![[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
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.
no subject
no subject
I would have expected that section to be edited out of the show in the same way that a sitcom with a bomb/similar episode might get moved around the schedules if something sensitive happened that week. In that "well it's done now, but let's not make life more dificult for ourselves' sort of way. I can't imagine it making nearly as big a spash in the news if the producer had just said "er, no, that's not made the cut and we'd better apologise NOW".
no subject
Also, as has been mentioned - there was no fuss at the time. The fuss came a fortnight later, courtesy largely of the Mail, where Obergruppenfuhrer Dacre presumably issued a mandate that the heat should be taken of his dear chum Gordon and the economy, and a suitably decadent liberal scapegoat found.
no subject
I think it's naive to expect that a fuss wouldn't be made at some point though. And I think that an immediate apology would have just been a decent thing to do anyway; it'd make a change for someone to say "hang on, that was a bit crass of me" without being prompted by the Daily Mail. Not a good moral compass to have, that!
Hurrah for the Blackshirts!
no subject
I see your point but I think you're taking that stance a bit far. Doing something just because one particular institution says not to is a very risky business. If it's something that happens to be in line with your own judgement then fine, but 'just because'...no.
no subject
no subject
Worryingly, I expect that this sort of juvenile nonsense from Ross/Brand is only going to make them more scared. It's not what you'd want, is it, if you had 10 potentially "offensive" things that could possibly be made and could only pick one of them!
no subject
no subject
no subject