Did you read about the BBC apologising after a debate about a plant known as a “black man’s willy” was broadcast on Gardeners’ Question Time?
Yes, a caller to the Radio 4 show asked for advice on the Rhodochiton volubilis, which he said was “commonly known as the BMW, the black man’s willy”. Panellists were heard giggling their way through a discussion about the plant. Gardening author Bob Flowerdew admitted he had “only ever seen one close up – and not that colour”. Horticulturalist Anne Swithinbank added: “I’ve never seen one in my life. They don’t really like the cold, as you can imagine. They shrivel up and look very unhappy.” But “some” listeners failed to see the funny side, complaining of racist stereotyping and vulgarity by the broadcaster.
I have listened to Gardener’s Question Time on the odd occasion and a more innocent programme would be hard to contemplate. There was NO NEED to apologise for this and the BBC is being way too indulgent of the humourless politically correct professional complainers out there. Is there anybody out there who thinks this public apology was necessary, or do you agree with me that by doing this the BBC encourages more of the same petty fault-finding?
The BBC are just reaping what they have sowed.
I’m sure there was all of one complaint, unlike the thousands that complained about Jerry Springer the musical. And I’ll bet the person who complained wasn’t even black. Probably another self-indulged white middle class liberal on a self-elected crusade.
The People’s Front of Judea | 06.02.08 – 2:03 pm | #
Absolutely.
This is exactly the same kind of white lefty thinking that led that quango to censure ‘The 3 Little Cowboy Builders’ for being offensive to Muslims. And builders. And cowboys presumably.
No Rockfall, cowboys are Americans, so they’re free game. That’s what you get for having the sheer audacity of building the world’s biggest economy and contributing so much to humanity. Those monsters.
By the way Mr. Vance, it’s BMW, not BWM. BWM wouldn’t have made sense when you’re a kid in the playground and you said to your friend, ‘Does your dad drive a BMW?’ and one of your friends said, ‘Yeah, mine does – so?’ and you said, ‘Hah, your dad drives a Black Man’s Willy!’ and the rest of the kids burst into laughter and the kid whose dad drives a BMW got mad and gave you a dead arm.
But then, those were back in the days where a comment like that wouldn’t’ve got you taken away for sensitivity training or just shot. The days before they arbitrarily banned conkers. The eighties.
did`nt the bbc run “the back and white minstrel show” for 20 years.have they apolagised for that yet.
Can’t it be both? Part necessary, and part unnecessary, I mean.
If horticultural enthusiasts had already given the plant an essentially racist nickname, that’s not the presenters’ fault at all. They didn’t even bring it up in the first place, did they? There shouldn’t be any penalty for stating the nickname itself, racial overtones or no. Forcing them to apologize just for saying the term, unfortunate as it may be, really would encourage those knee-jerk cries of offense. I guess they did miss a good opportunity for a little “social cohesion” there, perhaps by saying something like, “Oh, what an unfortunate term, still….”.
But that’s really no excuse for being vulgarians about it, is it? One would expect this sort of base humor on the Graham Norton show, as that’s what his entire persona is based on. There’s plenty of room on other shows for “naughty” humor. That kind of thing really has no place in a programme for grownups. Unfortunately, not too many of those get on BBC airwaves these days. If children listen to the show, then that’s even more reason for a sense of decorum.
A pity the vulgarians at the BBC wouldn’t have thought to restrain themselves in the first place. No, these things never occur to them until someone smacks them in the head afterward. What was it somebody said earlier about the media keeping everyone in a state of permanent adolescence?
David Preiser (USA) | 06.02.08 – 3:49 pm
A pity the vulgarians at the BBC wouldn’t have thought to restrain themselves in the first place..
You probably don’t get Gardeners’ QT in Arizona, or wherever.
These ‘vulgarians’ are a panel of mildly eccentric professional horticulturalists.
You can take a horticulture, but you can’t make her think.
[With apologies to Dorothy Parker]
You can take a horticulture, but you can’t make her think
I suppose you think that sexist remark is funny well I find it offensive.
John Reith | 06.02.08 – 4:46 pm |
You probably don’t get Gardeners’ QT in Arizona, or wherever.
These ‘vulgarians’ are a panel of mildly eccentric professional horticulturalists.
I live in New York (grew up in Arizona), and am well aware of the makeup of the Gardeners’ QT panel. I actually heard it once or twice a long time ago while at a friend’s place in the UK, but even here in the States I can listen to it live every Sunday, or even right now, on the iPlayer if I wanted to, remember?
It doesn’t matter if they’re young or old, wild hippies or church mice in woolly jumpers, schoolboys or Oxford Dons. There’s a time and place for vulgar humor. How difficult is a little self control? I guess the audience members that might find that sort of thing distasteful need to shut up and get over themselves, right? Who cares if conservative white people are bothered? They’re obviously just sitting there waiting to be offended.
It’s funny how the MOBO Awards get broadcast without comment every year.
LOL That cracked me up! But…But….David I cracked up when a PUP wannabe politician called you an Alf Garnett type on BBC radio, and you’ve yet to see the funny side of it.
C’mon now…whats good for the goose..
Ah that cheered me up that did!
Gardeners Question Time was repeated this afternoon on Radio 4, did they cut the BMW question and answer?
Hi David
Perhaps I’m wrong here, but it seems to me that the US is rather more ‘proper’ about such mild offences against decorum as this one on Gardeners’ Question Time.
The gentle naughtiness on this programme is very British – along with saucy seaside postcards and Calendar Girls.
Gardeners’ QT is quintessentially British, and I think it’s a shame that this rare appearance of gentle bedroom humour was harummphed at by listeners, let alone apologised for by the BBC.
There was a picture of the plant on a website with quite large black dangly bits.
If the dangly bits had been very small and called ‘black mans willy’ I could well see why one (a black man)would be upset, but of course it will have been a white middle class yogurt knitter who dived on the phone at the mere mention of sexual organs.
I occasionally listen to GQT and the fella from NI can be hilarious, and quite smutty.
Gibby,
Sorry – that was a typo! Then again, I don’t have a legion of assistants to parse my every word!
Typhoo,
Still don’t see the funny side of a proxy for UDA terrorism lecturing me.
Mr Preiser: a bit importantly earnest there, don’t you think? If you knew the UK as well as you believe you do, I think you’d lighten up a bit. Fran’s correct, IMO. Hell, even Reith’s close for once.
GQT is part of an ancient Brit broadcast tradition that has nothing, absolutely zilch, to do with Graham Norton. More like The Archers used to be. As so often, the answer lies in the soil
knacker | 07.02.08 – 9:24 am |
Mr Preiser: a bit importantly earnest there, don’t you think? If you knew the UK as well as you believe you do, I think you’d lighten up a bit. Fran’s correct, IMO. Hell, even Reith’s close for once.
GQT is part of an ancient Brit broadcast tradition that has nothing, absolutely zilch, to do with Graham Norton. More like The Archers used to be. As so often, the answer lies in the soil.
Oh, please. Just lump me in with the frumpy blue-noses who called in to complain, then. Or aren’t they British enough for you?
No, you’re more of a nebbish.
No one here, and certainly not you, knows who the complainers were. Which makes you a bit of a humorless jerk, too.
You think people are petty for complaining about what is basically a knob-joke with racist overtones?
Google “Biased BBC”. They seem to be furious about an apology. An APOLOGY!
What do you want, for the BBC to apologise for apologising?
No, just not to be so bloody PC and selective in its apologies. The BBC fell all over itself to apologise to the Palestinians for calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel (which it is, of course) but I have yet to hear one BBC hack apologise to Isaelis for the BBC’s gross anti-Israel bias over the years.
The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv isn’t it?
Whether the BBC has been anti-Israel is debatable. Probably a short debate if it takes place here, but the BBC has at least been claiming neutrality, and so until this bias can be conclusively proven (with more than just “they don’t write TERRORIST in capitals every time they write “Palestinian” as reasoning), they have no reason to apologise.
Only an idiot could dispute that they put a knob-gag in GW and got the capital of Israel wrong.
The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv isn’t it?
No it isn’t.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/State/JERUSALEM%20-%20Capital%20of%20Israel
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1980_1989/Basic%20Law-%20Jerusalem-%20Capital%20of%20Israel
Please do not try to tell me that a sovereign state has no right to decide where its own capital is.
I stand corrected.
But there’s a world of difference between apologising for individual, defined incidents and a general feeling of bias that some pro-Israel readers may get. The BBC, if it did apologise for its coverage of Israel, would have to do so on a case-by-case basis, not with the “We’re sorry for our gross anti-Israel bias over the years” you seem to expect.
No, we don’t expect that. It would be enough if the BBC would take complaints about its bias seriously and do something about its one-sided agenda. Sometimes it does seem to modify the bias and we give credit where it’s due.
If you really want to discover BBC anti-Israel bias, read the site. You young guys have such a short attention span.
I stand corrected.
Good. Now please explain why the BBC felt obliged to apologise to the “Palestinians” for stating the truth.
Young Alex is going to have to scratch his head for some time over that one.
I hope he doesn’t get splinters in his fingers! 😆
BTW, how much can we trust the opinion of somebody who talks about the “illegal Israeli occupation” while believing that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel?
A very good example of the prejudice against Israel borne of disinformation and ignorance.
Perhaps Alex can also tell us the name of the capital of the “Palestinian” state that Israel “illegally” occupies and the name of just one “Palestinian” leader prior to Yassir Arafat (who was an Egyptian).
Perhaps he can also tell us why, in all the years that Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza, those two states did not hand over those territories to the “Palestinians” and why the “Palestinians” didn’t request that from those two countries?
At what point did I refer to the “illegal occupation”. I have mentioned the ISRAELI occupation, which you may have read as “illegal”, but if you can’t tell the difference between ‘illegal’ and ‘Israeli’ you must have some serious anti-Semitism issues.
I admit I have always been under the impression that Tel Aviv is at least the political capital of Israel and Ramallah the capital of Palestine, though if Israel claims otherwise I suppose I’ll concede I was wrong on Tel Aviv.
The reason the BBC is right to apologise for referring to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is that Palestinians only recognise half as part of Israel. Lumping in East Jerusalem is controversial. You lot may of course disagree with the Palestinians. This is called controversy, and the BBC is wrong to take sides. If by purpose or oversight it refers to the whole of Jerusalem as part of Israel, in contradiction to UNSCR 478, it is quite right to apologise.