“Controversy”
I’ve not been closely following the Ross/Brand obscene phone call brouhaha, but a couple of things struck me about the BBC’s coverage :
Yesterday’s Today programme was talking about the “controversy” over the call. The word “controversy” implies disagreement, two sides, some who think one thing, some another. Yet in all the coverage I’ve not heard anyone defending what the BBC did, the debate, such as it is, being about the nature and degree of sanctions and who they should be applied to. The BBC must be shy about presenting the people who thought the call was a good idea.
The BBC mot du jour to describe the affair is “prank”, with its overtones of schoolboy larks. Russell Brand is 33. Jonathan Ross is 47.
Brand defended the call on air by asking what was more offensive, the Daily Mail’s support for Mosley’s Blackshirts seventy-odd years back, or his call. I guess the answer to that is that that no-one in the 1930s was forced on pain of imprisonment to buy the Daily Mail !
(Slightly off-topic but irresistible – I bet you didn’t know that the Guardian argued for the Nazi Party’s inclusion in the German government, saying that this would “help to perpetuate this democracy“. Or that the Observer hinted that claims of anti-semitism were exaggerated because “the major part of the German Republican Press is in Jewish hands“.)
UPDATE – No Good Boyo examines the entrails (h/t Sam Paradise in the comments).
I do have some unsolicited advice. The BBC handles these matters badly. The Queen, Gilligan, Barbara & Yasser 4 Eva, phones-in, boycotting Gary Numan, you name it – the BBC always follows the same pattern:
- Managers stoutly defend integrity of initial broadcast.
- Managers actually watch initial broadcast.
- Managers abjectly apologise for initial broadcast.
- Someone called Jonty is sacked.
- All BBC staff go on a “don’t lie or be a bastard/don’t say ffyc” course, run by an independent consultancy recently set up by Jonty.
UPDATE2 – the BBC find a defender of Ross and Brand :
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s World at One, comedian Alexander Armstrong defended them saying people “shouldn’t be too quick to condemn them” for comments made “in the heat of the moment” that were not intentional.
Wouldn’t be the Alexander Armstrong who makes frequent BBC appearances, would it ?
UPDATE3 – the BBC probably don’t need too many supporters like Guardian commenter mitch72 :
“Why has David Cameron piped up? To get more votes and critise the BBC which is supportive of the Labour Party.”
The Guardian “Should Ross and Brand be fired ?” poll is currently running a 70/30 yes/no ratio. (Visitors to the Guardian site can also check out the latest BBC job adverts.)
“Brand and Ross were providing precisely the kind of lowest common-denominator humour that advocates of the licence fee tell us would dominate the airwaves without public subsidy.”
Independent. I must say I hadn’t heard of George Lamb before, a presenter on one of the BBC’s 148 digital “youth” stations, nor his treatment of Ray Davies :
The routine was all about the public bullying of two people on the fringe of public life, one old and one young, neither as powerful as Brand or Ross. It was not a moment of zany individual madness either: the BBC played its part, not only passing the programme for broadcast but also, astonishingly, supplying Sachs’s mobile-phone number to their presenter to use on-air. When the row blew up, sections of the press, with habitual hypocrisy, trilled with outrage while adding to the hurt by sleazily investigating the private life of the granddaughter – in the public interest, of course.
Sachs’s mistake was his non-appearance at the studio. His alpha-male colleagues responded to this lack of respect with an act of petulant retaliation. The great songwriter Ray Davies was on the receiving end of a similar revenge-mobbing last month when interviewed over the telephone by a BBC disc-jockey, George Lamb. “Are you bald?” was one of the first of several idiotic, sneering questions asked. Diplomatically, Davies pretended that the line was bad and discontinued the interview. He was “a moody git”, the BBC man told his listeners, “senile, no sense of humour”; his bad energy would probably cause him to die a horrible death.
Jon | 29.10.08 – 1:15 am
the bbc is the organisation that brings us “eastenders” and feeds that crap to the proles, rather than enlightening their minds.
so yeah – i’m not surprised.
i sometimes wish that Orwell could return from the dead to make notes on his predictions.
jon -> looks like they havent even bothered censoring it themselves..
here it is :
Message one: As Brand begins to leave a message, Ross blurts out: “He fucked your granddaughter… I’m sorry I apologise. Andrew, I apologise, I got excited, what can I say – it just came out.
archduke | 29.10.08 – 1:18 am |
There is no doubt in my mind that the BBC are trying to trivialise it.
and here’s a screengrab…
http://i35.tinypic.com/2i06oed.png
yup. thats now on the bbc website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7694989.stm
There is no doubt in my mind that the BBC are trying to trivialise it.
Jon | 29.10.08 – 1:21 am
of course they are.
but the british public are wondering – why are we paying for this crap?
if it was a private radio station it would merit a passing mention – and both presenters fired.
cased closed.
not so with the BBC.
to be honest with you jon , this “prank” would have merited barely a mention during the boom times.
folks would have ignored it , and gone back to putting down Titchmarsh decking in their buy-to-let 2nd homes, with a shrug and a “so what, typical bbc..”
now its different. a 47 year old cavorting like a child on a £18 million taxpayer funded salary… while insulting an icon of british culture – one Andrew Sachs…
it just reeks of Nero and Rome Burning.. thats why this story has hit the bullseye.
throw in the Obama factor and the “change” in america, and you’ve got the perfect storm. folks over here have had enough..
Talksport fored James Whale for less and ofcom haven’t even ruled on his broadcast blunder yet.
Still one good thing will come from this – the next time there is a drama or comedy programme which happens to mention something about Islam or Mohammed and about half a dozen Muslims get offended and fire off their complaints, the BBC won’t need to hastily issue groveling apologies and get the schedules altered to appease the complainers.
Or when some crappy little storyline on Eastenders upsets a hundred or so easily offended do-gooders they can be told to fuck off and find something that really upsets the majority instead of just a tiny minority.
10 years? Comedian.
Ooops, that was an not-browser-updated point directed at Dick @ 19:19.
More to the point – yes, this was inappropriate. Toss like “White supremacist taunts a Jew. Fucking hilarious isn’t it?” is gibberingly mad; this *is* a story made up by the Daily Mail (not in the sense of “oooh, you righties are so Daily Mail-y”, but in the sense that two people complained to the Beeb about the program and 5,000 complained about the DM article). And of course the BBC have trivialising it, because it’s fucking trivial. ‘Man rude to grandad of girl he shagged; grandad a bit cross’ doesn’t warrant the front page of the Warrington Advertiser, much less any kind of serious media outlet.
Of course, now that it’s turned into some kind of lunatic ‘OMFG they were rude to Manuel HANG THEM’ outrage amongst mad people, it’s clear that the Beeb’s damage limitation policy was flawed. However, in the normal world, damage limitation policy doesn’t extend to ‘insane people misreading and lying about something unimaginably trivial’. I’m well aware and have the scars (cheers, cuntrag, if you’re still reading here) that this can change if the pointless flames are being fanned by someone sufficiently crazy/axe-to-grind-y/both.
Oh, and “Talksport fored James Whale for less and ofcom haven’t even ruled on his broadcast blunder yet” – I didn’t spot Brand and Ross endorsing fucking candidates in an election – if they had done on the Beeb, they’d be out within five minutes guaranteed, and anyone who believes otherwise is actually as demented as 9/11 Troofers and/or Roswell cover-up-ists.
This is actually about insanely rich parasites being allowed to do offensive things while suckling from the public teat.
I personally like South Park. It’s very crude and offends almost everyone ( including me sometimes ), but no-one is forced to pay for it on pain of a criminal record.
JohnB – if you thinking phoning up a nice old bloke and joking about shagging his grand-daughter is ‘trivial’ then you need your teeth kicking down your throat, because you don’t understand common decency, and a week or two in hospital drinking through a straw while reflecting on your behaviour might do you good.
John B,
I seem to recall many occasions when the BBC have explicitly or implicitly endorsed the Labour party without any action.
In comparison to the financial storm and collapse of the British economy this is indeed a non story.
However, it does show the depth of public loathing of this parasitic over paid and arrogant elite. Harassing calls do, unequivocally, constitute criminal offenses. This is unlike the vicious attack on George Osbourne which we learned yesterday (nicely hidden of course) has literally no substance whatsoever.
I haven’t noticed high level BBC coverage saying “yacht-gate entirely without substance”
Well, I guess there is some logic to those using a Newsnight blog to complain about those referring to a story Newsnight eventually sees fit to cover. At least in their minds.
The latest ‘wheeze’ seems to be to try and claim it’s trivial and we should move on. I tend to agree on the former, but do note that the public is kept right in many ‘trivial’ mires when it suits the agendas of others who control the studio sliders.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2008/10/tuesday_28th_october_2008.html#commentsanchor
Just woke up to Breakfast news about this… er… ‘stunt’. Who sent out that memo? (See what happens when you view events though different lenses coloured to suit?)
I think there may be more, and its not going to be good, to come. Mr. Brown does not emerge from his bunker into the court of public opinion without being pretty sure which way the wind is blowing.
But just how ‘acceptably unacceptable’ his ‘outrage’ translates into, and what actually ends up being done, remains to be seen.
Not that we really were to find out from the story aired..
Our loyal host reads out a carefully worded and still ‘optimistic’ post and despite the reality of the situation across the media infirmament being perhaps a tad more than suggested?
And then we come to the show, which itself was an insight into editorial decisions.
First up, we get no senior BBC figure to comment, which was at least treated as political no shows in such circumstances are. Evidently the budget and hence staff cuts have also cut a swathe though the top talent floors, too. Maybe they are all in the US to report on the last few days there?
So we get a Newsnight twofer. Interesting the age divide. An older person not exactly supportive and a hip youngster who can’t see the problem or what the fuss is all about (who ARE all these comedians I have never heard of on-call to the BBC when an edgy’ opinion is needed? Though I thought he perhaps wisely, and I presume intentionally, left the humour out, and was bang on with the pols ‘coming out’ as they scent an opportunity to strut with little consequence).
Then, surprise, two (count them, two, split 50:50 on the issue; so on this basis I can’t see the fuss either) more twofer vox pops. Again, one more mature gentleman and a younger supporter. No ladies available, I guess, though perhaps their views on being seen as fodder for our new-age comedic talents could not be aired, at least on TV after 11pm.
As to the ‘points’ about complaints; to any familiar with it there is no point to BBC Complaints. So why bother using this ‘service”? That 10,000 have popped up above the water line suggests an iceberg awaits the good ship BBC, especially as the way this whole event is still being ‘handled’ by the now discredited, isolationist, horse-bolted, cookie-cutter mentality that is distracting, too often, the BBC from doing what it does well (or colouring almost anything done with a big question mark. I don’t bother with any US coverage here): “It didn’t happen. If it did we think it was fine. If it wasn’t then we apologise… and will investigate. And then nothing will happen beause, really what can anyone do?’
Good luck with that.
HSLD: got it in one!
johnb 3:43
If it is so trivial, why is it a criminal offence ?
Sky News now reporting that apparently it was a “junior producer – just 25 years old” who was responsible for editing the program before it went to air.
Just realised my last post is quite illogical as something may be trivial and criminal at the same time in this crazy country.
There is no doubt in my mind that the BBC are trying to trivialise it.
Jon | 29.10.08 – 1:21 am | #
Trivialise it by featuring it on Newsnight? It has no place on there.
There is no way this is worth a slot on Newsnight, but I guess if it’s important enough for the PM to comment on it…
While I completely agree that Brand and Ross are overpaid twats and they have misjudged their target do you not all feel you are all having you strings pulled for jumping onto the hysteria bandwagon?
Campbell is pulling them from one direction, and I would not be surprised to learn that certain factions within the beeb are pulling them from another.
The appointment of someone from Pepsi to run Radio & Music was not that well received in certain places and it does make me think a bit about a) how this cockup happened (ie how it got broadcast despite Sachs saying no, and then it took ages for an apology to him), and b) why people are so keen to report a ‘bear shits in the woods’ story.
Now, if there was a referral upwards, and the referral was ignored, or misjudged then from the POV of this blog it does become interesting.
The squirming Gavin Esler on BBC ‘Newsnight’ last night had to announce to viewers that no senior BBC person was available to discuss the Ross-Brand insult! Another insult!
From ‘Skimmer’ at Spectator blog:
“Just what do the BBC executives intend to do?”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2555721/just-whatdo-the-bbc-executivesintend-to-do.thtml
The pint sized wanker Nicki Campbell has been in full bollocks talk this moring. I had to laugh when someone said “the Labour party loves the BBC” the Scottish twat then piped up “so do lots of people in the Tory party”
Really?
And is Campbell now in the shit himself?
All morning he’s been wanking on about the grand daughter sleeping with Brand. Now he’s back tracked on that.
Has she actually said that? All I thought she said was what happened between her and Brand was “private”
So could Campbell now be in the shit as well?
All morning Radio 5 have been in full defence mode with left wing twats on and Guardian journalists and attacks on the Daily Mail.
It will be strange if the drossgate/brandgate issue is the catalyst for an overhaul of the BBC. But I won’t be holding my breath.
Apart from the BBC’s manipulative handling of politics and their intrusive moderation of our attempts to express our views, there is the jumbo issue of the destructive influence they are having on our morality and culture.
Writers who haven’t a clue are given free reign to misrepresent whatever scenario they decide to sensationalise. Like children playing let’s pretend.
Tired reality shows glorify mediocrity and something-for-nothing values.
The current hoohah has narrowed to just asking whether two overrated broadcasters have overstepped the mark, where the real question going begging concerns the influence the BBC has over our attitudes, aspirations and opinions. It’s a responsibility that should be recognised and treasured.
What they have in their hands is in effect a weapon of mass destruction.
Inform educate and entertain? or Misinform, dumb-down and voyeuristically exploit.
Sue 9:42
Splendid post , yet again. Spot on. It is difficult to see what the BBC’s objective is. Once their destruction of “traditional” Britain is complete, what is to replace it ? Presumebly a communist EU superstate. That will be a lot of fun.
Grant | 29.10.08 – 9:56 am
Thanks for your kind words, but I must add, please don’t put me down as the prudish stick-in-the-mud I am beginning to sound like.
I like rude, childish, cruel. I like South Park, and lefty things if they’re sharp. I quite like Simon Amstell or whatever his name is, and bits of the League of Gentleman.
It has to be witty, clever innovative and most of all NOT repetitive.
I liked Miller and Armstrong’s posh version of street talk and Vicky Pollard’s expression as she ‘went to the toilet’ in the swimming pool.
I liked all sorts of things when they were new, but flogging them to death is a particular failing of the BBC.
And apart from anything else, they must see that Ross and Brand are sooo last season.
For me the REALLY funny aspect to all this is that beeboids have spent all year polishing Gordon Brown’s turd, and now in their hour of need Brown turns around and sticks the boot in – there’s gratitude for you.
Sarah Jane | 29.10.08 – 9:24 am |
you are all having you strings pulled for jumping onto the hysteria bandwagon?
i’m personally enjoying having my strings pulled,its great fun watching the bbc squirm.
Agreed. The BBC is down on the floor. Now is the time to keep kicking it in the head and stamping on it’s balls.
The Guardian was also a supporter of eugenics, if memory serves.
Well, they are still supporters of abortion.
There seem to be some of Draper’s sock-puppets popping up here and there, and here.
Hugh Oxford:
The Guardian was also a supporter of eugenics, if memory serves.
Well, they are still supporters of abortion.
SO FUCKING WHAT!
BBC Bias anyone?
漢字仮ࡧ | Homepage | 29.10.08 – 11:54 am |
Well if you had followed the whole thread, rather than just the last bit, you would see that “so what” is exactly the point.
Sarah Jane: I really fail to see how kicking in the Beeb would benefit Campbell at this time. Last time he did so, the BBC was in full campaigning mode against the government over Iraq. Why would he do so now when it’s propping up Gordon?
Lads and lasses – the language ! Can we leave the f and w words for DK and Guido please ? The BBC may well be *****, ***** and *******, but let’s not turn these boxes into “Mark and Lard go for a session with Wossy and Wussell”.
Waste of time. BBC have found it’s sacrificial lamb. All the top brass can breathe a sigh of relief. Dross and Bland are being nicely hid until the storm passes.
Give it a few weeks, then it will be business as usual. Back to work for the chiefs. Massive wage packets all round. The dole queue for the sacrificial lamb (plus an undisclosed amount for taking the fall thank you very much).
Britain will go back to sleep, and the BBC will get their public funding for the next 50 years.
Anyone who believes any different needs their head examined.
@ Laban,
“Lads and lasses – the language ! Can we leave the f and w words for DK and Guido please?”
Good point. (I find the language on Guido blog shocking – I don’t read the Daily Mail or have a blue rinse). Profanity is the stock-in-trade of the Brand and Ross. Stooping to their level of vulgarity undermines the argument that the Beeb is failing in its role as the nation’s chief arbiter of good taste and high culture.
“I seem to recall many occasions when the BBC have explicitly or implicitly endorsed the Labour party without any action.”
Implicitly perhaps – I’m willing to accept the weak case that because the people who work for the BBC tend to be educated middle-class centre-liberals, there’s a presumption running through much of its output that educated middle-class centre-liberal values are shared by everyone. If you can point to anyone on the BBC, or any other UK TV or radio provider, explicitly endorsing the Labour (or Tory) party or individual candidates and not running into the kind of trouble that Whale and TalkSport are currently in, I’d be very interested and rather surprised to see it.
“If it is so trivial, why is it a criminal offence ?”
Isn’t. Next?
“if you thinking phoning up a nice old bloke and joking about shagging his grand-daughter is ‘trivial’ then you need your teeth kicking down your throat, because you don’t understand common decency, and a week or two in hospital drinking through a straw while reflecting on your behaviour might do you good.”
The first doesn’t do any harm; the second does. Sticks and stones, etc.
Sometimes I feel the urge to visit Guido’s site and let rip with some f’s and c’s at what is going on in the country, and I’m pretty sure that the posters there do so for that reason. But I keep my cool, and visit here for my news, and EURef for analysis. It certainly makes me better informed than if I watched the BBC or bought the Guardian, Tele, Times etc.
Aaaagh…the post above should have ended with
“…Bodger Thompson and the Biased Boy Corporation?”
Double Aaaaaaaaaaaaagh… the original post didn’t appear, it seems!
Sorry; perhaps I am losing the plot.
“if you thinking phoning up a nice old bloke and joking about shagging his grand-daughter is ‘trivial’ then you need your teeth kicking down your throat, because you don’t understand common decency …”
Oh the irony 🙂
The 6 o’clock news has somebody standing outside the BBC talking about Ross to an autocue reader inside.
Still plent of telly tax money to spend.
John B said:”If it is so trivial, why is it a criminal offence ?”
Isn’t. Next?
There is scope for offences to have been committed under the harassment, telecommunications and obscenity laws.
Ron Todd | 29.10.08 – 7:13 pm
I think the autocue reader is the other side of town: ….. Radio 2 is in the Broadcasting House complex around Oxford Circus, the TV News is in White City in west London.