BS: Jonathon Woss off air!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Kampervan
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 06:27 PM

O.K. then John, I'l agree to differ. But do you really think that Sandy T on the Newsquiz is beyond the pale?

:->

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 04:18 PM

Well mate, as you may have guessed from my posts, I don't want my BBC adventurous.
Some of the plonkers they have on Radio 4 in the 6:30 PM 'Comedy slot' are an adventure too far for me already.

¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Kampervan
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:56 PM

To John Mackenzie

The difference is, that sponsors vet what is produced before it's made, and the result tends to be safe, risk-free productions.

Yes. the BBC is beholden to us, but we only get to comment after the event. So the risks can be taken and the consequences of upsetting us have to taken too.

IMHO it tends to be a more adventurous process.

K/van

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: paula t
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:47 PM

I am not easily offended by swearing and sexual innuendo I am very happy to listen to the odd risque joke. However I feel that the behaviour of those men was unacceptable. They invaded this man's privacy. They telephoned him and then made public things which shouldn't have been.This girl then became the subject of some very unsavoury publicity herself ( as though it was all her fault). She may have been able to cope with this but it must have been dreadful for her family. All this just because 2 people believe their own publicity and feel they are untouchable.

I hope that women will think carefully about getting involved with Russel Brand in future. After all, someone is bound to re- employ him and then they run the risk of featuring as a main character in one of his "jokes" again.TV and radio are not the place for such hurtful playground boasting.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:46 PM

"We need a BBC that takes risks, that isn't beholden to sponsors or advertisers"

It is beholden to us the licence payers, what's the difference Kampervan?

Do you think commercialism would spoil the BBC?
Well guess what the companies they use to outsource their programmes to, and the free lancers who bring in their own producers, are all commercial.
Look what a mess that's caused.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Megan L
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:38 PM

What utter tosh we do not need the BBC other companies make perfectly good programmes without getting liscence money from us poor punters so why shouldnt they. If they must be used in times of national emergency comandeer them

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Kampervan
Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:32 PM

Got to say that I agree with Ms Easby on this one.

I don't think that this particular bit of Ross/Brand should have gone out; but it was right that experimented in the way they did.

I'm not a great fan of Jonathan Ross, but I think that Russell Brand is, by and large, brilliant. Although sometimes I wince a little and think that he goes a bit too far. But that's part of the package.

We need a BBC that takes risks, that isn't beholden to sponsors or advertisers and that feels able to push the frontiers. Many of their best programmes have done that

But they must have the appropriate checks and controls that make sure that when someone goes a bit too far, then the broadcast is pulled.

The Beeb has lots of downsides, but many more upsides. Criticise it, try to improve it, but don't get rid of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 05:33 PM

Outpourings of Jonathan Ross - a 'celebrity'


Outpourings of Dr. Hunter 'Patch' Adams *on* a 'celebrity'

"Our system of "people fame" values self-centeredness and wealth. I want to live in a world where people become famous because of their work for peace and justice and care. I want the famous to be inspiring; their lives an example of what every human being has it in them to do — act from love!"

Which do we choose, for the future of our children?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 03:29 PM

I agree John

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 01:44 PM

"Marketing" does of course involve providing information - but so do most human activities, and in most of these that word "marketing" doesn't belong.

If I give my address to someone I'm not "marketing" myself". If I pass out posters about a demonstration I would find it offensive to have that described as "marketing". Providing accurate information about programmes is a matter of public service - in fact with some programmes providing accurate information might be likely to put people off programmes they would not like, rather than to attract viewers.
................

I'm still puzzling over this term "edge". It seems to me it's one of those metaphors which have got out of hand.

If we talk about something which is very difficult or demanding as being at "the edge", and understand that as implying something admirable, that makes sense. The image is of pushing forward into new territory which deserves to be explored. So being "at the edge" is a good thing, and the expectation is that in time perhaps "the edge" will move forward

But not all edges are like that. If food is going off there will be a stage at which it is still edible, but only just. If the light is going there will be a stage at which it will still be possible to see, but only barely so. And there is pain that can be borne, but only just. Those are edges you do not want to approach more closely than you are obliged to, and there is no expectation that "the edge" should move forward over time.

And when it comes to humour it seems to me that this is much more a case of the second kind of edge than the first. Being "at the edge" means it is barely tolerable, while being over the edge is intolerable - as in this case. To describe something as being "on the edge" is not to praise it but to criticise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 10:20 AM

It should have been edited yes, but that wouldn't erase it from Andrew Sachs' answering service. So the criminal act was still committed, and apparently condoned.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 10:17 AM

From what I've read the two presenters were relying on the editing process. However, I would have expected them to be responsible in what they were doing and saying and not just do it and then rely on somebody else to sort it all out. Usually, the more money people are paid the more responsible they are expected to be; surely that is part of what they are being paid for.

It was wrong what they did and it gave the wrong message to anybody else who may be thinking of making prank phone calls.

Russell Brand at least had the good grace to resign. Jonathan Ross has since been taking part in the charity Apprentice programme whilst he is suspended. This has been allowed because it will go out after the suspension period is over. I'm glad that he is doing work for charity but I don't agree that he should do it whilst suspended if it is for a BBC programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 09:34 AM

'You or I'

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 09:31 AM

It's absolutely right to say that we all have control over what we see and hear, and we all have the ability to change channels or switch off - and I do those two things very often.

But the real issue seems to have been clouded here. It's not about whether the BBC should, or should not, transmit 'edgy material' - that's something they need to challenge themselves and their consciences over.

The real issue is that two unbelievably highly paid people used their position to commit a dirty and abusive, and almost certainly criminal, act. It wasn't comedy, even 'edgy comedy' (whatever the fuck that is), it was simply two louts getting a hard-on by abusing a young woman and her grandfather.

Their behaviour fell into the same category as 'heavy-breathing phone calls' - if you I subjected a lady to phone calls asking what colour knickers she was wearing, or telling her I was playing with myself, we'd very quickly find our collars being felt by the Boys In Blue (and very rightly so). What those two did is exactly the same thing - they were dirty and abusive telephone calls, and they should get the same treatment as any other dirty-telephone-caller.

That's the issue, IMHO.

And they should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 05:56 AM

The network controller resigned on the grounds that editorial responsibility was ultimately hers. You cannot get higher than that. But as has already been said, the producer may well have had doubts since it is known that the programme content was indeed referred up within the BBC. This is, however, getting dangerously close to dropping his own boss in it, since the production company's owner is one of the presenters.

This is how a conflict of interests arises and illustrates the drawbacks of outsourcing. Producers' guidelines are bound to become blurred when a producer sees his job potentially on the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Nov 08 - 05:44 AM

So how high up the BBC do you have to go, before you find someone who knows right from wrong?

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:57 PM

"Bought in" is not the same as "outsourced". A programme made by an independent production company is (theoretically) subject to the same editorial process as one made inhouse. This means that the producer, although not a BBC employee, is still bound by guidelines which state (roughly) "if in doubt about whether to transmit, refer up". However, as has been examined in detail many miles up the thread, this process broke down disastrously. Didn't I say this earlier? At least twice?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:36 PM

""Marketing" means "selling". The BBC shouldn't see itself as being in the business of "selling" to the licence holders. We already own it."

Mmmmkay...so in the current broadcasting climate of hundreds of channels, the BBC shouldn't make the audience which is paying for the product aware of what it's producing? Publicity and identifying a target audience are part of marketing. How cross would you be if you were constantly missing BBC programmes of interest because they did not market their product to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:18 PM

The point is not to broadcast anything that isn't suitable for an adult audience. Which would probably exclude a lot of bland and pointless stuff as well as the "strong" and pointless stuff.

And I don't mean "adult" in the sense which it has taken on in the Internet.

Whether a programme is made by the BBC or bought by it is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether it is broadcast by the BBC.
........................

"nearer the edge" what does that actually mean?

There's was once man who wanted someone to drive him around, and he asked the candidates how close to the edge of a cliff road he could manage to drive safely. And one says "a foot away", and another says "six inches", and one says "an inch and a half". But the last one says "I've no idea - I'd always stay as far away from the edge as I could" - and of course he got the job since the man doing the hiring wasn't off his head.
...................................

"Marketing" means "selling". The BBC shouldn't see itself as being in the business of "selling" to the licence holders. We already own it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:29 PM

You're losing sight of the fact that the BBC does not make the sort of programmes of which you appear to disapprove. The one in question is made by an outsourced production company which had to bid for the opportunity to do what it does. In turn, the BBC has to justify the granting of its charter. Seems very accountable to me, even though I have always opposed outsourcing.

Doctors & Nurses? Well I saw some of Holby City tonight and I think we could all survive without that trash but I understand it is extremely popular.
So whatever do you want? Take off the innocuous wallpaper and replace it with . . . what? Wall-to-wall Show of bleedin Hands? Top Of The Flops?
Many millions of licence payers rather like stuff that's somewhat nearer the edge. Good for them. The BBC is there to provide it and obviously I'd oppose all reactionary, Whitehouse-like voices that want to rein it back.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:24 PM

"What would a broadcasting channel that failed to offend anyone look like?..."

Inspirational?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:24 PM

"This is a publicly funded channel, funded by EVERYBODY. Therefore, the content should be suitable for everybody.
It is not a minority interest broadcaster, it is a publicly funded broadcaster. I pay my licence, as do others, and I don't want these eedjits paid mega money using the contributions of people like me."

All i can tell you, G, is that there are lots of licence-fee-payers who enjoy the edgier comedy programmes produced by the BBC. They love the fresh, exciting and dynamic stuff that's been produced both by BBC radio and TV. In an effort to be all things to all people, the BBC has chosen to produce a diversity of content, rather than trying to pander to a single common denominator which would be horribly bland and reductive. As I asked earlier, who legislates for what's acceptable to "everyone"? Who is the arbiter of the common good taste?


Lizzie, we differed over far more than we ever agreed upon; not least of which was your belief that people singing songs is of paramount importance in changing the world. I thought your crusade in this respect was both pointless and excessive. But let me be absolutely clear about something, and you can choose to believe me or not: I have always been absolutely up front in arguing with you, and did not go to the BBC moderators to ask for you or your posts to be banned. There was no crusade, at least not on my part.

Again, I would ask you the same question I asked G: who gets to decide what's acceptable? Who is the arbiter for national taste and decency?

You say you detest dumbing down. So do I. I feel we must be in a pretty parlous state as a culture if grownups cannot be trusted to cope with mature content in the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:12 PM

When it's done on our money, we should have a say in the agenda followed.
Let them find independent funding if they want to play doctors and nurses, or any other prurient games.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Megan L
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:09 PM

Why the hell should we pay for the BBC let them earn their keep like everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:07 PM

What would a broadcasting channel that failed to offend anyone look like?
Wall-to-wall Watch With Mother?
There were those who saw sinister corruption in Andy Pandy and The Flowerpot Men.
The role of public service broadcasting is not to please everyone all the time, that would be bloody impossible, wholly pointless and plain daft.
It is to educate, inform and entertain but not all simultaneously.
Viwers and lsteners are expected to have the intelligence to switch on and off according to their personal tastes. Or do Something Else.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:59 PM

The difference between you and I, is that I belong to a generation where children could have stayed up late and watched TV, with no worry about what they saw. The worst may have been a creepy horror movie.

There was self-restraint, and self-control in many things. We need to return to that.

"To be honest, there's a lot that you and I would agree on. Stuff I've complained about in the past includes the marketing of Playboy merchandise to children, the positioning of soft porn men's mags at the tills in WH Smith where they are at a child's-eye level, teenage magazines which discuss sex, and the marketing of age-inappropriate clothes and makeup to pre-teen girls. Like you, I believe all of this stuff contributes to the problems we have in society."

Then what a crying shame that when I spoke about all of those things, on the BBC, when I urged the BBC, and Lesley Douglas herself, to be the ones to start the ball rolling, to bring about change, by playing the powerful songs of our singer songwriters in the folk and acoustic world, to open people's eyes and minds, that you chose not to stand beside me, but to join, and eventually lead, the 'witch hunt' against me., as the BBC themselves referred to it as.

The difference between you and I, is that I will NEVER accept the unacceptable, purely because someone tells me I must.

There are things in life that are fundamentally wrong.

The grooming of our children has been one of them. The willingness of the BBC to join in with that, along with the Dumbing Down process of an entire generation, in fact probably two, has been another.

The only way is UP, not DOWN.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:50 PM

You don't get it do you Ruth!
This is a publicly funded channel, funded by EVERYBODY. Therefore, the content should be suitable for everybody.
It is not a minority interest broadcaster, it is a publicly funded broadcaster. I pay my licence, as do others, and I don't want these eedjits paid mega money using the contributions of people like me.
When it comes to changing channels, then let those in pursuit of infantile, potty mouthed entertainment, change to another channel, and not pollute that of people who dislike playground humour.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:27 PM

...so the answer is a blanket ban on adult content. Right.

Alternatively, you could always just change the channel.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:59 PM

Well thunk, John.
I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:47 PM

The alternative, is to make all programmes, something you wouldn't mind listening to yourself, in the company of you family. Children and grandparents alike.
Let the non public funded channels broadcast the smut and innuendo.
Now why didn't we think of that?

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 02:01 PM

Anything broadcast after 9pm is, by its nature, marketed at adults because this is post-watershed. Say what you like about the watershed being a nonsense, but there has to be some sort of cut-off point where the kiddies should be in bed and the grown-ups can watch and listen to what they like, or where parents are at least monitoring what their kids are watching/listening to.

The alternative, as I've said, is to never, EVER broadcast anything that isn't suitable for a pre-teen audience. So far, no one has supported this as a viable alternative. So in these days of readily available media of all kinds, what's the answer? A blanket ban on adult content? Or parents taking responsibility for what their chidren are doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:50 PM

"...programmes that are directly marketed to adults..."

But this programme wasn't "marketed". This wasn't a pay-as-you-watch or subscription channel. It was one we all finance through the licence fee. And that means that when it is misused it provides ammunition for those who would want to do away with the licence fee system, and I think that would be disastrous.

As for the assumption that people who have protested are going by hearsay, because they didn't listen to the original broadcast, significant bits have been repeatedly broadcast since, and carried on YouTube.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: goatfell
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 01:29 PM

Well Mr Parons,

do you or do you not acept my appoligy, for being such a stupid git, or you just not talking to me, and for calling you a cheeky git, or you think that you are more clever than me

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 07:33 AM

Indeed I did say that what Ross & Brand said was very funny, but clearly not suitable for transmission. Had I been in on this edit, I'd have roared with laughter but wouldn't even have needed to refer it up to ask whether it was fit for broadcast. It was not, and the presenters doubtless expected, confidently but wrongly, that this part of the recording would be cut.

As has been outlined way above, the editorial process collapsed completely, a disaster waiting to happen as a result of outsourcing to those lacking appropriate training in editorial judgment. Appropriate heads on top of suits have rolled. It's now up to the BBC to tighten up procedures by every possible means.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on Works PC
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:39 AM

'what they did was crass and insensitive - they crossed a line'

What keeps getting put to one side in this debate is the fact that they broke the law!
By making an offensive phone call they broke the law.
But no-one seems to recognise that fact.
As usual with 'celebrities' law breaking is expected & tolerated.
That is the message the BBC is sending out.
If they can send 'prank' offensive messages then why shouldn't the rest of the country join in.
I understand that a large problem in schools is that of 'cyber bullying' i.e. offensive texts & messages.
Glad that woss & bland are doing their bit to uphold the tradition!

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:30 AM

"I have not met any that were snotty, stuck up, or arrogant, in the way so many ephemeral 'stars' of other genres can be."

I've met Jonathan Ross actually, G - he was a really nice bloke, and utterly charming. People are not supporting them simply because they love an underdog - they are supporting them because they were immensely popular.

"How does does this apply to, say, burglary, mugging, the Holocaust?"

Erm, if a jury sits on a case of mugging or burglary, are they not presented with evidence before they come to a decision? Or do they base their judgement on hearsay and speculation?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:19 AM

But Lizzie, the problem is that your perception of "base and crude" material may be relatively mild to someone else. And it's when we start legislating for the taste and boundaries of others that we find ourselves in trouble.

To be honest, there's a lot that you and I would agree on. Stuff I've complained about in the past includes the marketing of Playboy merchandise to children, the positioning of soft porn men's mags at the tills in WH Smith where they are at a child's-eye level, teenage magazines which discuss sex, and the marketing of age-inappropriate clothes and makeup to pre-teen girls. Like you, I believe all of this stuff contributes to the problems we have in society.

I think that where we differ is that while I object to things being directly marketed to children, or put in the way of them going about their daily business, I think that the content of programmes that are directly marketed to adults, so long as they are broadcast at appropriate times, should be largely uncensored. At some point, parents themselves have to take responsibility for what their kids watch, read and how they spend their free time. If the internet and the television have become babysitters, this is more to do with lazy parenting than it is with the content itself. You can watch TV with your kids; you can even filter out what they can and can't see on the internet. You can refuse to give them a computer or a TV in their bedroom. But if parents can't be bothered to do these things, whise fault is it when they get hold of inappropriate content?

At the end of the day, we as adults have a choice in what we watch and listen to - if there's something you don't like, you can turn it off. That way the people who do like it aren't forced to live by your standards. But the responsibilities of good parenting are really, I feel, another matter, and it would be a bit daft if all the TV and radio in the world was only suitable for an audience of under-12s.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: greg stephens
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:10 AM

Ruth, is that a new principle you are formulating, that people should not criticise something they haven't witnessed? How does does this apply to, say, burglary, mugging, the Holocaust?

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 06:05 AM

Grag:

1) What Ross and Brand did was wrong.

I don't condone what was said on the programme, that's true.


(2) People who protested about it are wrong.

I watched a programme on Channel 5 last week about how the whole affair escalated. Until the Daily Mail got involved and whipped up the controversey, there was very little public outcry. This is a typical tabloid witch-hunt, and while I think the programme was inappropriate and the decision to broadcast was stupid, the response to it has been DISPROPORTIONATE. And I'd be willing to hazard a guess that many of the protesters (as is often the case with these media frenzies) haven't even heard the programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:46 AM

"I think Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand are hilarious, but I wouldn't want anyone ringing my granny and telling her I'd shagged them, regardless of whether it was true, or whether it was going to be nationally broadcast. That's because she was a very nice old lady who would have been very upset by such a phone call. As most grannies are and would be."


I apologise. Your words are above. It was said by someone else.

"As someone who has consistently defended free speech, Lizzie, I'm actually surprised that what you appear to want here is censorship."

I'm all for free speech.   I am not into dumbing down. And yes, there is a limit in everything. We have removed ALL of those limits. It was the wrong thing to do.


"Personally, I don't think that listening to Jonathan Ross is the reason why teenage girls get pregnant. All of these issues are about maintaining a sense of perspective. "

I said it's part of the WHOLE picture. The more base and crude society becomes, the more it ricochets off into that society, particularly off into children's minds.

They are the next generation, they deserve the best we can give them, not the worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:45 AM

Oh and by the way, Terry is asleep again

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:44 AM

There is a tendency amongst the British public to support those they perceive to be the under dog, at any given time.
At this moment it's Ross and Brand who attract the support from this section of the public.
What I find amusing is the tendency for this sympathy to be applied in many cases, on behalf of someone who may thank you for it, but in reality, wouldn't give you the time of day if you met them in the street.
So much bonhomie is just a professional front, and out of the public eye, many of these overpaid nonentities are as sociable as polecats.
I think this is why I, and others, are attracted to folk music and the performers thereof. With only one or two notable exceptions, I have not, in 40 years of meeting with, and listening to many folk performers of varying degrees of success, and/or fame. I have not met any that were snotty, stuck up, or arrogant, in the way so many ephemeral 'stars' of other genres can be.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: greg stephens
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:40 AM

Ruth Archer: as this affair has progressed over the last week or two, your view seems to have settled down to what can only be described as "(1) What Ross and Brand did was wrong.(2) People who protested about it are wrong".
I don't see how you can quite reconcile these two things, which would seem to be in opposition to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 05:28 AM

"You said earlier on that you thought the show was extremely funny, although it shouldn't have mentioned any names."

I think you'll find it was Diane who said that the problem was with them naming names. What I actually said in my first post on the subject is that I wouldn't want anyone ringing my granny to tell her I'd shagged them, whether it was true or not, because she was a lovely old lady and she would find it very distressing. So no, I never defended the content of this particular show. Where we disagree is that I feel that Brand and Ross, both of whom sail very close to the wind at times, went too far on this occasion but that I generally find them both highly entertaining and think that the response to this particular incident has been disproportionate.

You cited the 30,000 people who have complained to the BBC. Funnily enough, I've just been invited to join a Facebook group in support of Ross and Brand. It has 54,000 members at present. Presumably that number will continue to rise. They've got petitions to the BBC, to the PCC (starting a witch-hunt against the Daily Mail), etc. There was always going to be a backlash, because people in the UK do value freedom of expression.

As someone who has consistently defended free speech, Lizzie, I'm actually surprised that what you appear to want here is censorship. Personally, I don't think that listening to Jonathan Ross is the reason why teenage girls get pregnant. All of these issues are about maintaining a sense of perspective.

The most offensive thing about Jonathan Ross, IMHO, is how much he gets paid. Yes, it's appalling by any standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:59 AM

"Please don't imply that, because I loathe a particular right-wing rag, I do not have a "moral point of view".


Er..I think I merely said that perhaps other papers should have also taken up the gauntlet, along with their readers, although I'm sure that many of the people who complained come from a broad spectrum of newspaper readers.

"My moral compass is very sound, thank you very much. The fact that I don't share the same set of values as you doesn't make my values less moral, or less valid."

Absolutely. We are all entitled to our own idea of morals. You said earlier on that you thought the show was extremely funny, although it shouldn't have mentioned any names. I think that even without names being mentioned, it was crude, lewd, dumbed down trash, with no intelligence, sensitivity, thought, meaning or purpose, other than to upset two people who didn't deserve it, and to highlight the complete idiocy and vacuousness of two men, old enough to know better.

You may feel that to hear of women being f*cked over a settee is an absolute hoot. Again, that is entirely your choice, to which you are entitled. I think it's intensely degrading, both to women, and to men, who apparently think that *that* is what women are for. I want far more for women. As you know, I've a good sense of humour, at times a slightly naughty one too, but there is a limit. What happened had nothing to do with the editorial policy being wrong, because it should never have happened in the first place. It was, first and foremost, two juvenile presenters, neither of whom know or care much about music, who both have egos the size of King Kong, and who don't give a damn what comes out of their mouth, as they have absolutely no restraint or thought for others. The BBC hired them, knowing ALL of this, then decided to pay them an absolute fortune. And *that* is what was so wrong, and has been for a long time. Lesley Douglas was right to step down, she hired them.

It's time that self respect and responsibility came back, and that women were seen, and saw themselves, as more than some tawdry sexual object to be discussed in the most basic and base terms imaginable in the public domain. If you surround children and young people with perverted images, words and ideas, then don't be surprised when the society we now have, happens. If you want it to continue, to get ever worse, to get lower, and even more basic, then keep Brand and Ross, makes them heroes, build statues of them, pay them twice as much as they're already getting, put them on every single day of the week, and never complain about them.

Just stand in line, as The Emperor goes past, and tell him that in his New Clothes he 'looks wonderful tonight'.......and who knows, perhaps all will live happily ever after...and UNICEF will take the children of the UK off their number one position of being the most uhappy children in the world.

But somehow, I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Nov 08 - 04:52 AM

McGrath, I said earlier (twice) that I agree with you on that point. What they did was wrong. The response may have been disproportionate and tabloid-bred, but it was still a stupid, childish incident. I feel compelled to challenge the notion of the Daily Mail as a good, wholesome paper which upholds morals and values to which we should all aspire (and am frankly gobsmacked by anyone who really believes this), but this is a side issue.

I wholeheartedly agree with your points about the BBC, too. There are already enough people calling for the Beeb's head on a platter, and they don't need this sort of ammunition (I'm sure it's no coincidence that the Daily Mail, which has long been hostile to the BBC, spearheaded the call-to-arms). Again, there are two issues here: the calls themselves, which would have been distressing and embarrassing, and the decision to broadcast them. For the former, Brand and Ross bear responsibility. For the latter, the BBC unfortunately bears full responsibility, and the appropriate heads have rolled.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 07:24 PM

But it still remains true that the fact that the Daily Mail was all aerated about this Ross and Brand business is not in itself any reason to feel any less angry about the episode.

In fact people who are a long way from being Daily Mail readers are entitled to have an additional reason for feeling angry, because of the damage this has done to the BBC, and the aid and comfort it has given to people who are hostile to the BBC. That is on top of the damage that this type of programme arguably does directly to the wider community.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 07:03 PM

Oh, and before you bother, I know what they published about Stephen Lawrence. As McGrath says, even a broken clock is right twice a day. They've more than made up for that one act of lucidity since.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 06:49 PM

"But these past few posts show exactly what I'm talking about, when the phrase 'Daily Mail Reader' is thrown around at people who dare to have a moral point of view about something, which disagrees with those of the people who throw the accusations."

McGrath, the key point is that, whatever their roots, the Mirror and the Guardian have substantially altered their editorial policies. The Daily Mail has the distinction of being thr newspaper of choice for neo-nazis and the BNP - make of that what you will, Lizzie. The Daily Mail does not represent people who have a "moral point of view". As my earlier links demonstrate, it is anti-immigration, anti- asylum-seeker, and fosters an atmosphere of paranoia and fear (usually of anyone who isn't white British). If you are a "keep England for the English" type, who abhors the effect that immigration and multiculturalism have had on Britain, then the Daily Mail is probably right up your street.

Please don't imply that, because I loathe a particular right-wing rag, I do not have a "moral point of view". My moral compass is very sound, thank you very much. The fact that I don't share the same set of values as you doesn't make my values less moral, or less valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Jonathon Woss off air!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 08 - 04:39 PM

It's a crap paper. So what? Even a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day.

But as for holding a paper's past record against it, consider what The Guardian (at that time The Manchester Guardian) wrote back at the time of Lincoln's assassination: "of his rule, we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty".