a brilliant job at drawing attention to what the future of agriculture looks like.

How many other series would dedicate an episode to 'AgBots' and learning about how technology and Dalek-like robots can analyse soil while a 66-year-old motoring journalist jumps up and down in his seat like a giddy toddler?

Viewers are taken behind the scenes at trade shows, in farming offices, and on the fields themselves. Suggestions that Clarkson's Farm has become a repetitive vanity project for its millionaire host completely miss the point.

Sure, some scenes feel laboured in season five. Oscar Piastri's cameo and a sheep autopsy given far too much airtime, for instance.

And I do sympathise with the suggestion that Clarkson's ineptitude comes across as inauthentic, given he's been at the helm with Cooper for the best part of seven years now.

But taking a look through some of the reviews this week, you'd think Clarkson had just put out four episodes of him watching the paint dry at his refurbished pub.

Metro's critic titled their review: "Clarkson’s Farm’s new season proves why it needs to end."

The reporter bemoaned the so-called "predicatable viewing" - as if farming is a vocation that can be easily manipulated year on year to appease a TV critic in their London flat - and branded the show a "bore".

They also rather tellingly opened her op-ed by admitting she'd be "the first to admit that I often find Jeremy Clarkson insufferable". Just the disclaimer you want to hear when yearning for an impartial review of a telly show.

But Metro's two-star review was no match for the Daily Mail's critic, who, inexplicably, gave it one solitary star.

"What about the farmers doing it for real?" they pondered moments into the review, as if Clarkson's heart should've succumbed to its clogged arteries out of respect for his agricultural peers.

They called the show "slow, dull, repetitive, and bereft of inspiration," but it was another of his opinions that perhaps provided a more telling reason for his scathing review.

"I grew fed up quite quickly of Jezza's pitiful whingeing about hospital dashes and his 'dicky ticker'... The blunt truth is, he's a porker," the reviewer unleashed.

What Clarkson's waistline has to do with a review about a TV show, I've no idea, but it laid bare the motivations behind the most damning receptions the series has faced.

Clarkson, the man, has found himself under the microscope rather than the show itself. And critics have let their personal opinions sway their thoughts.

I'm not by any stretch suggesting Clarkson's Farm is perfect, and its fifth season does have aforementioned flaws. But cause for cancellation? Really?

The Telegraph went for three stars, and The Guardian gave it the same. Both gave balanced takes on the show itself, weighing up the latest strengths and weaknesses, rather than spewing off personal attacks on its protagonist.

And personally, three to four stars is perfectly fair for a show that continues to do more for British farming than any politician whose bum leaves an imprint on the benches of the Commons.

One of the most telling reviews - and arguably one of the reviews that matters most - doesn't come from a London-based critic sipping on a matcha latte from a cushy office in Kensington.

The Farmer's Guardian has applauded Clarkson's latest effort, awarding it a near-perfect four and a half stars out of five.

While the Daily Mail's reviewer took Clarkson's ill health as an invitation to ridicule his weight, the FG opted for a more poignant and mature approach.

They pointed out: "It shines a spotlight on rural health and will hopefully urge more farmers to act if something feels off."

And while Metro's critic finds the show a "bore", The Farmer's Guardian's reviewer perfectly summarises: "This show has, and will continue to be, the most honest form of communication the industry has to the wider public...

"And if you really believe that nothing new is happening on Clarkson's Farm, you really do not understand farming."

Here, here.

Long may Clarkson's Farm continue, and Amazon mustn't give any credence to the complaints of critics with an agenda.