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

cor

[ksta.livejournal.com]

are you serious? It was not even slightly funny. I hate them individually, but combined, Ross and Brand are enough to make anyone insanely annoyed.
I don't think it's nice that they left that message at all, but the stuff about the granddaughter was not called for.

Not experiencing sll this close by may mean I have the wrong end of the stick, feel free to enlighten me.

Re: cor

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

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?

Re: cor

[angelv.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: cor

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: cor

[ksta.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: cor

[ksta.livejournal.com]

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

[azureskies.livejournal.com]

Also consider : nobody gave a sh1t for the two weeks or so after it actually happened until the Mail decided to make it news.

[azureskies.livejournal.com]

Also - where's the bit where they talk about Sachs wanting to kill himself? Because I've seen it mentioned in all the reports, but I can't see it in the transcript...

[publicansdecoy.livejournal.com]

He's in a minority amongst politicians, though:

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=36723&SESSION=891

-x-

Re: cor

[pippaalice.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: cor

[ksta.livejournal.com]

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

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

control-f killing myself enterkey

[azureskies.livejournal.com]

Ahhhh, I misread that bit. I thought that was just Brand talking about himself. Skim-reading, there.

Re: cor

[pippaalice.livejournal.com]

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! ;)

Re: cor

[pataka.livejournal.com]

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!

Re: cor

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

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.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Defending bullies? Unworthy of you, even if they're sixth-form bullies revelling in their own cleverness.

We've known Gordon Brown for a shameless opportunist since the Laura Spence affair. But that made her a public figure, and she's an adult now, so is it acceptable to discuss fucking her?

(But thank you for posting the transcript!)

Re: cor

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

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

Re: cor

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: cor

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: cor

[pippaalice.livejournal.com]

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. :(

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

And I'm wondering how many of the supposed complaints might be nothing of the sort, given that when I sent Auntie a message in support of Jerry Springer - the Opera, I got the form email reply for complaints.

Re: cor

[pataka.livejournal.com]

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

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

That was yesterday, though, before the British public had time to get worked up into one of its occasional fits of morality.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

This is 'bullying' in precisely the same way that Paxman is 'rude' - it's rough-and-tumble rather than deferential, something which I think is one of the great strengths of the British media at their best, has been back through Hogarth and Chaucer. And as I said, it's not like they randomly selected him for a drubbing (I hate those shows like Balls of Steel which do stuff like that. Hate them, but still wouldn't expect the PM to start mouthing off about them ex cathedra) - he was a guest who cancelled on them.

If Laura Spence posed for any scantily-clad pictures online then yes, I think such jesting would be pretty acceptable. And even if she didn't, I wouldn't consider it grounds for a national scandal.