Monthly Archives: October 2008

Open Thread

By | | ,
67 Comments

General BBC-related comment thread! Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Call Me Biased And I’ll Sue

By | |
18 Comments

‘Call me biased and I’ll sue’?

I posted the other day about DB’s attempts to comment on Justin Webb’s blog. If you remember, Webb mentioned his comment in a post last Saturday, but it had been referred to the moderators, which made it a bit tricky for readers to know what he was on about. Anyway, as a further demonstration of their ineptitude, it seems the blog moderators have now reinstated the comment (it’s number 6), but only after emailing DB to inform him it was removed for being “defamatory”. This is, well… interesting from a legal perspective, but more so in the context of the Beeb’s accountability (which they’re dead keen on). Don’t forget the Beeb says one of the benefits of its blogs is that they help boost accountability to the audience. But not, it seems, if you want to take them to task for failing to meet their Charter commitments regarding impartiality – or in fact even if you want to remind them to do so.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Russell Brand Writes For The Guardian

By | |
30 Comments


Russell Brand writes for the Guardian

No surprise there, of course. They’ve had some oddball columnists in their time, Myra Hindley, Osama Bin Laden, David Cameron, and they still employ George Moonbat. But the last time one of their sports columnists got in trouble for over the top plain-speaking was Big Ron Atkinson, and he got the red card from both ITV and the Guardian.

Will the same happen to Our Russell?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Diversity Of Opinion

By | |
59 Comments

A Diversity of Opinion

So I’m sitting there with my Horlicks, and a couple of digestive biscuits, watching Newsnight. The lovely Emily Maitis has convened a panel of three witty, cutting edge humorists to discuss the complex issues surrounding BrandRossSachsGate. First up, Jan Raven:

“They were out of order, but they are very funny and the BBC must not give in to the Daily Mail tendency”.

( I’m paraphrasing btw ).

Second, John O’Farrell:

“They were out of order, but they are very funny and the BBC must not give in to the Daily Mail tendency”.

( I’m still paraphrasing btw ).

I start to yawn. Where are those matchsticks that Tom used to use in the Tom and Jerry cartoons?

Third, and finally. We have Stephen K Amos. Great, someone to break the consensus. What do you think, Stephen?

“They were out of order, but they are very funny and the BBC must not give in to the Daily Mail tendency”.

( Yes, I’m still paraphrasing btw, but I was almost catatonic by then, and I don’t sit there with a notepad anyway ).

Gee. Thanks for that. Thankfully Virgin One were just about to start Sexcetera so at least I had something intellectually stimulating to go to sleep on.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Joining The Dots

By | |
16 Comments


Joining the dots

Following Brand’s resignation, a couple of the papers are now tentatively drawing the connection between this affair and the wider problem of the Beeb’s bias. Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun hits out again this morning:

BBC chiefs still don’t get it, do they? While Director-General Mark Thompson was reluctantly grovelling last night, senior Beeb executives were still trying to blame everyone else but themselves, he begins, and goes onto discuss the corporation’s arrogance and its “lofty contempt” for its viewers.

Instead of reflecting their opinions it exudes a smug corporate view on the major issues affecting Britain.

The Telegraph also sees a connection: The depressing aspect of this grubby affair is that it is all of a piece with its arrogant belief that it cannot possibly be wrong on anything. Accountable to no one, and with a guaranteed income of £3.2?billion a year, its own Andrew Marr has described its mindset thus: “The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias.” In short, it has become dangerously divorced from the majority of people in this country.

UPDATE: Incidentally, the Beeb story almost manages a clean sweep of the front pages today.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Quiz Time USA Speical

By | | ,
57 Comments

Quiz time! USA Special

Moving on from Brand and Ross, it’s time to get the crystal balls out and predict who will be the mystery guest on tomorrow’s Question Time. At the moment it’s looking dangerously balanced: Elizabeth Edwards, a senior adviser on health care to the Barack Obama campaign; Simon (America has to choose: Obama or certain doom) Schama; Clarence Page (another Democrat); and Cheri Jacobus, a Republican political consultant and strategist based in Washington D.C. So only three to one against the Republicans at the moment! So who will be the fifth? And you can’t have Mchael Moore – I’m taking him. A pat on the back and a ‘jolly well done’ to anyone who gets it right.

UPDATE: It’s just occured to me that this might be unfair: the Beeb could, of course, be late announcing the fifth guest because they want to balance it but they don’t actually know any Republicans, in which case feel free to help them out with your suggestions….

UPDATE 2: They found one! After thinking long and hard and after much scouring of the Daily Kos and Huffington Post they found a whole bunch of Republicans working for that other guy in the Presidential race. Now all they had to do was pick one… “Look! Here’s one that’s related to Nixon – everyone knows he was a bad’n. He’s even got ‘Nixon’ in his name. Perfect!” And so the fifth panellist is… Christopher Nixon Cox, executive director of Senator McCain’s presidential campaign in New York. The show’s taking place tonight. In Washington.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Open Thread

By | |
146 Comments

General BBC-related comment thread! Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. This is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may also be moderated. Any suggestions for stories that you might like covered would be appreciated! It’s your space, use it wisely

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Rumbling On Headlines

By | |
157 Comments


Rumbling on

The headlines today are, well, challenging for the Beeb:

And that’s just those that lead with it on their front page.

Much of the ire is, understandably, being directed at Ross and Brand, but for my money Iain Dale has it right here, where he points out that since it was pre-recorded much of the responsibility must lie with producer, editor and station controller. Sky also have a good interview with former DJ Roger Gale, arguing against making a scapegoat of out of a junior staff member. As he puts it, It’s the people at the top that set the trend, not those low down the food chain.

This Guardian piece also has some interesting background that helps explain why this could be be good news for those that want to see reform at the Beeb:

Unfortunately for the BBC’s director general, Mark Thompson, the furore has coincided with the endgame in a debate about the future of public service broadcasting post-2012. Ofcom will deliver its conclusions in January.

Critics said the BBC’s slow response and the confusing reviews now in motion showed the weakness of its regulatory system, which was overhauled after the Hutton inquiry, and its compliance regime, supposed to have been tightened after last year’s fakery rows and phone-in scandals.

Who knows, it could even lead to suggestions that the BBC actually monitor compliance with other charter commitments, such as to impartiality.

UPDATE: Brand and Ross have been suspended – and after three days the Beeb has managed to find Mark Thompson. The number of complaints has now topped 18,000. Even the Guardian’s Michael White suggests the Beeb tends to be a little slow to admit its mistakes.

UPDATE 2: Brand has quit.

UPDATE 3: Sorry, but just one final thought on this: the Beeb are making much of the fact that Radio 1 listeners don’t see what the fuss is about – it’s a generational thing, innit – the logic being that if enough people think it’s funny then it’s okay to ring up someone to inform them that you’ve f***ed their granddaughter. And then broadcast the results against their wishes. I think I understand the principle the Beeb is trying to develop, but I’m a little unsure of how it’s meant to be applied: is it only former cast members of Fawlty Towers we can do it with, or any license fee payer? And is it just granddaughters, or are they allowed to ring me to inform me that one of their staff members has f****ed by daughter – provided, of course, that the youth audience chortle?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

“Controversy”

By | | ,
143 Comments

“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.)

    Spectator :

    “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.

    Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.