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

[baphomette.livejournal.com]

I can see why they do it, language-wrangling aside. If someone you loved had just been blown to bits, seeing other people be blown to bits on the telly probably wouldn't do you much good.

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!

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Au contraire - the point where the Mail objects to whatever you're doing is exactly when you know you should be doing more of it. If they endorse you, you need to stop and have a think about your actions.

[baphomette.livejournal.com]

So you're going to ring some girl's grandad tomorrow and tell them about the time you shagged her?

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.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I have possibly reached the point of Devil's Advocate implosion here. You know when Nietzsche talked about battling monsters? I think he'd foreseen the Mail.