alexsarll: (gunship)
Alex ([personal profile] alexsarll) wrote2008-10-28 06:58 pm

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.

[identity profile] baphomette.livejournal.com 2008-10-28 11:30 pm (UTC)(link)
But then should you be due any sympathy if you're the host of a show inviting has-been comics on just to poke fun at them (when presumably they accepted the invite because they need the fee)? Why should anyone have to be degraded to earn their money?

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.


[identity profile] barrysarll.livejournal.com 2008-10-28 11:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Emu as in Rod Hull (I AM HIM!). As in, a previous show where celebs were basically invited on to be made fools of, and if you got involved at all the best you could do was try to handle it with good grace.

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.

[identity profile] baphomette.livejournal.com 2008-10-28 11:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, I figured it was that Emu, but I don't recall that aspect of the show at all. I basically remember the 'somebody's at the door' song and that's about it.

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.

[identity profile] barrysarll.livejournal.com 2008-10-29 12:02 am (UTC)(link)
I may have the timeline wrong here, but I think that Emu was originally a variety act, who would then interfere with other people's shows when invited on, before getting kids TV vehicles on the career downslope.

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.

[identity profile] baphomette.livejournal.com 2008-10-29 12:09 am (UTC)(link)
It wouldn't - they could actually give some airtime to the comedians they book who are worth more than 2 edited down minutes of trying to guess some intro tunes performed by members of McFly. Separate gripe though, that one ;)

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.

[identity profile] barrysarll.livejournal.com 2008-10-29 12:10 am (UTC)(link)
Don't worry, I don't think talking to me online is a criminal offence. Yet.

[identity profile] baphomette.livejournal.com 2008-10-29 12:16 am (UTC)(link)
No, but I am starting to sound a lot like I agree with the Daily Mail in the thread below and I'm sure that is should be.

[identity profile] barrysarll.livejournal.com 2008-10-29 12:20 am (UTC)(link)
Sadly, neither the current PM nor his likely successor is as tough on the Mail as one might expect in a civilised society.