Ross And Brand - How Far Is Too Far?

[Kingmaker2 10]

The only witch-hunts I have noticed and (even if there are some on this thread) the only ones of public interest is the conduct of the media. Initially a misjudgement by the BBC, but a misjudgement that we routinely allow the tabloids to get away.

 

There are double standards being applied and kettle and black is perfectly appropriate for the tabloids that routinely spend money on breaching people's confidences and invading their privacy, and insulting not just single famillies but whole groups of people. For example the apology the Daily Mail gave earlier on this year for using inappropriate language, being misleading and offensive against the Polish in around 70 seperate incidents.

 

If people are shocked by a lowering of standards then the tabloids should look closer to home and in the case of the Daily Mail they could start by looking at the hateful bile that they print in Richard Littlejohn's column.

 

I am not disputing what you are saying, and I too am no fan of the tabloids, in fact I avoid them if at all possible

 

However as pertaining to this issue there are a few salient reasons why this has struck such a chord.

 

Most people value their families and their family members above all else.

Everyone has or has known an old grandad, that they would give their right arm to protect them from suffereing any undue distress.

 

I remember many moons ago when my Granddad's house was broken into and cash and other items were taken as well as the patio door being cut open........ the distress caused to my grandad was obvious to all, and in my mind I kept wishing that those that had burgled the house had come into the house at the time I was there, where I could vent my anger on them with a baseball bat for all the distress they had caused my grandad.

 

Now the other factor that needs to be remembered, that is different from the tabloids, is that we, the tv license payer are paying the likes of Brand and Ross to carry out these silly and thoughtless pranks,

Well many are now saying......not in my name!

[Suffragette1 10]

Well, it's not the first time the BBC has made a gross error of judgement, I mean they allowed that odious creature Jim Davidson presented a prime time family show for years.:rant:

 

The tabs have destroyed many a career in the past, Angus Deyton springs to mind, yet what he was doing (snorting coke) was in privacy at some party I believe, doing only what 100s of media people and celebs do all the time. Then there as that whole debacle about John Leslie when it was never proven either way whether or not he did rape Ulrika Johnsson.

[Wildcat 10]

I am not disputing what you are saying, and I too am no fan of the tabloids, in fact I avoid them if at all possible

 

However as pertaining to this issue there are a few salient reasons why this has struck such a chord.

 

Most people value their families and their family members above all else.

Everyone has or has known an old grandad, that they would give their right arm to protect them from suffereing any undue distress.

 

I remember many moons ago when my Granddad's house was broken into and cash and other items were taken as well as the patio door being cut open........ the distress caused to my grandad was obvious to all, and in my mind I kept wishing that those that had burgled the house had come into the house at the time I was there, where I could vent my anger on them with a baseball bat for all the distress they had caused my grandad.

 

Now the other factor that needs to be remembered, that is different from the tabloids, is that we, the tv license payer are paying the likes of Brand and Ross to carry out these silly and thoughtless pranks,

Well many are now saying......not in my name!

 

And that does make people right to be upset about it, to a degree. But there is no perspective from those who are out for the sacking of Ross and Brand.

 

It is not like it was broadcast without permission. The BBC sought and obtained Andrew Sach's permission on the day the messages were recorded for them to be used.

 

MediaGuardian.co.uk understands that on the day Brand and Ross's calls to Sachs' answerphone were recorded, a producer from the BBC rang the former Fawlty Towers actor to ask if he would mind them being used.

 

It is claimed that Sachs said they could be, as long as they were toned down a bit.

 

Ref

 

This blog really says it all. in particular these two paragrpahs:

 

At most, what should have happened is that all involved should have been raked over the coals. Mark Thompson, rather than suspending the men or setting up kangaroo courts involving the BBC Trust should have repeated the profuse apologies, said that Brand and Ross would be given a formal last warning over their conduct, perhaps hinting their salaries would be cut as a result, and that the systems involved in broadcasting such material would be examined and overhauled if necessary. That would, I should imagine, have satisfied most reasonable people, without going in for empty self-flagellation and being completely craven to the demands of the gutter press and its owners which are the most despicable hypocrites as well as having commercial interest in the BBC facing further brickbats over its content. As soon as he suspended both however there was only one outcome, and that was one or both of them resigning, having apparently lost the confidence of the director general.

 

The BBC's problem is that it is held to a completely different standard to everyone and everything else. This is partially justified, considering the fact it is funded by the manifestly unfair but still in this writer's opinion lesser of two evils licence fee, but it also means that it has to be all things to all people, and as tastes and the media environment radically change this is becoming more and more difficult. Last year's "fakery" scandals were a case in point: the BBC's were relatively minor oversights that were mostly undertaken to keep a show going, for with the most part no one losing out. This was in complete difference to those involving all three of its main commercial rivals, all of whom had ran telephone competitions which had defrauded those who entered as a result of some never having a chance of winning. These, especially ITV's keeping of £7.8 million, and Ant and Dec's production company being directly involved in one case, were on a completely different plane of seriousness. This though simply wasn't reflected in the media coverage: the BBC was pilloried whilst the rest were almost brushed under the carpet, and it already seems forgotten. For all the claims of the purity and accountability of the private sector, as far as I'm aware not a single individual involved in the running of ITV, Channel 4 or 5 either resigned or was sacked, with Michael Grade, who had promised "zero tolerance" suddenly deciding that no one should be the victim of a witch-hunt. This was again in contrast to the BBC, where Peter Fincham, BBC1 controller resigned over "Crowngate". He was, naturally, swiftly re-employed by ITV. Whether this was partially down to the Daily Mail and General Trust's shareholding in ITN, broadcaster of news on ITV and Channel 4, or to BSkyB's 17.9% stake in ITV is up for you to decide.

 

Ref

[StarSparkle 10]

I don't really buy the conspiracy/stunt stuff. But who can say, really? It's not entirely implausible that something got horribly out of hand.

 

Storm in an increasingly-interesting tea cup...the poster who mentioned a cultural war earlier was on to something.

 

I really meant to stay off this thread. Damn it.

 

I think that's the reason why it IS such a huge story - because it may well be a cultural watershed in this country.

 

It represents to a tee the Infantilisation of society that has occurred since the 80s, a kind of refusal of people to grow up.

 

Childlike/teenage behaviour is becoming the norm in many people well into their 20s and 30s - even 40s in some cases. There is a general reluctance to grow up and mature, as exemplified by laddish behaviour and attitudes in those who really should be old enough to know better.

 

And this 'lifestyle' and general attitude is fed by the media, encouraging as it does juvenile behaviour and applauding bad behaviour. Just look at BB, basically making celebrities out of people who behave appallingly towards each other, for the most part.

 

I think the general public has finally snapped, and expressed its annoyance and displeasure at the low standards of behaviour and lack of respect and good manners in society. Brand and Ross have been the fall-guys - they pulled the wrong stunt at the wrong time. The mood in society at the moment is quite sober due to the financial crisis, and the pair of them completely misjudged the moment.

 

It has all got very OTT really - but that's because it's become about much more than two unfunny twits and their bad judgement and appalling lack of taste.

 

I think it's become a focal point to discuss what's become of British 'culture' and where it's going.

 

StarSparkle

[Wildcat 10]

Well, it's not the first time the BBC has made a gross error of judgement, I mean they allowed that odious creature Jim Davidson presented a prime time family show for years.:rant:

 

The tabs have destroyed many a career in the past, Angus Deyton springs to mind, yet what he was doing (snorting coke) was in privacy at some party I believe, doing only what 100s of media people and celebs do all the time. Then there as that whole debacle about John Leslie when it was never proven either way whether or not he did rape Ulrika Johnsson.

 

I thought the allegations against John Leslie were broadcast on Channel 5, not the BBC and were never substantiated by Ulrika Johnson. If anything your example demonstrates my point about the hypocrisy of the media. Indeed why was there not the outrage at Matthew Wright alleging on television someone was a rapist? Why has he still got his job? Surely a much more serious offence than this.

 

Is your point in relation to Angus Deyton about his unfair treatment at the hands of the tabloids, and then the subsequent lack of backbone from th BBC is sacking him?

 

Which leaves Jim Davidson... I agree. And they have also employed plenty of other odious characters to appease those that would otherwise argue it is filled up by pinko-commie media types.

[cloudybay 17]

I think that's the reason why it IS such a huge story - because it may well be a cultural watershed in this country.

 

It represents to a tee the Infantilisation of society that has occurred since the 80s, a kind of refusal of people to grow up.

 

 

StarSparkle

 

 

Quite. However, in the real world, genocide is still happening http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7698459.stm

[cressida 1,564]

I think it's become a focal point to discuss what's become of British 'culture' and where it's going.

quote Starsparkle

 

 

Do you think that is a positive thing to come out of it Sparkle?

[Kingmaker2 10]

And that does make people right to be upset about it, to a degree. But there is no perspective from those who are out for the sacking of Ross and Brand.

 

It is not like it was broadcast without permission. The BBC sought and obtained Andrew Sach's permission on the day the messages were recorded for them to be used.

 

I think, whether the boadcast was aired or not is a bit of a side issue.

 

The REAL issue is the fact that messages of this nature were left on Sach's mobile in the first place.

The actor's agent said Sachs was "very upset" after Brand and guest Jonathan Ross left lewd messages about the actor's granddaughter on his voicemail.

 

The BBC yesterday said:

 

"We recognise that some of the content broadcast was unacceptable and offensive."

 

Now if any 9-5 office worker was caught doing a similar thing, and the company who he or she worked for concluded that it was "unnacceptable and offensive" then it's pretty good odds that they would be dismissed.

 

Now tell me why shoulf Ross or Brand be treated any different?

[StarSparkle 10]

Quite. However, in the real world, genocide is still happening http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7698459.stm

 

 

Fair enough.

 

But surely we can cope with talking about more than one issue of concern at a time?

 

The Brand / Ross stunt has sparked off this discussion in society - surely this is the time to discuss it now while people's minds are focussed on it? The Infantilisation of society is an important issue in its own right

 

StarSparkle

[Suffragette1 10]

I thought the allegations against John Leslie were broadcast on Channel 5, not the BBC and were never substantiated by Ulrika Johnson. If anything your example demonstrates my point about the hypocrisy of the media.

 

Is your point in relation to Angus Deyton about his unfair treatment at the hands of the tabloids, and then the subsequent lack of backbone from th BBC is sacking him?

 

Which leaves Jim Davidson... I agree. And they have also employed plenty of other odious characters to appease those that would otherwise argue it is filled up by pinko-commie media types.

 

I should have clarified my post, what I meant was that the media had destroyed the careers of both Leslie and Deyton, yes the former was 'accidentally' outed on the Wright Stuff then suddenly the tabloids were swarming with women willing to tell their stories of Leslie's predatory behaviour. It also launched Abi Titmuss' career.

 

As for Deyton, I actually felt his sacking was totally unfair, more understandable if he had been a Blue Peter presenter but he wasn't. Given that many of those running and working for the tabs are most likely to be recreational drug users, it was deeply hypocrital.

[StarSparkle 10]

I think it's become a focal point to discuss what's become of British 'culture' and where it's going.

quote Starsparkle

 

 

Do you think that is a positive thing to come out of it Sparkle?

 

I'd like to think so, Cressy. It's been a worrying issue for quite some time now, with more and more adults determined to carry on acting as though they are still teenagers, with the corresponding immaturity and irresponsibility, leading to disrespect and disregard for others and their needs and rights.

 

I think society does need to take a long, hard look at this phenomenon of Infantilisation and work out how to cope with it, or how to go about discouraging it.

 

Sparkle

[Wildcat 10]

I think, whether the boadcast was aired or not is a bit of a side issue.

 

The REAL issue is the fact that messages of this nature were left on Sach's mobile in the first place.

The actor's agent said Sachs was "very upset" after Brand and guest Jonathan Ross left lewd messages about the actor's granddaughter on his voicemail.

 

The BBC yesterday said:

 

"We recognise that some of the content broadcast was unacceptable and offensive."

 

Now if any 9-5 office worker was caught doing a similar thing, and the company who he or she worked for concluded that it was "unnacceptable and offensive" then it's pretty good odds that they would be dismissed.

 

Now tell me why shoulf Ross or Brand be treated any different?

 

Andrew Sach's clearly wasn't so upset that he objected to it being aired at the time though, otherwise when he had the opportunity in advance he would have objected. What he did say, reveals he had listened to it, was that they should tone it down a bit.

 

It was only when the Daily Mail got involved a week later after there had been 2 complaints, not about the content but about Jonathon Ross using a swear word after the watershed and preceded by a warning about foul language, that he decided to be offended.

 

9-5 workers is not a fair comparison. Most 9-5 workers aren't employed for their risque senses of humour.