- This topic has 76 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
It has no creative or artistic merit in and of itself – it merely lives and dies by the strength of the audience participation, whether it be those in the studio, those watching it on television, or those incredulous enough to buy the vacuous shlock they put in record stores.
If you are watching it, I’m afraid you are part of the problem.
I would not say i am part of the problem, For example i am not buying the Hero song even though it is going to a good cause which is worthwhile instead i shall give a few quid to the Poppy Appeal but it is a good thing for them to this for our Armed Forces.
Regarding what Aragorn said about earning potential millions, I believe that the only reason someone like Simon Cowell wants to do this is so he can make money off someone even if they have no talent.
A show like this is just dumbing down the music industry.
A show like this is just dumbing down the music industry.[/quote
Which rather begs the question – why the fook are you watching it then?If people switched-off when it appeared on their screens, it would disappear from the schedules quicker than you can say "Filthy, Rich and Catflap".
The end result?
No more easy money for Simon Cowell.
No more of the great unwashed viewing poor karaoke as their route out of the ghetto.
No more fat, content, music execs ignoring the talented, because hacks sell more.
Anyone watching this kind of television is very much a part of the problem.
Relating to original post, I dont just think that it is down to celebritys the state of the excessive borrowing etc., but also the massive increase in lifestyle programs that we see on television these days. Property ladder, 60 minute makeover, MTV cribs grand designs etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
These programs all showcase how houses "should" look, and people (not all people but a large amount and especially young folks) have had the money at the borrowing disposal to make their houses look similar in many ways to these other houses.
I am in my late 20s and for about the last 7 or 8 years most of my friends have been getting their own places and everytime someone has a housewarming party their house almost always looks better than the house of the last person that had a housewarming party. It actually goes to ridicululous extents aswell.
IMO the banks have been giving out huge amounts of money and the television programmers havent been able to reel off enough programmes on how people can go about spending their limitless borrowed budgets, which has probably exacerbated the problem somewhat.
I think there is a certain amount of truth in people wishing to live like they see on TV.
hi Jeremy,
Re your earlier post – Interesting points. I would add though that as licence fee payers, as virtually all of us are, gives us some entitlement to complain even if it is well after the event.
We are not all Daily Mail readers or radio listeners so we will pick up on these stories at a later date, but that needn’t stop anyone from complaining, although no doubt a lot of people are jumping on the bandwagon and for the reasons you suggest.
For me, it wasn’t just about what was said, but who it was aimed at – an elderly gentleman, and who is I think of some refinement and decency, despite his granddaughter’s less than genteel image. It’s as much a question of respect and care towards an older person.
Some younger people, especially those who buy into Russell Brand and Ross, more used as they often are to this kind of vulgarity and more able to deal with it, may wonder what all the fuss is about.I place this on the same level as Julian Clary’s claim to famer about Norman Lamont some years ago. Fortunately, we’ve not seen much of Clary since but I expect these two will squirm their way out of it, one way and another.
I’ve never been a great fan of Ross, I don’t find him a great interviewer at all, but I did like Russell Brand at one time, when he did Big Brother’s Big Mouth – I thought he was good at that, so I’m very disappointed in him but he’s always been a loose cannon. I prefer gentle ribbing which is why I quite like the oft maligned Graham Norton.
Rather like our own Grasshopper – all in the best possible taste
I wonder how much the out of court settlement is likely to be? I’m just making assumptions here……
..definitely a possibility. The public smell blood and now they’re in for the kill.
Both been suspended, shows taken off air. I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for them.Hope you’re all feeling good today, with some snow wherever you are
At the risk of being thought to be defending the indefensible (which I’m not – the answer phone message was injudicious and dim), permit me to share a few thoughts that have come to mind as this episode has rumbled on.
Injudicious and dim? Try indefensible and unjustified? What sort of cretin boasts about sexual conquest to a third party? Let alone on air or by leaving a grossly offensive voice message on said person’s grandfathers phone
One was certainly Brand’s apparent belief that Georgina Baillie would not – by virtue of her controversial vocation and outlook on life – be offended by anything he blurted into the family answer phone, however fruity.
That is not the point and certainly no justification
One was certainly Jonathan Ross playing along with the prank, which on balance isn’t necessarily behaviour becoming of a 48 year-old.
Age is irrelevant – anybody with any form of decency knows there are lines which should not be crossed.
However, the biggest was arguably that of the editorial staff of Radio 2 to let the show go out as unfettered as they did, especially as – unlike most of the pair’s radio shows – this was recorded two days in advance rather than broadcast live.
The issue, then, is primarily one of systemic editorial failures being exposed, and two of the BBC’s A-list celebrities just happening to be involved. Ross and Brand’s reputations precede them to a large extent, so for their editor on the day of the show, and / or the editor entrusted with vetting and snipping the material before broadcast, to accord what could always have had the potential to be inflammatory material such a lightness of touch is hard to excuse.
Totally agree with you there – whoever made the editorial decision to broadcast the program is now in an untenable position and should be looking for a new job. However in no way does that take relieve any of the blame from Brand and Ross.
As such, it is reasonable to assume that few of the now-1,500 letters of complaint to the BBC also predate the intervention by the newspaper. Only the writers of those letters will be able to tell you whether their sensibilities have actually been that offended, or whether the chance for a vicarious moan at the generous salaries paid to both Ross and Brand is what’s really underpinned their actions.
From my perspective the amount of money paid to Brand and Ross is irrelevant – if they can manage to extract such a stipend for without having the talent to justify it – then good luck to them, t is no more or less obscene than the amount of money paid to the semi-illiterates who kick a leather ball around a field. I would feel just as strongly had the perpetrator been a relatively unknown.
As for the paper itself, isn’t there a certain inconsistency about the Mail and its ilk rushing to defend the virtues of Georgina Baillie? Miss Baillie’s stage-show as “Voluptua”, one member of goth / Burlesque / cheerleader massacre / voodoo sacrifice / vampire brutality troupe Satanic Sluts is the sort of thing that, in isolation, this newspaper’s editorial line would broadly speaking condemn as immoral and ungodly. The moral compass appears to have been shifted, however temporarily, in this instance to make capital against two conspicuous, easy media targets.
As far as I am aware Ms Baillie has not been going around broadcasting details of her sex life?
If she was campaigning as a Christian Moral crusader promoting chastity then any hypocrisy should justifiably be pointed out.
…And speaking of shifting morals; who in God’s name thought it a good idea to let the execrable Kelvin Mackenzie give his penneth on the news last night, decrying the sheer baseness of messrs Ross and Brand’s actions?
His “Gotcha!!” headline at the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands Conflict remains the most egregious piece of schadenfreude dreamed up by Fleet Street in my lifetime, and for me utterly precludes any right he has to take the sanctimonious high ground on this or any other matter.
He has as much right as anybody else to comment on the matter and his view is no more or less valid than any other, indeed working in the media he is probably better position than most who are commenting.
Regarding the “Gotcha” headline – in the context of events at the time and the intellectual level of readership at which it was being aimed then you can see the rationale behind the headline.
In short, whilst the actuality of Ross and Brand’s prank is nothing either man should regard with any degree of pride whatsoever, this is an episode in which rather more people than just these two have acted injudiciously and inappropriately.gc
But if they had not made the infantile, puerile, offensive comments in the first place there would not have been a problem in the first place.
We are not all Daily Mail readers or radio listeners so we will pick up on these stories at a later date, but that needn’t stop anyone from complaining, although no doubt a lot of people are jumping on the bandwagon and for the reasons you suggest.
To qualify: be assured I wasn’t suggesting that this would offend Mail readers and Mail readers alone, though the extent to which certain of them have been inspired into displaying their outrage (genuine or otherwise) subsequently has been, well, nothing if not interesting.
The picking up on the story at a later date issue you raised is credible to a point, but rather less so than in a previous era in which news travelled slower.
The outrage over the Julian Clary line you mentioned exploded very quickly indeed, yet did so in what was still essentially a pre-Internet, pre-email, pre-BBCi time. Granted, the comedy awards ceremony on which it occurred was broadcast on a more primetime slot than Ross and Brand’s show, but the counter is that it wouldn’t have had other, predominately online media bringing it to the attention of anyone who missed it during or straight after broadcast.
The point, then, remains this: in a world where no broadcast – however esoteric – can theoretically escape everyone’s attentions, why did so few people (now confirmed as two, incidentally) complain at the time of broadcast if the two broadcasters’ idiotic prank was uniquely offensive or unacceptable?
Some younger people, especially those who buy into Russell Brand and Ross, more used as they often are to this kind of vulgarity and more able to deal with it, may wonder what all the fuss is about.
By all accounts the Radio 1 forums have been overwhelmingly in support of the two celebrities, which would bear out that assertion. I wouldn’t presume to speak for younger people, having never been one (Zoz once claimed I was born a thirtysomething
)…I place this on the same level as Julian Clary’s claim to fame about Norman Lamont some years ago. Fortunately, we’ve not seen much of Clary since
Not strictly true – a look on IMDB or Wikipedia reveals a respectably full portfolio over the last four or five years. Admittedly not a lot was seen of him during the late 90s / early 00s, but I think that tallies with the period of most personal turmoil in his life. I’ll let you know more once I’ve got round to reading the autobiography of his that I bought recently.
Either way, the campaign launched in the immediate aftermath of the Lamont incident to get him banned from TV forever came to nought. And the progenitor of that campaign? Why, another fine, upstanding moral custodian in the shape of Garry Bushell…
but I expect these two will squirm their way out of it, one way and another.
Breaking news of their suspension from Auntie Beeb until further notice suggests they’re unlikely to get away scot-free, if that’s what you were fearing; but both of them, and particularly Ross, have enough other projects, franchises etc on the go that a permanent cessation of their Radio 2 show won’t register a mortal blow – we’re certainly not looking at the prospect of another Simon Dee-type career oblivion for either here.
And the point about other projects is one that a lot of people miss about Ross. He is well set financially, and has been for some time. His career resurgence this decade, after by his own admission a troubled late 90s (The Big Big Talent Show, anyone?), has been built entirely on him choosing projects that interest and fascinate him rather than those that pay the biggest wadge. The Beeb needs him as a big name rather more than he needs the Beeb as something to put his kids through school.
He’s still been a naughty boy here, mind.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
A feisty response, Paul – many thanks! Permit me to reply to a few points;
One was certainly Brand’s apparent belief that Georgina Baillie would not – by virtue of her controversial vocation and outlook on life – be offended by anything he blurted into the family answer phone, however fruity.
That is not the point and certainly no justification
You won’t find me putting that forward as a justification, just so we’re clear.
As such, it is reasonable to assume that few of the now-1,500 letters of complaint to the BBC also predate the intervention by the newspaper. Only the writers of those letters will be able to tell you whether their sensibilities have actually been that offended, or whether the chance for a vicarious moan at the generous salaries paid to both Ross and Brand is what’s really underpinned their actions.
From my perspective the amount of money paid to Brand and Ross is irrelevant – if they can manage to extract such a stipend for without having the talent to justify it – then good luck to them, it is no more or less obscene than the amount of money paid to the semi-illiterates who kick a leather ball around a field. I would feel just as strongly had the perpetrator been a relatively unknown.
It is an irrelevance to you, but I wonder if everyone who has written to the Mail or wheresoever else can truthfully say the same? I’m less sold on the idea that footballers get paid telephone number salaries than either Ross or Brand do, but that’s probably a whole other argument for a whole other day.
As for the paper itself, isn’t there a certain inconsistency about the Mail and its ilk rushing to defend the virtues of Georgina Baillie? Miss Baillie’s stage-show as “Voluptua”, one member of goth / Burlesque / cheerleader massacre / voodoo sacrifice / vampire brutality troupe Satanic Sluts is the sort of thing that, in isolation, this newspaper’s editorial line would broadly speaking condemn as immoral and ungodly. The moral compass appears to have been shifted, however temporarily, in this instance to make capital against two conspicuous, easy media targets.
As far as I am aware Ms Baillie has not been going around broadcasting details of her sex life?
If she was campaigning as a Christian Moral crusader promoting chastity then any hypocrisy should justifiably be pointed out.
That’s not quite the point I was making, Paul. Her very existence as a voodoo / vampire-oriented Burlesque performer would ordinarily be enough, in and of itself, to boil the blood of a lot of sympathisers with the Mail‘s moral view or Media Watch’s campaigns – utterly irrespective of whether or not she’d been candid about her sex life.
Had, say, the Satanic Sluts (whose work myself and Mrs C do enjoy, lest anyone be in any doubt) performed their cheerleader massacre routine on some 10pm terrestrial entertainment show, with none of the Brand backstory, you can be as sure as my backside points downwards that either or both of the two organisations mentioned may have decried it as “the final name in light entertainment’s coffin”, or somesuch.
Yet here we find one of its members almost being elevated to the status of cause celebre by what would, 99 times out of 100, have to be regarded as among her most voluble critics. Very odd!
…And speaking of shifting morals; who in God’s name thought it a good idea to let the execrable Kelvin Mackenzie give his penneth on the news last night, decrying the sheer baseness of messrs Ross and Brand’s actions?
He has as much right as anybody else to comment on the matter and his view is no more or less valid than any other, indeed working in the media he is probably better position than most who are commenting.
The latter point is broadly the same argument that people use on the racing forum for not slagging off any racing media types who’ve ridden, trained, or whatever else, isn’t it? I’m not wholly sympathetic to that logic in that context, nor am I here.
…
His “Gotcha!!” headline at the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands Conflict remains the most egregious piece of schadenfreude dreamed up by Fleet Street in my lifetime, and for me utterly precludes any right he has to take the sanctimonious high ground on this or any other matter.In the context of events at the time and the intellectual level of readership at which it was being aimed then you can see the rationale behind the headline.
Not really – it amounted to dancing gleefully on Johnny Foreigner’s casket and had as little place in a civilised society as these answerphone messages 26 years on. At their core both of them rejoice in the denigration of other humans.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
A feisty response, Paul – many thanks! Permit me to reply to a few points;
I must learn not to post a reply just as the painkillers are wearing off!!!Had, say, the Satanic Sluts (whose work myself and Mrs C do enjoy, lest anyone be in any doubt) performed their cheerleader massacre routine on some 10pm terrestrial entertainment show, with none of the Brand backstory, you can be as sure as my backside points downwards that either or both of the two organisations mentioned may have decried it as "the final name in light entertainment’s coffin", or somesuch.
Yet here we find one of its members almost being elevated to the status of cause celebre by what would, 99 times out of 100, have to be regarded as among her most voluble critics. Very odd!
Perhaps illustrating just how heinous some consider the actions of Brand and Ross.
Let me make it clear I am no prude and I can tell and laugh at a dirty joke as well as most people. However some topics should be "off limits"
Almost any comedy has the ability to offend someone and "acceptable" limits change. Certainly what was unacceptable years ago is acceptable now and what is unacceptable now may well be acceptable in future.
…And speaking of shifting morals; who in God’s name thought it a good idea to let the execrable Kelvin Mackenzie give his penneth on the news last night, decrying the sheer baseness of messrs Ross and Brand’s actions?
He has as much right as anybody else to comment on the matter and his view is no more or less valid than any other, indeed working in the media he is probably better position than most who are commenting.
The latter point is broadly the same argument that people use on the racing forum for not slagging off any racing media types who’ve ridden, trained, or whatever else, isn’t it? I’m not wholly sympathetic to that logic in that context, nor am I here.
I would ague it is different. If someone is being bought in to discuss an event in the context of a news program, then I expect the person airing their views to have some background on the topic so they can speak with some basis of "authority".
If I want to hear Joe Public’s view then I will look at a forum or listen to one of those aweful radio phone-in shows
…Not really – it amounted to dancing gleefully on Johnny Foreigner’s casket and had as little place in a civilised society as these answerphone messages 26 years on. At their core both of them rejoice in the denigration of other humans.
Oh to live in an idealistic world. War is not pretty and such headlines have to be viewed in the context of the time they were written. It is very easy to be critrical 26 years after the event.
NEWSFLASH
==========There will be no need for recourse to sackings – a settlement has been reached in this affair.
By way of appeasement, Andrew Sachs has accepted a gift from Russell Brand of a large lump of ice.
The ice itself was previously the property of London 2012 supremo Lord Coe, but before that had belonged to a prominent 19th century German monarchical dynasty.
All of which makes Brand’s gift a Sachs-Coe-Berg-Offer.
(sorry.)
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
It’ll be interesting a few weeks/months down the line to see what has happened; BBC will probably start re showing Fawlty Towers on prime time television and the lady in question [whoever she is] will no doubt be seen on television in something or other and in most of the tabloids..however upset they are about what has happened I’d be amazed if they didn’t cash in on it..the only winner in all this will probably be Sir Max of Clifford [rescuing of damsels in distress a speciality]..however, I may be wrong….
Quite a lively debate all this.
Fair play to Russell Brand for leaving the BBC and he will do okay out of it with his alleged Stand Up Comedy which at times he has rung up the emergency services doing fake crimes and giving false descriptions.
I can see him getting more work on Channel 4 which is probably his ideal outlet for his type of humour.
Jonathan will probably be ok i guess as he was not the instigator behind the phone call.
I reckon if he gets back on his various shows then he could get Andrew Sachs to reprise his role as Manuel and bring guests from the Green Room to his desk for his Chat Show for a few episodes.
The Radio Show will probably get Mark Lamarr doing a few Saturdays as he is more than capable or maybe Ricky Gervais who is excellent on Radio but to make it good he should bring Karl Pilkington and Stephen Merchant with him like his brilliant podcasts.
The BBC though must be accused of Double Standards though in my opinion when you consider the fact that they sacked Angus Deayton from HIGNFY for using cocaine and sleeping with a call girl, Sure it was a silly and stupid thing to do but it was in his private life and had the balls to recored another episode knowing that Paul Merton and Ian Hislop would rip the P*~S out of him,
For me Ross has a childish side which he clearly allowed a little too far off the leash while Brand is a toss-pot of the highest calibre, thought he’d have learned his lesson when Rod Stewart fronted him up and showed him up as the a******e he is.
However, as it was pre-recorded, it is the show’s producer who should be the one to stand up and face the firing squad. The other two are paid to push the limits, someone else is paid to decide what the limits are and it is they who failed on this occasion.
I like Russell Brand but there is a definite time and place for his talent.
The Big Brother thing was perfect for him but Radio Two had to be a disaster waiting to happen.
This is quite a good interview with him and his explaination of the ‘Rod Steward’ incident goes someway to explaining his ‘personailty’ in my view.
The BBC though must be accused of Double Standards though in my opinion when you consider the fact that they sacked Angus Deayton from HIGNFY for using cocaine and sleeping with a call girl, Sure it was a silly and stupid thing to do but it was in his private life and had the balls to recored another episode knowing that Paul Merton and Ian Hislop would rip the P*~S out of him,
Apropos of which: they’ll be recording tomorrow’s episode of HIGNFY tonight. I wonder quite what the regulars will make of this – they can’t really not talk about it, can they?
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
)…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.