More like this
Ross and Brand saga brings out the loony in us all
Two broadcasters have been suspended after a ‘sick’ radio stunt that few complained about when it was originally aired
We don't have to think of ourselves as pro-Andrew Sachs or anti-Ross-n-Brand though I personally am pro-Sachs, pro his granddaughter, pro Jonathan Ross (he was led astray), pro Radio 2 and only anti-Brand.
I am very anti-Brand, but I have to admit, I was anti him anyway. I just couldn't give vent to it until I had a legitimate grievance: loyalty to the granddaughter of my all-time hero, the waiter out of Fawlty Towers. Why am I ashamed? Why are we all ashamed?
Radio 4's PM programme yesterday reported 10,000 complaints to the BBC, with 600 people taking the time to complain on the PM blog, even though Eddie Mair (by some oversight) doesn't have any authority over Radio 2.
Hundreds of people complained to the Mail on Sunday, the newspaper which first broke the story of Andrew Sachs's hurt feelings at the weekend. Many people complained to the Guardian, since Brand does a football column for them.
How many people, though, complained straight to Radio 2? Like, when this grand offence was actually unleashed, how many listeners thought: "That's a bit rum! I think I'll give them a tinkle"? Answer: two.
Sorry, I'm going to restate that in the words of an actual news source: A BBC spokeswoman said the programme had received two complaints and these were about Ross's swearing [never mind that, he was led astray by Brand, remember] rather than the content of the calls before details of the incident were publicised in a Sunday newspaper.
It's all guff, in other words. How can we be offended when we weren't even listening?
The fact is, we have been YouTubing the clip, purposefully, in order to offend ourselves (I know I have). And we've offended ourselves so much that two perfectly serviceable broadcasters have now been suspended, as though they got caught doing something outrageous, like shagging a goat.
We're like the Christians demonstrating outside Jerry Springer the Opera, back in 2002 when it was just an Edinburgh fringe production. Loonies. Me, certainly, but also you. A bunch of loonies. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
i think what people should be asking themselves is why am i spending so much time complaining about this?? ross and brand collectively represented a very small amount of the BBC's broadcasting time. and it was time that was entertaining (for those who liked it - for those who didn't, there's the change channel button)
the rules of supply and demand are precisely the reason WHY shows like theirs existed in the first place, you cannot fill your broadcasting timetable purely with stuff designed to please everybody all the time. if they had, the BBC would be all the worst for it. Have you seen the figures for ross and brands shows, they had a large audience. which says to me that there is a DEMAND for that kind of entertainment.
i wish people would get off their moral high-horse about stuff like this. because in the end, it's such an insignificant thing. A great deal of people are now missing out on two entertainers who made them very happy - probably far more than that sh*t stirring rag the daily mail managed to incite into a frothing mob that forced them both out.
I think what people should be asking themselves is why am I paying for this drivel, next their cant be that many people listening to radio 1 and 2 because they have recently been using the licence fee to pay for adverts in cinemas.
The British government does not need a media organisation, which is immune to the rules of supply of demand, which undercuts private organisations which are better than it.
And for an organisation dominated by hand wringing lefties and bedwetting pinkos, drags single mothers on benefits to court in order to get them to pay the licence fee.
which is then extracted from their fortnightly benefit money, not only are thesewomen unlikely to watch much of the dross on the myriad tv channels money which is given to them to spend on their childrens food and clothes.
Is being given to the Vlasti with their chauffered limo's and pay packets which dwarf the PM's.
The first thing which should be sold off for a far tidy sum is their video archives, before they wipe the tapes to save money like they did in the early 1970's.
The BBC have played into Ms Baille's hands, and are giving her more exposure every day.
It's a predictable response from the BBC, concerned about all the complaints from Middle England's wifeswappers. Personally I'm more offended by Eastenders and Strictly Come Dancing.
Though I agree that the comments were inappropriate and certainly shouldn't have been broadcast. I still find it odd that people have been deliberately going and listening to the clip on youtube despite knowing it's going to offend.
Ross apologised personally for the comments, hand delivering a letter of apology to Sachs, the messages were never intended to offend, just a joke taken too far (something Ross and Brand are both familiar with). And Brand has resigned from the BBC.
I don't condone their actions, and I think it was bloody stupid to let it actually go to air since it was pre-recorded. But I do think people are over-reacting over this, it happened, Ross is suspended, Brand resigned, the controller of BBC 2 has resigned. And like it or not, it more than likely won't be the last time something like this happens.
The BBC has to keep up with the times in it's programming and broadcasting else it's viewing and listening figures would plummet, nothing that stays the same can succeed in the media world. It's still the greatest broadcasting organisation on the planet, and has a good balanced spectrum of programming to appeal to pretty much everyone, without only looking at appealing to the lowest common denominator. It cannot ignore the appeal of what will be it's future audience for the sake of staying the same
Despite this slip, Ross is one of the BBC's best assets, pulling in high viewing and listening figures for his shows - and despite his habit of flying close to the boundarys sometimes, I've not seen him cross it before - calling for a fine and entertaining broadcaster to have his career ended over such a slip is absurd. Not saying he was right to do what he did, he wasn't, he knows it, and has made steps to making amends. But I agree with Zoe on this. and the Reason the clip has been pushed is because there are people out there who want to cause uproar, and want you to be offended by it.
As for saying that the Russel Brand show is only listened to by people who show a lapse in taste - that's a very broad statement to make, and somewhat unfair, Brand's show is often very very funny - without stunts like this. And the music he plays is great, so please don't make such sweeping accusations.
And for your information, I'm not exactly what you'd call an ignorant youngster, nor a Yob (far from it). I can just tell the difference between something calculated to offend, and a joke gone too far. I suggest everyone look at this with the same view in mind, and you'll see it's not half as bad as you wind yourselves up to believing.
I couldn't agree more with the article. This entire farrago was cooked up by the Daily Mail and its ilk mobilising a massive wave of fake indignation from people who A, never heard the podcast and B, never listen to Russell Brand. The point is both Ross and Brand were employed to titillate, challenge convention and push the boundaries. Now they're being pilloried for doing their job. I think very poorly of the BBC for not standing their ground. When you listen to the offending part of the podcast, it's edgy but very funny. Fire the editor who let it go out if you like, but leave Ross and Brand alone.
What a silly article, does Zoe get paid for this?
The reason that no one listening to the programme complained is that the programme is clearly only listened to by those without any sense of decency or appropriate behaviour, it's self selecting. 'Yoof' who think anything is a giggle, including 'happy-slapping' videos put on youtube, and the mobile phone recordings of all manner of anti-social behaviour and vicious picking on people, clearly wouldn't understand. This generation have been coursened by wall to wall violence [yes, a lot of it on the BBC which seems to think it must compete with all other stations, rather than standing for standards and decency] and of course they didn't complain, they were all giggling just like their two heros. Which excuses nothing.
Just because yobs approve of behaviour, doesn't mean it's acceptable; that's a slippery slope to societal breakdown if we take the lowest common denominator.
But the issue isn't just about the quality of programmes the BBC puts out, an offence was committed, on air, of making obscene, lewd and offensive phone calls, and I'm waiting for them to be charged by the police as anyone else would be if they acted like this and didn't earn millions. It was also broadcast, another offence for which Ofcom will eventually decide the outcome.
We are nothing like the christians demonstrating against Jerry Springer the Opera Zoe, if you can't see that, I suggest you shouldn't be writing articles for First Post, but should perhaps do some thinking for a change.
Speak for yourself. We have had the clip pushed at us constantly. Apart from that, because a lot of young people think it is OK doesn't mean that it is. It might seem odd, but you have to have limits otherwise you can't push them. And I suspect that a lot of young people might change their opinions as they get older. Young people are constantly very rude to each other and in that context it can be accepted, so it's not surprising that they don't get it. It is not about the specifics of what is said, it's about putting a person who is not part of the show, in an impossible position - either protest and make the whole thing more public, or not protest and be humiliated. Luckily the public protested loudly and Sachs was allowed to come out of the affair with dignity, which is the opposite of what Ross and Brand were aiming for.