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

Current Mood: incandescent
Current Music: Fvck The Fvcking Fvckers - Blacksmoke

Entry tags:

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

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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?

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.

Absolutely - it's being used as a stick with which to beat them, and they're being used as a stick with which to beat the BBC, all by people with prior agendas.

in fairness, the hysteria has not reached me. What they have done is just another example of why they are annoying idiots.

Actually nearly every single person who I know who I also know you know (Um that doesn't actually explain it any better, but is reason for re-edit) who has said this was a bit off likes one or both of them. I simply think it was in very poor taste and also not particularly funny. Like I said on SB I'd have thought it was bad if one of you lot had done it as a joke as well. Having said that I don't really get what ALL the fuss is about.

hurrah! an like mind. :)
It's just not nice, right?

This is what I think. Though I have just realised after having had a massive row with my mum I don't actually want to get into an argument about it.

Hey kids if you disagree with me, that's cool too! ;)

Since when did decent comedy have anything to do with being nice?

your definition of decent comedy leaves a lot to be desired

So, all those Bender quotes you love - they're all nice, are they?

yeah and i like watching men getting beaten half to death in a wrestling ring - sometimes the action isn't "nice"

I don't like watching happy slapping

do you see the difference?

Yes - it's a personal favourite of mine, the consent defence. When Manuel accepted that invitation, he stepped into the metaphorical ring.

opps I replied to this in the wrong place gimmiw a moment to edit stuff

Not true. He agreed to the appearance but didn't turn up at the event - unless you reckon it's acceptable for one boxer to punch another at the weigh-in since the boxer has already agreed to the fight. He didn't enter the ring at any point.

Even if some mirth-void like Harry Hill, Peter Kay or Justin Lee Collins had pulled such a stunt, I would still be appalled if it had generated this sort of witch-hunt, as opposed to the usual weary sighs.

Agreed, I don't have time for witch hunts but I do think they should both appologise to blokey AND the girl (TBH you don't really need someone broadcasting on the radio that you have slept with them. It isn't a particularly pleasant thing, though I do notice she is already in talks to sell her story so I am limited in my sympathy for how 'hard' it has been on her) then it is over. I really love JR as you probably know and he usually is a bit unpleasant and crude but this just seems like 'and more', in fact considering the number of times they called it is very close to bullying. I also think that phonejacker thing should be pulled from the air though so maybe it is a phone thing? I hate phones. :(

They *have* both apologised! And yet mystifyingly, the case isn't closed...

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.

They didn't insult him, all the hysteria is about them saying Russell had slept with his daughter, which, although not something he wants to hear (I'm sure!) isn't actually an insult... According to the transcript, they didn't say anything specifically insulting, in fact quite the opposite (although Russell *was* digging himself into a hole somewhat!)

As I understand it, it was prerecorded, so someone at the beeb had had to approve it being aired, and also they weren't ringing up a random person, he was supposed to be interviewed but then didn't answer the phone.

I don't know if it's much of an argument to say that Jonathan started it, but he did! Although Russell didn't really help himself with that silly song, but really, it's all been blown WAY out of proportion.

Actually I feel quite sorry for Russell, silliness aside. It's alright for Jonathan with his £18 million contract, but Russell could be sacked over this, due to public hysteria. (Example of public hysteria: there had been about 1000 this morning, 5000 when I saw the news this afternoon, then 10,000 by the time they did a news summary about 5 minutes later!!)

I don't think it was remotely funny but I also didn't expect it to become front page news!

In fairness, it would be about the fourth time Russell's been sacked for outraging public decency, and every time he seems to bounce back bigger than before, so I'm not too worried on his behalf - unless he gets beaten up in the streets by some Mail-pawing illiterate.

Yeah but he was on drugs then. He can't hide under his drugbrella now!

"If there's one thing worse than an alcoholic, it's a recovering alcoholic, because there's not even the hope that he might pass out."

Exactly - the PM is getting involved because this is being used as part of a wider offensive on the Beeb by petty politicians and greedy rivals.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

Re: cor

As a wise man once wrote

Re: cor