I try to resist posting about acts of inexcusable stupidity and venality these days, BUT...

[alexsarll]

Because he has nothing better to do - it's not as if we're in an economic crisis and the pound is at an historic low against the Euro or anything, after all - our Beloved Leader has joined in the chorus of moralising hysteria directed at Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. Because politicians love to knock the BBC for being so terribly mean to them, and all the rest of the media loves to knock the BBC because it's better than them, and worst of all the BBC loves to knock the BBC because like everything else that is good and noble in our culture, it is currently beset with a crippling overdose of self-doubt and consequent belief in the virtue of self-flagellation. And so one of the few institutions of which Britain can still be rightly proud takes another hit as the jackals circle. I mean, have any of these shrill nonentities actually read the damn transcript? (NB: many purported transcripts available are woefully incomplete. The Times, for instance, with all the fidelity to truth one expects from a Murdoch rag, omits the 'Satanic Slvts' (NSFW, obviously) line - either because they were too stupid to understand it, or because it would militate against the impression of slurred innocence they're trying to summon re: Sachs' granddaughter. Not that I have the slightest thing against burlesque performers, you understand - but treating a suggestion that one such might have done the sex with a man in a manner befitting similar suggestions levelled regarding a small child or Victorian princess does seem rather bizarre).

Consider:

- Andrew Sachs cancelled on them. He was not a random victim. It is acceptable to leave voicemail for someone who belatedly cancelled on you in a tone which might be considered poor form on other voicemails.

- Andrew Sachs is only famous because he was happy to play the whipping boy in Fawlty Towers; he can hardly start standing on dignity now. Cf Stephen Fry on fame, specifically the differences between his own and Nicholas Lyndhurst's.

- And this one is the clincher: IT WAS FUNNY. Even without the voices of Ross and Brand, reading a bad transcript that's supplied for purposes of damning them rather than making me laugh, even overwhelmed with anger at the absurd storm around it all, I was cracking up. They made a comedy show; they engaged in nothing more dangerous than the use of harsh language (and even that was not as harsh as the coverage would have you think); they made people laugh. They offended some other people, for sure, but as we should all know by now, offended people are the very worst people on the planet.

As far as I'm concerned, Ross and Brand are both due a pat on the back if not a raise, and everyone who has objected can piss off to somewhere with a suitably deferential press for their tender sensibilities - Saudi, say, North Korea, or Iran.

Comments

cor

[ksta.livejournal.com]

are you serious? It was not even slightly funny. I hate them individually, but combined, Ross and Brand are enough to make anyone insanely annoyed.
I don't think it's nice that they left that message at all, but the stuff about the granddaughter was not called for.

Not experiencing sll this close by may mean I have the wrong end of the stick, feel free to enlighten me.

Re: cor

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Brand is better in stand-up than on TV - in the same way as a stage actor can come across as really hammy on the screen. Ross I just wholeheartedly think is ace. This is the first I knew of them collaborating, so I can't really comment on the chemistry. Certainly I know that they're both performers who wind some people right up, and so I could well understand if office conversation, or even radio reviews, were complaining about it. Maybe even a couple of mentions in year round-ups or Worst Radio Moments clip-shows.
But lead news story in papers and websites? Statements from the bleeding Prime Minister? WHAT?

And like I said, they weren't just ringing random D-list celebs and abusing them via voicemail - this was someone who had previously agreed to come on the show, and so knew (or should have known) the sort of puerile humour they deal in. Nor is his granddaughter a shrinking violet whose reputation has been besmirched by their antics. So who's been treated badly here, exactly?

Re: cor

[angelv.livejournal.com]

I think that most people we know who object do so basically because they're happy to see Russ and Ross getting their "comeuppance". Not because of what they said, but because they don't like the pair in the first place. Which is fair enough, but kind of misses the point.

I don't necessarily agree that what they said was funny but totally agree the reaction has been an astonishing example of crap hysteria.

Re: cor

[ksta.livejournal.com]

I think the argument of 'he should have known what he was getting in for' is no excuse. It's one thing to be insulted in person, another to have it done while you're not there.

Why is the prime-minister getting involved? This is a matter for the beeb.

Basically I don't think presenters should phone up celeb answering machines and leave real, insulting messages on air without them knowing. Brand and Ross knew what they were doing.

[azureskies.livejournal.com]

Also consider : nobody gave a sh1t for the two weeks or so after it actually happened until the Mail decided to make it news.

[azureskies.livejournal.com]

Also - where's the bit where they talk about Sachs wanting to kill himself? Because I've seen it mentioned in all the reports, but I can't see it in the transcript...

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

control-f killing myself enterkey

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

And I'm wondering how many of the supposed complaints might be nothing of the sort, given that when I sent Auntie a message in support of Jerry Springer - the Opera, I got the form email reply for complaints.

[publicansdecoy.livejournal.com]

He's in a minority amongst politicians, though:

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=36723&SESSION=891

-x-

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

That was yesterday, though, before the British public had time to get worked up into one of its occasional fits of morality.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Defending bullies? Unworthy of you, even if they're sixth-form bullies revelling in their own cleverness.

We've known Gordon Brown for a shameless opportunist since the Laura Spence affair. But that made her a public figure, and she's an adult now, so is it acceptable to discuss fucking her?

(But thank you for posting the transcript!)

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

This is 'bullying' in precisely the same way that Paxman is 'rude' - it's rough-and-tumble rather than deferential, something which I think is one of the great strengths of the British media at their best, has been back through Hogarth and Chaucer. And as I said, it's not like they randomly selected him for a drubbing (I hate those shows like Balls of Steel which do stuff like that. Hate them, but still wouldn't expect the PM to start mouthing off about them ex cathedra) - he was a guest who cancelled on them.

If Laura Spence posed for any scantily-clad pictures online then yes, I think such jesting would be pretty acceptable. And even if she didn't, I wouldn't consider it grounds for a national scandal.

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

again what you seem to be saying

"if you are a 'bully' who chooses their target based on percieved past wrong on their part, you are much better than a program like balls of steel where randoms get 'bullied'"

is that seriously the best you can do to justify it....

posing in scantaly cad outfits = acceptable to insult the lady's honor - really really only a few steps away from the whole she-was-asking-for-it which is a bad bad thing and anyone who uses thaty argument is not someone who has a leg tostand on morally

[my-name-is-anna.livejournal.com]

Ugh but I hate their smug faces though, especially Jonathan Ross.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

If every smug face in the land were to be the subject of this sort of outrage, the news sites would short-circuit.

[p-dan-tic.livejournal.com]

quotes are me paraphraising you

"he was asking for it"

because it's ok to broadcast personal abuse if someone doesn't keep to an agreed date

"it's ok to talk about sex acts with the granddaughter because she's a satanic slut and therefore not an innocent"

did wycliff jean teach you nothing?

oh wait let me guess, she was asking for it too

personally I reckon whoever is responsible for broadcasting that pre-taped thing without censor deserves bad things to happen to their career....

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

It's not like he pulled out of an appearance on Today and was suddenly getting hassle for it. The minute he, or his agent, or whoever, agreed to be on with Ross and/or Brand, he was in for smut. To then be outraged over getting smut is as absurd as going on an eighties kids TV show and then suing because you get gunged or custard-pied. If he'd said 'no thank you' in the first place, he would have had no problems from them. And no publicity either, of course.

[baphomette.livejournal.com]

I didn't find it funny in transcript, nor having heard it since (maybe that order influences me somewhat, I don't know).

It's a horrible thing to talk about someone else's sex life a) publicly and b) to their unsuspecting relatives. It's particularly vile when neither party is around to respond in person. If the people you're discussing aren't in on the joke then it's not a joke, it's malicious.

What I was most surprised by was that it had been pre-recorded and signed off for broadcast. Either the editor thought that was both funny and perfectly acceptable behaviour, or they thought they'd let it out to see how quickly the attention gathered. Neither option gives me much confidence in this mystery 'senior executive' that keeps being mentioned.

All that said, I'm already bored of the witch hunt too. An apology is the most you can ask for, they've given it, everyone please shush now.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

I am a little surprised that it got through on pre-record, but in a world where Chris Morris can't get his suicide bomb-com commissioned for fear of Causing Offence, that's more pleasantly surprised than anything else. I hate how scared the media has got these past few years.

[miss-newham.livejournal.com]

I agree with you Barry! Oh well.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Blimey. I suppose someone had to!

[shewho.livejournal.com]

aye, me too.

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

Andrew Sachs is the second actor to play Adric in Doctor Who (who is this "Manuel" character?) quasicanon. That's why he's famous and deserving of respect to me! Certainly more so than Russell Brand who is, always has been and always will be an irritating tosser.

[strange-powers.livejournal.com]

How upset would you be if it was announced tomorrow that Brand was DOCTOR ELEVEN?

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

I've never heard the relevant audio, but knowing that Sachs did a turn as the single worst companion in the history of Who does not do wonders for my estimate of the man, even if it was in a story which was written by Magrs and thus presumably fairly amusing.