![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
no subject
oh wait I rememebr she was a fettish performer and therefore asking for it
*tisk*
If I stood up a girl on a date with no warning, it wouldn't be acceptable for her to involve my family in the insults she would no doubt post on the internet
in short my opinion on the matter (because you're good at avoiding my arguments):
* the messages they left go far beyond what is acceptable if someone stands you up on a broadcasted show
* saying a person deserves to have aspersions cast against their morals because they've had photos taken of them in provocative poses is VERY VERY wrong and you should honestly be ahamed of yourself for saying that
no subject
And my point was precisely that no 'aspersions' have been cast. To talk in terms of 'aspersions' is to subscribe to terribly Victorian ideas that saying a lady has had extramarital sex is de facto an insult. I thought we were beyond that. If he'd gone into details of various scandalous and specific acts, then yes, you might have a case to answer. He didn't. He just said they'd had sex. In 2008, is that still scandalous? Really?
Now which arguments am I avoiding, exactly?
Question One
Re: Question One
Re: Question One
Re: Question One
Question Two
Re: Question Two
Re: Question Two
Bender actually pickpockting a real person wouldn't be funny... If this was a terrible sit-com where 2 bbbc personalities left an abusive voicemail then I wouldn't care
Re: Question Two
Question Three
Re: Question Three
Re: Question Three
Re: Question Three
no subject
Supposing that their agent was completely honest with him, of course. And even if he was fully briefed, I imagine he was expecting smut that he'd be able to respond to; Jonathan Ross may be a bit bawdy but he's light entertainment personified (and do many 78 year olds know who Russell Brand even is?)
They're both professional radio hosts, I'm sure there have been plenty of other instances where a guest hasn't answered or appeared on time and they've changed tack accordingly. Why launch straight into the vulgar stuff on his answering machine? (Speaking of which, has there been any mention of why he didn't answer the phone yet?)
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm all for a bit of piss taking but I think the subject has to be there to respond. As a similar example, I didn't find it funny when Simon Amstell was taking the piss out of Chantelle's book when Preston was on Buzzcocks; had he taken the piss out of Preston himself that would have been fair game.
Oh and by the way, I have no idea what the Emu years are I'm afraid so not sure what that reference implies.
no subject
Going on Big Brother, at least from the second series on, was as far as I'm concerned the moral equivalent of painting a big target on your backside. Nobody who did that is ever going to get any sympathy from me if the publicity turns sour.
no subject
BB is a publicity machine, granted, and I'm no fan of it either. But picking on one of its contestants who isn't there to answer back is like being the editor of Heat magazine, which certainly isn't any better.
no subject
If Never Mind The Buzzcocks cut all the jokes at the expense of celebrities who aren't present, it would be a very short programme.
no subject
I was referring specifically to instances where someone has tried to have a pop through a family member/spouse because there is a difference in my head (maybe because they're more likely to find out about it?) but I really have to get some sleep. And fill in a CRB form. Whoops.
no subject
no subject
isshould be.(no subject)