Auntie's dilemma
The great challenge for the BBC is to retain broad appeal. Its charter talks of the need to serve "audiences" plural, to represent all the communities of the UK.
That is why corporation executives get so exercised about how many 60-year-old black women in Wales are tuning in. The argument for a publicly funded broadcaster may be fatally undermined if it can be demonstrated that it only pleases some of the people some of the time.
The "prank-call row" (as we now seem agreed to call it) is what happens when that search for broad appeal goes horribly wrong.
The BBC knows that its future depends on connecting with the next generation of potential licence payers. But young audiences are particularly hard to reach once they have grown out of C-Beebies.
Since Tony Blackburn introduced "Flowers in the Rain" on Radio 1 four decades ago, Auntie has tried to find ways of connecting with youth - but without alienating her core audience.
It is a mighty difficult trick to pull off because the demands of young and mature audiences are often contradictory.
Evidence of this is the broad support for Ross and Brand among the BBC's younger audience, contrasting with general dissatisfaction among the core.
Youth programming needs edge. It must feel a little dangerous.The older we get, the more risk averse we become. That is why Chris Moyles and Alan Titchmarsh don't do a double-header (although it might be quite interesting).
Before you all write in to tell me you're 83 and can't get enough of Crissy Criss on Radio 1 Xtra, my point is a general one.The attitudes and sensibilities of those entitled to a young person's railcard are different from those carrying their pensioner's bus pass.
For the BBC, the job of connecting with both groups simultaneously is made infinitely harder by the digital age. Niche broadcasting is most effective among those who are most comfortable scrolling down to channel 453 in search of entertainment and stimulation. New technology is just technology to a generation which has never known anything different.
If the Beeb cannot keep enough young people on board, it is sunk. The challenge is true for many organisations - big multinationals also need to ensure their market doesn't simply die off. But the pressure on the Corporation to appeal to youth is, effectively, enshrined in its Royal Charter. And it has a licence fee to justify.
I
f you want to know why Jonathon Ross or Simon Cowell command such rich rewards, it is because they are deemed to possess a rare talent: they appeal to young people and older people at the same time.
Finding the tone of voice and format to achieve broad penetration in a fragmenting media world is what every mogul seeks. Such personalities possess the X-factor.
They may not be your cup of tea and I am sure some of you will tell me so, but their careers live and die by the numbers. And until now, Jonathon Ross's numbers have been good.
Sometimes, however, the plate-spinning trick doesn't come off.The crash of breaking crockery still echoes around Broadcasting House this morning.
There has been surprise expressed that this affair should have blown up inside Radio 2 - the' easy listening' station as some see it. But that is to misunderstand its role. If Radio 1 is firmly on one side of the generational divide and Radios 3 and 4 are located on the other, it is Radio 2 that attempts to span the gap. It is all about broad appeal.
In committing the "gross lapse of taste" identified by the BBC Director General, Ross and Brand showed what happens when broad is not broad enough.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~54~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I feel I can see both sides of this story - however, it cannot be denied that the comments made by Brand and Ross were beyond the bounds of good taste, and should never have been made. My main question is - what on earth was the guy who reviewed the show thinking of to let it be aired with that segment still included? Did he actually bother to listen to the show before it was broadcast, or did he just 'skim' through it and decide it was OK?
Ross and Brand should have been sacked immediately on the grounds of gross misconduct (this would have happened in any other business for use of abusive and offensive language), and the reviewer should also face some form of punishment for letting it go out.
Maybe the biggest crime here was that of complacency on the part of the BBC reviewer who didn't bother to check that Brand and Ross were actually behaving themselves during the recording.
Complain about this comment
It isn't a question at all - moral standards and guidelines are there en mass for the taking and for all age-groups. How can the Beep have a problem finding out what is right or wrong to broadcast? Furthermore it is publicly funded - meaning it has a responsibility to cater for all the people paying for the programs, if they watch it or not.
You want to do something different, go ahead - but don't expect a license fee to cover it and see how long it lasts you!
Complain about this comment
Mark, You say that Jonathon Ross and Simon Cowell appeal to young and old alike. I am neither and have never found Mr Ross appealing, nor have my older friends and family. Not because he isn't funny, but because his shows and acts are so contrived (scripted?) and are delivered in such a way as to appeal to canned laughter audiences. Insincerity comes to mind. Simon Cowell doesn't pretend, but doesn't appeal either. Natural show personalities and true comedians win audiences over because they have an inborn innate talent and an ability to deliver it to any generation, as though they believed it themselves. The Beeb isn't blind, just that some within the Beeb perhaps are complacent, some just so inexperienced and frankly, gullible, that anything goes in the belief that young and old alike will like it. Very few people in the UK will actually complain or comment about Beeb content. Most will just switch over or off and the Beeb will never know.
Complain about this comment
My son thinks youtube holds more intertest than the bbc hes 17. He takes his tv by V+ so he watches what he wants to watch at the time he wants. For him the structure of the bbc is to set in stone to hold any value in his daily life. He also thinks that the beeb went to far in this matter even though it was aired and the choice to air it was taken, even it it hadn't been aired the call was stilll made.
the bbc is going to have to work very hard to retain viwers over the next few generations.
Complain about this comment
In response to "If the Beeb cannot keep enough young people on board, it is sunk.".
Utter tosh. They still take a license tax, sorry "fee" from ME even though I don't listen to their radio stations or watch their TV channels. If we had a CHOICE to pay for the BBC (or not), I would opt out. Not because of this particular complaint, but because I barely watch any TV or listen to radio.
But I can't. So why would it be "sunk" if people turn off? It won't as it's funded regardless of it you watch/listen to it or not.
Back on-topic, the reviewer is human, prone to mistakes perhaps here, he showed bias towards young "tastes" (if any young people have 'taste' now after years of 'jackass' and the like).
If it doesn't appeal to all, as we ALL pay the TV Tax, then it should not be broadcast.
If that means that nothing gets shown in case it offends someone, then change the BBC model to be a subscription channel, so that people who want to watch or listen to this pay for it.
Complain about this comment
Sorry,you cant see the bigger picture.
We live in a world where young people are influenced by the likes of Jonathon Ross,and co.this is the dilemna for modern times.Do we accept that the fundamental values of decency and morality should be ignored just to get ratings,or does a Public Broadcast provider have a wider responsibility to ALL of its customers young and old.
Over the years the BBC has tried to obtain viewers and listeners by appealing to people with lowest common denominator.
Young people have different perspectives and outlooks,but fundamentally we should not make the mistake in thinking that to attract them the clure of big stars with big salaries is the answer.
The decline in standards and morals is not an issue which parents are solely responsible,the media is a very powerful engine in producing the kind of society we live in.
If we show violence,depravity, and intolerance on a day to day basis then we reap what we sow.
This is not a right wing argument, it is the logical repercussion of assessing the recent scandal to be a "prank" rather than a criminal offence.
If people are told by the BBC that this issue is fundamentally a "prank",this can only lead to confusion by some people as to "what is all the fuss about?
It may well be that the Dail Mail has a wider agenda in attacking the BBC,but surely the Corporation needs to take a long hard look at itself if it wants to avoid the dilemna of keeping everybosdy on board.
Complain about this comment
philosophicalmick71, you said it!
Problem is, a lot of the youth of today like this kind of thing - "happy slapping", "Jackass" and all the other tripe that is aired these days in the name of entertainment.
Instead of dumbing down their content just for the ratings, the BBC should be an example and start to raise the intelligence level required to watch.
Brand and Woss should be sacked, for the BBC this behaviour should be un-acceptable and un-forgivable. They should even face criminal charges so that it's a deterrent for those fools that think "that was a good idea *picks up a phone and starts to make prank calls*" ... but they won't, the kids will see they got away with it and monkey see, monkey do.
Complain about this comment
"The great challenge for the BBC is to retain broad appeal" Is it? I feel that most of the meeja types that are now running the BBC probably think so. All, no doubt trying to compete with their chums in the Soho winebars to see who can sign this year's "big thing".
But I think that your next sentence give the lie to this: "Its charter talks of the need to serve audiences..." Not to court popularity but to serve.
Surely serving audiences does not mean serving up the same dull, unimaginative, populist pap that is available on several other terrestrial channels and endless cable, satellite and digital channels. It means giving them what they can't get elsewhere, whcih may well not come with the glamour of celebrity but does inform, educate and entertain.
It is, perhaps, significant that the most cutting edge DJ on Radio 1, right up until his death, was not Chris Moyles or some young turk but the pensioner John Peel. And if there can be few better examples of a broadcaster who could appeal to young and old alike: playing new and challenging music by night whilst being the personification of avuncular "niceness" on "Home Truths". If there was ever a broadcaster that summed up Public Service Broadcasting, surely it was John Peel. He did not pander to fads or fashions or, in middle life, reach for the green hair dye. He simply played music that he thought people should have the opportunity to hear, rather than giving people what "they think they want".
Behaving like teenagers does not guarantee appeal to teenagers. Of course we cannot have Mr Chulmondley-Warner clones on pop music radio but I don't know if two grown men acting like teenagers who've had a bit too much cider in the park is really great broadcasting, either. At least if you do want people to act like teenagers, you could get real teenagers: they would probably be cheaper.
And cost is the final point: the fact that Mr Ross (and others like him) command such a high salaries is proof of the fact that they are not appropriate for a Public Service Broadcaster. They command a high price because there is competition for their services. If there is competition for their services then there are plenty of other broadcasters who would employ them, so the audience would not loose out if they were not employed by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
The evidence of an age divide in this affair is weak ... Radio 1 is so tacky nowadays it mainly appeals to those with chavy tastes, be they 15 or 50. The divide here is between those empathetic enough to realise that producing laughs by bullying is wrong, and those who are a bit dim and probably enjoy happy slap videos too.
Complain about this comment
THE ROSS BRAND DISPENSABLE?
Sometime when you're feeling important;
Sometime when your ego's in bloom
Sometime when you take it for granted
you're the best qualified in the room
Sometime when you feel that your going
would leave an unfillable hole
Just follow these simple instructions
and see how they humble your soul;
Take a bucket and fill it with water
Put your hand in it up to the wrist,
Pull it out and the hole that's remaining
is a measure of how much you'll be missed. Lx
Complain about this comment
The great challenge for the BBC is to retain broad appeal. Its charter talks of the need to serve "audiences" plural, to represent all the communities of the UK.
no kidding sherlock.
let alone the youth culture of today with there blatent disreguard for morals.
thus the bbc has had to employ modern acts to keep up but in doing so has alienated those who realy pay the licence fees.
the youth culture dont listen to radio 2 or at least they wont admit it.
what happened on mr blands show to any that know the artist knows it would happen he has form in making these outragous claims and getting caught out in the lie. think back a bit to an older rock star who had this problem with him.
the bbc is a bastion of calm in the never ending media wars that cause so much rubbish to be broadcast, they realy didnt need to have it happen to them.
these presenters and artists that blatently break the rules should be dealt with quickly and suspensions and fines hopefully will resolve the problem but in extreem cases more drastic action is required.
there has never been any arguement over extreem comedy buy the use of foul language or imoral implications should never be accepted that belongs in clubs and such not on main streem tv and radio.
Complain about this comment
Very well argued, Mark.
The problem to me seems to lie in how the pursuit of ratings is managed.
In the case in question management failed.
I accept that performers have egos which is why output and the quality of that output needs to be focussed and controlled. In this case management seems to have been absent leading to what looks to me like a case of vicious bullying.
In my view the answer lies in how production staff are selected and trained.
Complain about this comment
"The great challenge for the BBC is to retain broad appeal."
Ahem, I rather think your top management would disagree in private. The great challenge is to survive. So what 16 year old lads think counts for rather a lot less than what Ministers and shadow Ministers think. Licence fee payers are soemwhere in between - but nearer Ministers than "youth".
To put it another way, how much of the BBC's income are you willing to see go to other broadcasters in order to preserve the BBC's right to offend? Are you willing to lay down your job as part of the price?
Complain about this comment
The BBC is vast; it's output astonishingly wide and varied. Mistakes will be made. It is wondrous that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often.
So, generally, the BBC works (I am NOT an employee, nor ever have been - just in case you're wondering).
Look - it's working right now, giving us a platform upon which to debate its failings. Try doing THAT at a corporate shareholders' meeting.
There's no doubt that mistakes have been made, and that disciplinary action must be taken - and seen to be taken. If only to send a message to the Brand/Ross audiences.
But PLEASE, don't lets get this out of proportion. The BBC is one of the things that makes Britain Britain. And don't think for one moment that the agenda of those whipping up this frenzy is one of 'morality'.
This episode is a small storm in a tiny teacup, that has been a good distraction from the misery of recent financial events. A few people must be disciplined, a couple of heads will roll.
Be very afraid of those who start using this as a platform for anything other than that.
To quote Joni Mitchell: 'don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone'.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I think you're missing the point of 'public service braodcaster'. The aim of public service is to serve the public, not necessarily to pander to the lowest common denominator part of it. This means you don't have to have a BBC digital channel for every possible permutation of the demographic.
Too many BBC products (of all descriptions) merely ape what is already done by commercial broadcasters. The public neither need this repetition, nor deserve to have their tax money spent on it.
Contrary to the hysterical fears of the Tristrams, the BBC actually gets very good ratings when it simply goes for a quality product. Nature films, historical dramas, most of Radio 4 output, documentaries - these all get good viewing/listening figures, without compromising the inform/educate/entertain ethic.
Perhaps this incident will make the BBC re-think what it should be going after, and why. Sadly, I don't think it will.
Complain about this comment
This country is famous for its irony and humour ; to be funny seems to be one of the most important attributes that a modern British (man) should acquire.
This country is also known to have a people who keep a still upper lip and are socially awkward--just see how frequently they have to reply on weather/animal/garden to master a natural level of communication between human beings.
Ross and Brand may have the ability to connect both the young and the old, as Mark suggests.
But the scandal also tells how every society's value system, religious or secular, is fraught with contradictions and equivocations.
Even though the line between the right and the wrong is always shifting and can never be complete, people will never stop drawing it.
Complain about this comment
Angus Deaton was sacked for aspects of his personal life depicted in a newspaper - he's a far more entertaining anchor man than Jonathan Woss (or Russell Brand).
So why can't the Beeb act responsibly and do the right thing and SACK Woss.
Complain about this comment
Has there ever been such a deluge of frothing at the mouth manufactured outrage in this country before?
It was a stupid prank, shouldn't have been broadcast, reprimands are in order. That is all.
The main thrust behind these attacks is not distaste at the event or even the dislike by some of the population for Ross and Brand. No, the main thrust is the visceral hatred for the BBC of the right wing Daily Mail and Sun readers and their political masters.
These people will not be happy until the BBC is a carbon copy of Sky. Those of us with more intelligence and more moderate political leaning need to make sure we defend our BBC from the right wing.
Complain about this comment
Ok, here's the nub of this whole sorry farago. And it's very simple.
The BBC has been labouring for some years now under an utterly false premise - the one that drives them at an insane pitch to appeal to the 'yoof'.
The phrase you use above "If the Beeb cannot keep enough young people on board, it is sunk" is utter bunkum and you shouldn't recite this wrong-headed mantra, even though I'm sure all BBC employees have been on expensive country hotel training courses to have it ingrained in their psyche!
Why wrongheaded? The trendy (young) marketing folk in the BBC have made the enormous mistake of seeing the BBC as being the same as a large retail brand, and have sold this nonsense some years ago to their superiors. It is not a burger, a trainer, a car. It is unique in its field - a public service broadcaster. The UK population do not choose it as a life-style statement or some such guff. It's just THERE, for people to tune in and out of whenever they wish during their lives. They don't watch CBeebies (or whatever it's called) and then decide "Right, I'm sticking with the BBC for the rest of my life." The BBC is there on people's radio and TV dials for them to discover whenever they wish. And they change these preferences as they grow older - nomatter what you do. The listeners and viewers reach out TO YOU, you don't have to slobber and pander to the point of lunacy to get them to do this. People in the UK are born with brand loyalty to the BBC. They will dip and dip out whenever they wish whether the BBC fawns over them or not.
The recent brouhaha grew directly out of the BBC's own mania engendered by this utterly false premise.
The remedy? Calm down, do what you do best, let the listeners and viewers discover, undiscover and rediscover the BBC and its wondrous services, and climb back out of the gutter (not all the UK's yoof are down there anyway, sorry) and get back to basics.
Odd, I detect a close parallel between the lunatic young bankers who just couldn't put up with the boredom of the profession they'd chosen and so took to outright gambling to get their thrills and loot, and the young turks in the bowels of the BBC who don't want to settle for the staid life of being part of a revered public broadcaster, opting instead for the buzz of creating and addressing fictional 'threat' of get-um-young or they'll never come to you.
The solution is easy and entirely in the BBC's hands. I fear that the recent fracas will not change the mission statement-type obsession, however. Too many people's jobs depend on it, for one thing.
John
Complain about this comment
I agree about the need to appeal to a broad segment- it's one of the reasons I like many of the BBC's products, which I feel are superior to many things made over here in the USA. I'm not that familiar with Jonathan Ross, though I dislike his high salary, even if he has seniority, mass appeal, and high ratings. From what I've heard over here, Simon Cowell isn't someone who appeals to me.
Of course, the BBC does have another challenge regarding finding someone to appeal to a mass audience... David Tennant and Russell T. Davies are leaving Doctor Who... I trust Steven Moffat will be a good producer, and I hope to meet the next Doctor in a year or so...
Complain about this comment
You say they appeal to to young people and older people at the same time.
This where you're perhaps wrong. Ross was quite amusing twenty years ago. However he never got out of the playground and now is loathed because he just isn't funny. His humour as seen on the infamous podcast was cruel and that of a bully. People picked up on the nastiness. Of the two Ross comes out as a malevolent, cynical piece of work. The public have picked up on this and resent the fact that he wallows in the fact that so much public money goes his way. The public will probably forgive Brand and feel sorry for his odd ways. They have got the measure of Ross and like all bullies, he has been found out.
Complain about this comment
If the BBC really wanted to connect with people and really worried about a sixty year old black woman from wales tuning in then it wouldn't be so london centric and bias.
For instance the day snow falls on london all of a sudden the BBC is talking about how remarkable it is to have snow in october. If snow had fallen on birmingham that wouldn't of been a story. Also any time you want to talk to the 'man in the street' he is always a londoner ie: The Jon Prescott documentry where he goes to see some 'chavs' predictably from london.
And then theres the level of bias, the BBC has blatently being doing everything in its power to promote Barrack Obama in its reporting.
I seem to remember James Wale being sacked from talk radio UK for doing the same thing with the London Mayor election. How is this diferent?
Then theres the bias in the middle east and anti semetic undercurrents towards Israel. Of course that feeds on to the fact the BBC spent thousand of pounds of license payers money attempting to stop the Balen report which was a freedom of information act request, somthing the BBC uses itself frequently.
So we have hypocrisy, bias and london obsessed broadcasting. And you think your main worry is whether a black woman in wales tunes in?
I want my money back.
Complain about this comment
Much of "Youth" find happy slapping and vandalism appealing, is the BBC going to fund that?
Just because many younger members of society are losing respect for everyone and everything, doesn't mean it is acceptable. Challenging programming should also be about challenging those attitudes.
And please could you, like many of the posters on 'Have your say' stop talking of niche programming and the choice to watch or not watch. In some cases whether something is acceptable is not your choice to make, whether you enjoy something or not. It is the victims of this malicious attack whose opinion matters not the intended audience.
Don't agree that the victim is paramount? Fine - I'll be round to empty your home of all your valuables. Afterall, I will might enjoy it and if you don't - so what?
That is the attitude that is objectionable.
Similarly, there is no difficulty for the BBC. There are rules and guidelines. Follow them.
There is also the law. These 'comedians' broke the law and if not prosecuted then at least deserve the loss of their jobs.
Complain about this comment
"If the Beeb cannot keep enough young people on board, it is sunk. "
Why? As people get older their tastes change. When I was 18 I never listened to Radio 1, it was too tame. I listened to pirate radio. Now I enjoy Radio 3 and 4.
As a rule, teenagers don't pay for the licence fee. Maybe the BBC is aiming at the wrong market?
Complain about this comment
Does anyone honestly think Ross is a better a film reviewer than Barry Norman or Mark Kermode? Or is he a better interviewer than Parkinson or Wogan? He's just in insufferable arrogant tosspot who has had it coming to him for a long time. It says a lot for the BBC that this is the kind of person they make their most highly paid entertainer. Thankfully they still have others to compensate (Simon Schama's "American Future: a History" and "Stephen Fry in America")
Complain about this comment
There is something else going on in society at the moment which is difficult to understand.
It is like a pack mentality which has huge numbers of people wanting to jump onto the bandwagon and join in this big PR event.
I'm no psychologist but it is a worrying trend which could overspill into something more abhorrent in the future.
Rather than involving themselves in this and actively encouraging the present trend this government should be more concerned about why it is happening and are they somehow to blame.
Complain about this comment
"Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others
Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
Contain swear words or other language likely to offend
Describe or encourage activities which could endanger the safety or well-being of others"
Some of the house rules of BBC message boards.
Quite why these apply, with some purpose and clarity, to BBC licence payers and not to those most highly paid from the pockets of those licence payers seems a startling state of hypocrisy indeed.
And why something that you'd give your kids a bollocking for is deemed "edgy" when said by a middle aged man is also something of a mystery.
Complain about this comment
The long and short of this is that pretty much everyone HAS to pay towards the BBC in the form of the license fee.
if this was changed so that it was a subscription service then those who wish to pay for this dire "entertainment" can, and those who don't, don't.
THEN the BBC can start to worry about attracting the future viewers, as they are going to pay out of choice.
End the TV Tax and see what happens. Go on, I dare you.
Complain about this comment
Notting HIll Hammer (18): you may be right about the general debate in the country but I suspect that the concern of many posters here is that the BBC is already dangerously close to being a carbon copy of Sky.
Skyline_UK (19): what an eloquent, lucid piece of writing. You sum up perfectly why I love what I love about the BBC (and the way I would hate to see it go).
Complain about this comment
This reaction is a result of awareness of the disgraceful behaviour of these two presenters spreading virally through new media.
I didnt read any daily mail articles. I heard about the controversy online. Along with many other people who like Ross, we wondered what all the fuss was about and so did our own research into the matter to see what we thought about it. I for one, went straight to you tube and watched the broadcast for myself, as inevitably the offending segments had been posted up for perusal.
I went to watch as a fan of both Ross and sometimes Brand. What I saw was abhorrent, and there is no excuse for it, whenever it is aired, on whatever channel, targetted at whatever audience.
It was indefensible to abuse an elderly man over the phone with obscenities about his granddaughter in this way, and then to joke about whether the shame would kill him. Yet I am stunned how many people are trying to do just that and describe it as edgy.
However when you look deeper, who is defending it? RodMcKenzie of radio 1, which peddles similar attack dog comedy from Chris Moyles, and Davina McCall who is closely associated with none other than BigBrother, which unleashed Brand in Big brother's appalling Big Mouth.
The people who seem to be defending him are mainly those who make their money from similar controversy.
That and the morally bankrupt who think it was just a bit of a giggle...
If it was a crime Ross had committed, how serious would it have to be before mates at the Beeb thought they would hav to distance thmselves from him?
Making obscene telephone calls is obviously not serious enough for some of you.
Do you also condone hoax calls being made to the emergncy services? Ah yes, wasnt Russell Brand recently in trouble for one of those too?
Too much of this sort of material has been allowed in the past so "yoof" producers and audiences have some to expect it. Well its not acceptable, and pandering to yobs and happy slappers is not what any channel should be doing, whether the BBC or Channel 4.
Complain about this comment
Excellent post, Skyline_UK (comment number 19).
Complain about this comment
Virtualsilverlady, if I understand you correctly, I think you are wrong. I haven't read anything about this issue other than on the web. Many people learn of an event after the fact. They are all entitled to comment. It isn't just getting in on the event.
It's interesting that the "silent majority" are accused of jumping on the band-wagon when they finally stand up to be counted. Too often in Britain people don't speak out. Well, now they are and it's a good thing.
The incident epitomises the descent of Britain into the mire of bullying people for entertainment. Once you lose respect for people then you end up with the situation we have now, where many youngsters (no, certainly not all) don't give a damn about anyone.
There may indeed be more important issues in the news but many of them result from the decay in respect for others.
Complain about this comment
18 Nottinghillhammer
I am neither right wing nor a reader of the Daily Mail. My family background is working class. What I do object to is not having choice. I have to pay a poll TV tax regardless of whether I watch it or not and the BBC is largely a carbon copy of commercial stations and they pay more than them for so called stars. The poorest in the country pay the same as the richest (eg Ross) so its also a regressive tax - most sensible people would agree thats fundamentally wrong.
I think we should have choice - you don't watch/ listen to it, you don't pay. Technology makes that possible now. Long gone are the days of the 70s when the BBC was a public service broadcaster. It no longer has that remit. The people who like the BBC can fund it can do and the rest of us don't have to pay as we don't watch and pay. Seems pretty simple to me.
Complain about this comment
Same old story!. It's only when over hyped over paid yobs like Woss and Brand finally fall through the thin ice on which they have been skating for years,that we the licence payers, feel that we have no alternative but to protest to the BBC in very considerable numbers. We should have done so long ago.
These two arrogant and apparently invincible employees (up to now) of the Corporation, have been consistantly smutty and tastless for far too long.(apparently it's called 'edgy' comedy). Makes me wonder whether the BBC bosses actually watch what they broadcast. It would seem that A. They do not, or B. They do, but don't care much.
See what happens when you take your hand off the tiller Mr Thompson!
Complain about this comment
#33 Blogbag Wrote:
18 Nottinghillhammer
I am neither right wing nor a reader of the Daily Mail. My family background is working class. What I do object to is not having choice. I have to pay a poll TV tax regardless of whether I watch it or not and the BBC is largely a carbon copy of commercial stations and they pay more than them for so called stars. The poorest in the country pay the same as the richest (eg Ross) so its also a regressive tax - most sensible people would agree thats fundamentally wrong.
He also wrote (among numerous other attacks on the BBC):
Totally biased reporting as usual - the BBC is overt in its support for Obama - I think its time we all withhold our license fee as its obviously being used to campaign for Obama. The BBC seem to think he is a god and the little ol Americans should elect him because he pc, right on, liberal and left wing like them.
……………..
Make up your mind matey “he pc, right on, liberal and left wing like them” is not the sort of phrase a non-rightwinger would use. You have proved my point in excelsis.
Complain about this comment
I love the BBC, and support the license fee, but I feel that Ross and Brand have to be sacked because they brought the BBC into disrepute.
The BBC makes much of the best content in the world.
That does not mean however that all of its content is defensible, and where presenters and editorial teams fail and produce content that majors in bullying people such as elderly members of the public, well, sorry, but its off to the tower for them. No option.
The BBC is too great an institution to be dragged down into the gutter by dross such as this.
BBC rightly wins much praise for content like news, documentaries, excellent comedy like Mock the Week, newsnight, the today programme, PM, This Week, Spooks, Classic serials, Strictly, Top Gear, sport coverage, the One Show, Last Man Standing, nature programmes such as Autumn Watch etc etc etc....
But poor and indefensible content is indefensible whoever makes it. Sadly this time it was the BBC, and action needs to be and is being taken to remedy that, and rightly so.
Complain about this comment
A number of BBC journalists have pushed the line "we must give the youth what they want". I don't get it. I'm sure if you broadcast public executions they would get a healthy audience, but that's no reason to do it - is it? Do teachers let kids muck about and abuse each other without sanction because the kids won't like it if they aren't allowed to run riot? Of course they don't - education is a public service, there for the 'public good'.
Public Service Broadcasting. That's what the BBC should be about. Why should the BBC receive a mandatory licence fee to then insist on attracting the 'youth' by emulating MTV? (ironically MTV have already sacked some years ago when he turned up for work the day after 9/11, dressed up as Ossama Bin Laden).
The licence fee is too expensive and the BBC is now too big. I'd rather pay say £100 a year for a slimmed down BBC doing much less, better.
Complain about this comment
I think many appreciated it when a calm, well modulated, voice (possibly wearing a dinner jacket) announced that terrible or great things might be happening- but always with sober control.
Putting squealing youngsters on does not establish rapport with youngsters.
Humor does. Spoofing the establishment does. Competence does.
Might it not work? Why not try it?
Complain about this comment
#37 silverfoxuk
spot on!
Complain about this comment
35 Nottinghillhammer
I think I simply consistently argue that people should have the choice - I am happy if you wish to pay for it and that I do not watch it - a happy medium then. I object to paying for overt political bias whether left or right wing.
It is hardly right wing to be against a regressive poll tax. Or do you favour such taxes on lower income people whilst BBC employees earn millions. Sounds much like Champagne socialism to me...ah thats why its Notting Hill then:)
Complain about this comment
I'm seriously thinking about making a complaint to the BBC for taking Ross off air this Friday night. I was looking forward to hearing him.
Complain about this comment
Good to hear the Director of Radio 2's resignation has been accepted.
Defending her team and her talent from their indefensible behaviour was a massive error of judgement, and one which has cost her her job.
This does not excuse Ross, no editorial or complaince failures can excuse his own behaviour. Presenters must not be allowed to deny responsibility for their own part in vicious pranks on the elderly.
He has a history of inappropriate marks, many of which should have seen him sacked if I had been in charge.
Complain about this comment
Aghhhh - some of the comments on here make me want to scream.
I want the BBC to inform me in an unbiased way - which is only possible by being funded in a completely independent way.
I want the BBC to educate me - which is possible because not every programme they make has to get high enough ratings so that advertisers will pay for commercial slots in them.
I want the BBC to put programmes on through the night which aren't phone call bingo, roulette or word games for prizes - which they can because they don't have to make money every which way they can.
But above all, I want the BBC to entertain me - which they can because alongside 'safe' family fare, which has it's place of course, they can experiment and push the boundaries with no fear that show sponsors are going to get upset and withdraw commercials and punish the broadcaster for daring to be different. It's something they've always had the courage to do,
Monty Python
Not the Nine O'clock News
Black Adder
Little Britain
and numerous others......
all hugely controversial at times, all very unlikely to have made it beyond a handful of episodes on a commercial television station (with the exception of Channel4) that has to be risk adverse when judging public reaction or risk financial meltdown. A lot of people may disagree, but for me at least my world is a better place for having had these programmes in it.
Brand and Ross are being asked to push boundaries. That they've overstepped them is probably without dispute, but sack them for it??
It's going to be a very very dull world in the future if there's never going to be the possibility of switching on a tv or radio and hearing or seeing something and thinking "Bloody Hell, did they really just do that?" A very dull world indeed.
Complain about this comment
"Before you all write in to tell me you're 83 and can't get enough of Crissy Criss on Radio 1 Xtra... ...The attitudes and sensibilities of those entitled to a young person's railcard are different from those carrying their pensioner's bus pass. "
Mark, you contradict yourself here. As you state there will be some 83 year olds who like Crissy Criss, and (like me) there will be some 20-somethings who *were* offended by Ross and Brand. Yet you dismiss our existence with a firm assertion that 'attitudes and sensibilites... are different' - well not necessarily, as your own example shows.
I would be interested to ask how many young people who have been bullied themselves via mobile phone, voicemail, text, email or websites, how amused they were.
Newsbeat reports that 1 in 5 responses supported Ross and Brand. But that's still 20 % of youth who don't support them. A large minority.
And apparently it was about 50/50 condemnation and support amongst young people (according to 1xtra) until politicians saw fit to get involved. Then youth rallied round Ross and Brand.
Time to move on from the 'generational divide' angle, Mark.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"If the Beeb cannot keep enough young people on board, it is sunk. "
-Why? Young people have to pay for the BBC whether they like it or not.
Complain about this comment
I love reading the majority of the comments to the blog in which it is obvious that so many people in the UK have lived their entire lives without making a mistake - you must all be commended, those who are asking for heads to roll. Is it a disease specific to us inthe UK in which we have to attack those in the spotlight so readily and ask for such immediate retribution involving job losses for what is an acknowledged mistake???
On the issue of the BBC having to favour the majority, I would be interested to learn, as a percentage against Brands radio show listening figures, what percentage actually complained? R Brand and J Ross are two funny individuals who should be viewed as National Treasures of the BBC even if somewhat controversial at times - and we wonder why the BBC cannot hold onto its main attractions!!!
Complain about this comment
If the senior management of the bbc want ross then let them pay. I am am a pensioner and I dont want to pay for trash like ross. I would also like to know what is the drugs and alcohol policy is for the bbc and how many times people like ross have been tested.
Complain about this comment
AlricDark # 43 and stellarjoeldb #47 - well said! I couldn't agree more. Does anyone here actually regularly listen to Brand's show? Probably fewer than one percent, I bet.
Brand is hilarious and it is ridiculous that he should resign. To label these "prank" calls as "bullying" is to take them out of context -- but of course you'd only know that if you'd actually listened to the phone calls. How many of you have even done that, I wonder?
Brand and Ross call Sachs and get excitable, as Brand always does. Ross makes one offensive comment, which is where the mark is overstepped, quite badly, which probably warrants a reprimand. After this, the only "bullying" is Ross and Brand of each other, as they scramble to make up for the original mistake. Barring Ross' original comment, it is only offensive if you choose to take it out of context. I think this is what most people are choosing to do.
I think people like being smugly indignant too much to care about who suffers as a consequence. Andrew Sachs seems to have brushed this episode off like water off a duck's back. Brand, however, has lost his job. Now who seems irresponsible?
To all those who think that the BBC should only cater for license fee payers and that that doesn't include teenagers - grow up. Presumably the NHS shouldn't treat teenagers either.
Complain about this comment
"Newsbeat reports that 1 in 5 responses supported Ross and Brand. But that's still 20 % of youth who don't support them. A large minority."
-Correction for myself: 4 out of 5 responses to 1xtra were supportive of R & B as Mark has stated.
Therefore 20% were not supportive: a significant minority.
Apologies.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
I find Mark Easton's arguments weak in the extreme.
The things Brand said egged on by Ross were not funny to anyone who values the rights of fellow British people to be treated fairly.
The filth emanating from these two is totally unacceptible (please note your own Director General agree's) and must never be repeated.
To underline this Criminal proceeding are quite possible if Mr Sach's or his granddaughter change their minds not to press charges.
So the BBC has a tough job?
Well it gets £3 billion a year plus to do it
which should be enough to provide public service broadcasting without dropping to gutter level on the pretext of reaching some section of the population.
Employing Ross to provide garbage like this dressed up as "entertainment" on £16,000 a day beggars belief.
Brand has at least shown some respect to the people he has maligned by resigning which Ross has not.
I think its about time Ross was sacked not just suspended for a few weeks.
If this does not happen the short term let alone long term future of the BBC looks in extreme doubt.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Surely the point is this: another (commercial) channel/station could broadcast this (although, of course, it isn't the broadcasting of it that is the problem, it is the disgusting disrespect for the privacy and feelings of Mr Sachs shown by the act itself), and the people who pay for it (advertisers), finding it not necessarily offensive but inappropriate, can vote with their chequebooks and take their business elsewhere.
However the British public is unable to do this. It is effectively held to ransom to watch TV in order to fund this organisation. Therefore it is completely reasonable to expect an outcry when it finds the TV tax is being spent in such a fashion, and the people to whom the licence fee has been paid must be held responsible.
If we are to be fined for voicing disapproval by withholding payment, we must be able to voice disapproval another way, and be heard.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Stella above, What is it about our 'revenge at all cost culture'. Have we forgotten that we are all human. Yes it was a stupid thing to do and all parties need to share the blame, however surely some common-sense should prevail. Yes there should be appropriate action, suspending Jonathan Ross seems realistic ( though who am I going to listen to for 3 months?). The loss of Russell Brand will just turn away young audiences and the resignation of the controller is likely to lead to dumbed down radio which is bland and boring. This should be a learning curve and a recognition of mistakes made, not a witch hunt.
I defy anyone who has replied to this blog to suggest they have never made a mistake, it just that for most their mistakes are small, forgiven and generally not pursued by the media.
For the record I am not young and work in a profession where I am extremely aware that if I make a human error I will be held up to account by the 'hang em and flog em brigade'
Complain about this comment
Whilst I have little time for Ross or Brand, they rarely register on my radar, I have to say that the 'reporting' of this stupid and thoughtless incident was somewhat over done.
It interests me that only 2 people complained ta the time of the broadcast, then follwing what can only be described as a witch hunt but the rabid right wing newspapers, the number kept getting higher and higher.
No one Mr Brand felt moved to make his apology in front of 'what appeared to be' a photograph of Stalin, though im sure this was doubtlessly lost on the journalists who have been hammering him and Mr Ross for the past week and a half or so.
Complain about this comment
This is madness. To the complainers get a grip. This is the 21st Century. She is a porn star. We are facing catastrophic times. We need all the humour we can get, not kill joys. Long live Brand and Ross.
Tough Biscuit
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with those of you who claim Ross and Brand were wrong. There's a fundamental difference between output that doesn't appeal to certain segments of society and output that offends the vast majority of the license fee payers.
I listen to Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4. I'm 16 and don't fit in a "market segment". Their insincere appologies as they tried to keep their jobs sealed it for me, they should go. Well done to Russell for resigning, Ross should be next.
Complain about this comment
Some people might be offended by the portrayal of a Spaniard as a monosyllabic imbecile. Some people might be offended by a group of strippers called the Satanic Sluts.
If you don't like a program switch over or switch off
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Your comments about the need for broad appeal and that youth programming needs edge and must feel a little dangerous, may be correct, but your article looks like more damage control by the Beeb.
You also refer to the 'prank-call row (as we now seem agreed to call it)'.
Firstly the unacceptable, obscene calls made by two experienced presenters was not about edgy programming, it was a clear, unequivocal obscene series of calls, (and I have read the transcript).
Secondly the continued use of 'prank' shows that the BBC is trying to downplay the issue. I cannot believe that the BBC senior management or the BBC Trust consider this a prank.
Mark Thompson has made a very bad call by slapping Jonathon Ross' wrists with a three month suspension. He should have been let-go.
The BBC's judgment on this whole issue has been very poor, and the failure to deal appropriately with Ross' participation in the obscene calls continues to highlight the problem.
Perhaps it is Mr Thompson who should be resigning, not the controller, Ms. Douglas.
Pleas no more spin and playing down of the issue.
Complain about this comment
AlricDark (43), enough said.
Complain about this comment
Interestingly the BBC Trust is currently reviewing the how well the BBC serves young people - there is a consultation where people can tell the Trust what they think at www.bbcyoursay.co.uk
Make your voice heard!!
www.bbcyoursay.co.uk
Complain about this comment
no one disagrees that times change and culture moves on and it is understandable that there will always be objections to new outlandish humour but toilet or gutter humour does not belong main stream ever.
moral standards have been lowered but are we realy going to just sit here and alow such foul language and blatent sexual undertones to be broadcast, think of the children who may well see or hear it.
or worse younger generation copying these antics and causing serious problems accross the board.
its time that people realy thought about how they wish to be treated in the future becouse its a slippery slope towards abusive and insulting behaviour becoming normal what hope is there for the future.
Complain about this comment
We are all human: it's a joke, it's funny, it's a laugh, it's only a prank..... but only if it is at someone else's expenses, right?. If you are the target, then it's an abomination and you want to sue or get compensation!
I wonder how Brand or Ross would feel if the joke had been on them (or rather on their daughter's...). NO COMMENT !! We know the answer, don't we?
Catherine.
Complain about this comment
The statement "If the Beeb cannot keep enough young people on board, it is sunk" irks me, as it appears to irk quite a few others, and i'm 32.
The BBC influences youngsters in a big way. Don't forget, they _don't_ tune in out of *choice* at an early age when morals are being developed, it is because their parents deem the BBC suitable for their kids. Especially now in the multichannel world.
The BBC should be "educating" young people. An example is to be nice to one another, instead of peddling brutish behaviour (of which this is radio show segment can loosely be described).
Not just the radio 2 show, but all over the BBC, including programmes like Eastenders. The amount of Brutish behaviour on that (and some other shows) aside from often bordering on implausible in real-life human interaction, educates youngsters that this is the 'norm'. Big WOW, it shocks the parents. However this is very passe. We've all seen it before.
The difference being now we're at the point where a line MUST be drawn.
Complain about this comment
Why does Mark Easton treat the broad appeal dilemma as if it's rocket science? It's not, but it soon will be.
Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand make a series of obscene phone calls which the receiver, Andrew Sachs, finds offensive and subsequently makes a complaint. He makes it clear that he doesn't wish for this to be broadcast. Logic therefore says that you don't broadcast it, issue an apology and reprimand those involved. All done and dusted and no one loses their job or is suspended.
So what do the BBC do? Air the programme, showing a total lack of respect to AS, and then only react publicly to the situation when the tabloid press get their hands on it and blow it all out of proportion.
So, because of a lack of common sense by the BBC, the tabloid sector with it's narrow minded readership get to influence who the BBC employs and what they broadcast. Look at what's happened in the immediate aftermath of this fiasco. RB resigns and JR and all his programming suspended for 3 months; disadvantaging millions of viewers. The controller of Radio 2 also resigns. Long term, more rules and regulations will be brought in and future programming will be sanitised further to satisfy the tabloid mob. And then it will be difficult for the BBC to reach a broad audience because the BBC will only be prepared to air soaps, talent shows, celebrity drivel and bland sitcoms.
If the BBC can't self-regulate through simple common sense and integrity, then the tabloid masses will do it for them, destroying any remaining quality, thought provoking, cutting edge broadcasting.
Well done the BBC
Complain about this comment
#49 Lucky Waster
"AlricDark # 43 and stellarjoeldb #47 - well said! I couldn't agree more. Does anyone here actually regularly listen to Brand's show? Probably fewer than one percent, I bet."
-I regularly watch his Channel 4 show Ponderland and watched him when he was presenter of Big Mouth.
"Brand is hilarious and it is ridiculous that he should resign. To label these "prank" calls as "bullying" is to take them out of context -- but of course you'd only know that if you'd actually listened to the phone calls. How many of you have even done that, I wonder?"
-Well, the bullying ocurred 4 times when they left 4 messages on his voicemail. Sachs agreed to an interview, not a slanging down his personal voicemail. He had no chance to answer back.
I've read the BBC transcript and have listened to the clips - if anyone can point me to a full recording of the show I will gladly listen to that.
-His gradndaughter (and yes I know she went to the tabloids afterwards) had nothing to do with the programme at that time and had not asked to be mentioned. That's bullying.
"Brand and Ross call Sachs and get excitable, as Brand always does. Ross makes one offensive comment, which is where the mark is overstepped, quite badly, which probably warrants a reprimand. After this, the only "bullying" is Ross and Brand of each other, as they scramble to make up for the original mistake. "
-Err, no, they repeat the voicemail comment not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times. Brand's initial apology was insincere and sarcastic. You admit yourself the mark was overstepped 'quite badly'.
"Barring Ross' original comment, it is only offensive if you choose to take it out of context. I think this is what most people are choosing to do.
-The comments are one issue, the voicemail issue is another.
"I think people like being smugly indignant too much to care about who suffers as a consequence. Andrew Sachs seems to have brushed this episode off like water off a duck's back. Brand, however, has lost his job. Now who seems irresponsible?"
-Brand resigned, he wasn't fired. Sachs' response is ambiguous, he did complain, he said R & B need to 'do better' his granddaughter said they should be fired and that her and granddad were happy he was suspended.
"To all those who think that the BBC should only cater for license fee payers and that that doesn't include teenagers - grow up."
-Not all teenagers approve of this, we have no firm statistics but 20% of responses to 1xtra were negative - that's a fair portion of youths.
Presumably the NHS shouldn't treat teenagers either.
-Not really an appropriate comparison.
Complain about this comment
Mark Easton,
License-fee payers expect the BBC to support their own existing ideas of morality, not to promote the BBC's own ambition to "connect with" the younger audience by ridiculing and perverting this morality.
This was Public Obscenity, not a "Prank". It occured through a deliberate and objectionable top-level management policy to attract young people to as much pornography as that management thinks it can get away with.
With sickening self-righteous pomposity they claim to "create an edge" and to "push the envelope" as though this were doing society a service.
The vast majority of our population and its leaders and decent role-models (not to mention the police) are calling on our young people to learn and to practice decent self-restraint , civilised behaviour and respect and consideration for others.
The BBC are trying to popularise and justify exactly the opposite.
The individuals directly involved in this particular incident, as perpetrators or as victims, are not, as the BBC would like us to think, the main issue.
Neither is the incident merely the result of some technical hitch or failure of judgement in the BBC's vetting of programs or choice of presenters.
The main issue for license-fee payers and for the country as a whole is the BBC's misguided policy as revealed by this sordid Radio 2 affair.
Complain about this comment
I like the radio and TV programs of Jonathan Ross, and often find him very amusing. I am in my 60’s. I know nothing of Russel Brand. I have heard the offending extract by visiting Youtube, and I agree it is not funny. It is in poor taste by even the most liberal standards and from Andrew Sachs’ point of view very offensive. I would be extremely annoyed by such a call, and even more offended by the call being broadcast. However, Sachs has had public apologies, and if that is good enough for him it should be good enough for the rest of us. In my view the media has far worse faults. The hysterical and inflammatory reporting of the recent financial crisis, for instance, has, in my opinion done far more harm. The postings on this blog are to me more interesting than the offensive answer phone messages. They indicate intolerant, vindictive, judgemental and rather humourless people. But a small number of the postings are very wise. Our newspapers are, again in my opinion, dreadful, because, apart from the Financial Times, they never report in a balanced and informative way. There is always a slant, and the editorial opinion pervades the reporting. Until recently I thought the BBC was better in this respect. I understand the arguments of those who say that the BBC should only be funded by those who want to receive BBC programs, but I do not agree. It is a bit like democracy. Most of us want democracy, so those of you who don’t will have to put up with it. I think the same applies to the BBC. The BBC is, in a sense, ‘ours’ and we have the opportunity to criticise (and praise) it. The offensive broadcast was not a big deal, (except to Mr Sachs and his grand-daughter) and we should have a sense of proportion.
Complain about this comment
ToughBiscuit wrote:
"This is the 21st Century. She is a porn star. We are facing catastrophic times. We need all the humour we can get, not kill joys. Long live Brand and Ross."
For me, this comment encapsulates the whole issue. I think that others feel it too and that is why there have been so many complaints and comments.
Many people today are afraid of the new century and fear that its values, as demonstrated, are
• greed ( banks and hedge funds exploiting us all / millions a year paid to presenters and other celebrities who demonstrate behaviour that sets a poor example and is then copied by the millions who watch and admire them)
• lack of consideration ranging to downright contempt for others ( selfish and greedy financial entrepreneurs create a sub-prime market leading to financial insecurity for many hard-working less well off people / selfish and very highly paid media celebrities bully an elderly grandfather, speculating whether he may kill himself as a result)
The BBC as a public service is not just about giving people what they want; it has a responsibility to promote the public good. (Not just rights but the responsibilities that go with them.)
To do that it needs to take a moral lead and actively promote qualities that society should be demonstrating and benefiting from: eg empathy, honesty, decency, care for the public good.
Instead, the it gives mixed moral messages. Paying high salaries to presenters to behave poorly, sanctions and condones poor behaviour and this behaviour is then, in turn, widely copied.
Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand would be guilty of gross misconduct in any other public service job and would face dismissal.
Jonathan Ross is, at best, a 48 year old who seems not to have progressed beyond the emotional intelligence of a 15 year old. I would rather believe this than that he is cynically making entertainment and money out of behaving to others in ways that he would disapprove of if they were done to him or his family.
Russell Brand has at least had the decency to resign.
Complain about this comment
The real issue here is actually rather serious and has nothing to do with the childish antics of Ross and Brand. No, we are at a cross roads where the establishment in this country including the BBC Trust, Ofcom and Gordon Brown have to decide if they are going to keep pandering to Associated Newspapers and their leader writers or develop a backbone.
Government immigration policy is determined by the Mail (circulation 3 million) and now it seems to hold sway over what we can and can't watch/listen to. This follows on from the witch hunt against the gambling industry and single mothers (to name but another two).
Do they suggest wall to wall Autumn Watch followed by that nice David Jacobs and a mug of Horlicks? I don't like JR much, and Rb not at all, but watch what happens to Radio 2 listening figures on Saturdays.
The never neverland of 1955 doesn't exist, except in Daily Mail world.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There are two factors hear, the original comment made and the handling of the subsequent furore.
I didn't here the program and only finally saw the transcript last night. My immediate thoughts were 'what is the fuss about?'. Bad taste yes, vulgar yes but nothing like as bad as has been portrayed.
Which leads onto the BBC handling of it all which was a disaster. The whole affair should have been put to bed on day 2 with a senior manager at the BBC publicly apologising, forcing Brand and Ross to apologise and getting the two of them to donate. say. 2 weeks wages to charity.
That would have drawn a line under the whole thing and stopped the Daily Mail brigade's arguments gaining traction.
Broadcaster will always, and to me should always, push the boundaries and things like this will always happen. If the BBC wants to do its job properly then it needs to have management in place that has both the intelligence and frankly guts to stand up to mob justice and deal with the fallout.
Complain about this comment
Really interesting, I posted a comment, it was being moderated, it has now completely disappeared, I can't even see that it has been removed because it broke the rules!!!!!
Complain about this comment
So Ross gets 3 months holiday to spend the remaining £5m this year, gosh the BBC is so hard on the guy. He's going to struggle to pay his license fee - pathetic.
Mark Thompson says that they acted on a timely basis and that the action against Ross was proportionate. No it wasn't Mr Thompson - you are useless and you were sunning yourself whilst you should have done your job properly.
Mind you what do we expect from a public schoolboy (Stonyhurst and then Oxford) on £788,000 a year who has spent all his life at the BBC/Ch4 and never done a real days work in his life and who doesn't live in the real world like the rest of us.
Lyons (Chair of BBC Tust - £140,000 a year plus directorships) do your job and sack the pair of them.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone think that the 12 week suspension gives the BBC time to a) explore another alternative eg Jack Dee, Frank Skinner or someone else that is or could be 'edgy'
and if successsul b) then sack Ross having had time to explore the legal consequences
Complain about this comment
I find it very strange that of all the people involved in the error, have either resigned or been sacked, except one.
He was the one that instigated the whole subject with his purile comments, in the first place.
He chose not 'to do the honourable thing', he is also the one that is paid £16,000, of license payers money, daily.
How can it possibly be fair that things should finish now, so the BBC has drawn a line under the matter, which of course, their journalists always accept, when any other member of the public states the same about their problem.....
To use the phrase, used many times on Newsnight, it is for the public in general to decide that.
As far as I feel it seems that one person has got off lightly, because, once again BBC management have not managed well, could this be because they rate Ross far to highly?
Complain about this comment
I guess we're all divided by our sense of humour, and mine can be quite broad. Jonathan Ross is rather more to my taste than Russell Brand but they can be equally cringe-making. We live in a very strange world, and some folk try to make their name in some very strange ways: "Satanic Sluts" is not particularly edifying, in my view.
If we go too far "something" pulls us up, short. JR and RB came to that point. I'm sure they've learned. You can still be kind, and very funny. I believe they can, also. GIve them another chance-including the resigned Radio 2 Boss. It will be a very puiblic and very necessary acceptance of human foibles=and the world needs honesty!!
Complain about this comment
I find it interesting that only 2 people complained at the time of the original broadcast. The real furore began over a week later when the Daily Mail (part of a large anti-BBC media house) whipped up the hysteria.
Berlin-born Andreas Sachs, to give him his original German name, is apparently one of our 'best loved' British comic actors. Well, I certainly enjoyed Fawlty Towers, but I suspect many people on this discussion cannot name another role that Sachs has played. He meanwhile has forgiven the perpetrators, accepted their apologies and dismissed the affair.
His lovely grand daughter Georgina, when she takes time off from being a striptease artist in her group, Satanic Sluts Extreme, like to call for people to be sacked. Charming.
I wasn't really that interested in the affair until all the ridiculous media circus started. I find Ross barely tolerable and Brand annoying and puerile. However, in the interests of fairness, I decided to listen to the original broadcast. Whilst a little tedious, it was really quite harmless & not shocking or offensive. I'm sure Andrew Sachs is worldly enough to shrug it off (as indeed he has). I don't think that the revelation that his striptease artist grand daughter once had a fling with Russell Brand is going to shock him.
The interesting thing is quite what the agenda is of all the people who decided to complain over a week after the show was broadcast.
Complain about this comment
The only challenge the BBC faces, in my opinion, is spending their money. They will always be funded and carried by the UK, unable to fund and pay for themselves, yet able to give themselves a very nice bonus and make a lot of products to sell, once again, to the people who already paid for those products to be made.
They're a bit like a child who, once they are capable of being on their own, refuses to move out, get a job and learn how to self-supporting and instead expects their parents to continue funding their lifestyle while they go off and do whatever they want.
BBC doesn't need to care about viewers or listeners. It will never be shut down.
Complain about this comment
I am sick to my back teeth how the BBC tries to defend itself and not take the right and harsh decisions to first sack Ross, then sack the Snr Executive who agreed his contract, then in turn sack every single head of Dept that is involved with it.
My question has long been..where will any of these hangers on go to work....if they are not employed at these ridiculous wages by the BBC? Comedy2?
I want my licence money back.
Complain about this comment
Amazing, I also posted a comment at 7h24 this morning and it is still being 'moderated'. No idea what I said that was so offensive. I used a word that starts with a t and ends with an r with four letters in between, which I asterixed (this was describing JR). A bit rich from the BBC in view of what this whole thing is about!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Wonder if my comment will get through this time..............I'm of the opinion that,if this prank had been played upon a contemporary of Russell Brand's there would never have been the furore that there is. This has all happened because it's an "elder statesman" of the acting fraternity! I DO think it was very stupid of them to do that to an elderly gentleman, they really should have picked someone better able to cope!!!
Complain about this comment
"If the Beeb cannot keep enough young people on board, it is sunk. The challenge is true for many organisations - big multinationals also need to ensure their market doesn't simply die off. "
This is nonsense.
Young people (most of them anyway - Ross seems to be an exception!) tend to grow up - and will grow into higher quality programmes.
I am, by the way, 21, and most of my friends can't stand sad (old) Jonathan Ross.
His attempts to "reach out" to us are both patronising and unnecessary.
If the BBC cannot keep its loyal older audience on board - and the population is ageing - now that is when it is really sunk.
"And it has a licence fee to justify."
Well, it has a HIGH licence fee to justify.
Staving off the end of the fee by empire building into every genre and every medium only brings the day of reckoning closer.
Shrinkage is the only solution.
Provide the quality which others can't.
Don't provide (more and more of) the dross which you can find anywhere.
Complain about this comment
Mark, most of your correspondents seem to see everything in black and white and know just what the problem is. My personal opinion (and that's what all these comments are, nothing more) is that you have misread the listening/viewing public's attitude to broadcasters such as Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross. Being a "baby-boomer" (62 years old) I, like most people my age, fail to identify with Brand and Ross and have always found them crass, unfunny and, most importantly, overpaid. I don't think Ross appeals to young and old alike, and in any case, there's no dividing line - you don't suddenly become old when you're no longer young. The young to which you refer would probably only consider themselves young if they're under 20, at the very oldest. Of these, a minute proportion would be licence payers. They're not typical Radio 2 listeners. Paul Gambaccini is right when he says Brand was wrong for Radio 2. I happen to think that Ross is wrong for Radio 2 as well. At least Chris Evans matured very quickly when he came to Radio 2 - before that people of my generation considered him untalented, risky and edgy. Now he conforms to the highest standards of the BBC, whilst Brand and Ross never have. You should know very well that there can be no lowering of moral standards under any circumstances. If that means losing "young" listeners, so be it; anyone that thinks this episode was "blown up out of all proportion" are themselves devoid of the principals and morals that should flag up the awfulness of these people's behaviour, and that includes the editorial and production staff who saw nothing wrong with broadcasting this. Moral standards should be uppermost in the Trust's mind. If the Trust cannot be trusted to uphold the nation's moral standards, then it should defer to people who can, and move en masse to the underground, where these so-called "edgy" performers can insult people to their heart's content, and be answerable, as we all are, to the law of the land, which will probably find this whole episode outside the law, and act accordingly. I'm a huge fan of the BBC but there appears to be a nucleus of people working in certain key positions who are not capable of recognising right from wrong.
Complain about this comment
I agree with you that there are age gaps for the BBC to contend with but it is not the young who pay the licence fees so we oldies should be able to express an opinion. When Sir Michael Lyons expresses the fact that Ross's behaviour was completely unacceptable and Brand saw fit to resign (rightly so) Ross, having broken the law as well as the BBC's own regulations, should do the decent thing and RESIGN. Other people should not be the fall guys for this man's crass and unforgiveable behaviour.
I would also disagree with you that Ross, nor others who pretend to be entertainers, deserve to get the salaries that are paid to them from the licence payers purse. These salaries are obscene in todays climate so it is no wonder that many people have included this aspect in their blogs.
Complain about this comment
Whatever else the arguments for me the core fact is that regardless of the outcome of this the license fee payer (i.e. you and me) will pay for it.
If Ross is fired and sues the BBC for breach of contract arguing that the censor should have caught his excess if it was unacceptable then the license fee payer will pay for the BBC's lawyers and any losses.
If Ross isn't fired the license fee payer will continue to pay his salary (after the suspension period).
If OFCOM decides to fine the BBC then the license fee payer will pay the fine.
You get the general picture? It holds true for all other possible scenarios I can think of. I don't see any way out of this where Ross/Brand don't benefit (reputation enhanced among their followers due to what the brain dead see as enhanced edginess) and the license fee payer pays for it.
Granted we have saved a bit of money by Ross being docked some pay... but when he earns 6 million a year the amount saved is not really significant against the 18 million he will make over his 3 year contract.
My argument is surely this is not as things should be? Why should Brand/Ross (or anyone working for the BBC) benefit at our expense for their misdoings? It seems daft that the only way those of us who are not fans of this sort of entertainment can avoid funding it is by not having a TV set.
It seems to me there is a conflict between the ideals of public service entertainment (as in educate, entertain and inform) and chasing large audience figures / competing with commercial broadcasters.
Someone needs to decide which the BBC are going to consider more important. If it is the former then the likes of Ross/Brand shouldn't be on the BBC because they do not educate or inform - they only entertain and then only do that for a certain demographic. Entertainment should not be the main function of a public service broadcaster to my mind (it should be the lesser of the three objectives).
If the BBC do not accept the above then we have to ask why we would want to pay for a service which is merely an entertainment channel by a compulsory tax on TV ownership rather than by subscription as we pay for all other entertainment TV services?
Complain about this comment
I see my comment #83 has been referred to the moderators. I presume the censors did not approve of my views since it certainly was not offensive. Clearly the BBC sets much higher standards for those who may the license fee than for those who receive it!
Complain about this comment
With respect, I would submit that most of the commenters on your defence of the BBC have got you "bang to rights" and I think you should have the honesty to admit it.
That two of your most highly-paid employees should have left messages on an answering machine that not only broke the criminal law but also infringed the Data Protection Act was, in itself, bad enough. That the BBC should then have broadcast these remarks to the nation (and beyond?) was absolutely inexcusable and something you should not even attempt to defend.
And before you go into any more high-minded waffle about "broadening the BBC's appeal", or "pushing the boundaries of comedy" and "taking artistic risks", I recommend you listen again to the dialogue in question and tell us if you don't agree that it is silly, amateurish and, even by the comedic standards of Jonathan Ross, not even funny!
Complain about this comment
has anybody on here listened to the show - it was funny!!! Sick and twisted I grant you but funny all the same. If you listen to Brand you know what you are going to get and expect it - there are warnings. Of the people who actually listened to the show only 2 complained! it was only when the Daily Mail Political Party got involved that the numbers went up.
But even if it was wrong why have the presenters gone and been punised rather than the producers who let it go - it was already an edited show if shoudl have been edited more if the BBC considered it offensive.
I agree it is a tough line I am 32 I listen to Chris Moyes and Today in the morning - I like CM banter but don't like the Music (too poppy) but I like the news on Today, Radio 2 may be the compromise but Terry annoys me. In the evenign I listen to Radio 4 and 2. Again I like the news on PM but want a bit of a laugh so listen to CLP but I donlt like his music (too middle of the road). It is a very trickky balance!
Complain about this comment
This furore about malicious (not 'prank') phone calls by a couple of overpaid middle-aged delinquents that incredibly got broadcast has been overblown. But it illustrates the difficulty the BBC faces in trying to cater for such diverse audiences.
There are many areas in which the BBC excels, but there are also areas of broadcasting it should not go while still publicly-funded. It panders excessively to the ‘yoof demographic’ (much of which doesn’t even help fund it) with a lot of dumbed-down programming. It should end the current obsession with celebrity (so often undeserved) and also leave the ‘reality' (sick) TV shows to the commercial stations which can throw money around as they like as they are not mis-spending licence payers' money.
Most TV tax payers would surely want and expect the ivory towered BBC to uphold rather than undermine the standards of acceptable behaviour that most of us recognise and have to live by.
I'm sorry the BBC has lost a highly regarded professional in Lesley, but it was right that she took responsibility for the fiasco.
It's just very sad that in its desperation to appeal to 'yoof' the BBC has failed to act properly by sacking Jonathan Ross for his disgraceful and illegal antics, even if many people found them 'funny'.
Complain about this comment
If you want this particular style of humour (and many do) you know where to go in the TV schedules. Broadcasters will get themselves into trouble from time to time if they try to push back taste boundaries constantly, but thats not really the role of the BBC. But it does, much to the despair of many of its viewers who are not Hampstead metrosexuals but ordinary provincal folk who dont really understand or want this stuff. Try watching Little Britain with an elderly relative, it'll make you sqirm! B&W went to far in most peoples eyes and should be banished to Channels 4 or 5 for the duration of their careers...
Complain about this comment
RiotInAGraveyard
I not sure what the backround of the victim and his grandaughter has to do with this. Ross made an obscene 'phone call. The "humour" exhibited here was not anti-establishment but middle aged rich people abusing there position. They used abuse instead of humour. No doubt the Nazis would have been very amused by this situation. After all the Sachs family were Jews who escaped from Germany.
There is plenty of cutting edge humour out there. This was malicious. It will appeal to some but some people find bullies funny. Cutting edge comedy goes after the powerful and does so with whit and intelligence. Ross is no threat to the establishment. He's one of them which is why he is getting away with this ... after a few months holiday. The less well known lose their jobs.
Complain about this comment
I find it quite insulting that the BBC 'defends' it's self by saying it appeals to young people and old people think differently. While this id broadly true, I am a young person as are the majority of the people I know (all young enough to own rail cards). We believe while there style of comedy may appeal mostly to a younger audience, what they did was not comedy of any order. A distasteful joke people other than prudes can shrug off as just not to their liking but what they did was not a joke it was more akin to harrasment.
A joke about Stephen Hawking's diasability may be distasteful to some but a joke and you can't please everyone. Tipping Stephen Hawkings over in his wheel chair is not funny on any level.
What Ross and Brand did was more akin to the latter.
Complain about this comment
I think everyone takes this kind of ephemera way too seriously, and completely fail to take in the real obscenities in this world.
Where are the 18000 comments on the DRC or Zimbabwe situation?
Complain about this comment
I spy with my little eye, something beginning with 'poor little self proclaimed satanic slut victim'...
She is only upset because her sordid secret was outed to her grandfather.
Yeah, they were silly for doing it, but do we blame Philip Schofield for asking Kerry if she was OK?
I'm sorry... if there's something that is factual, then why shouldn't it be 'aired in public'.
After all, isn't that was 'poor little self proclaimed satanic slut victim' has done in the Sun???
I don't particularly like Brand OR Ross, BUT, for goodness sake... the editor of the show put out the FACTUAL recording out on air!!!
Give them a break, and, Beeb, get yourself some balls for once!!!
Complain about this comment
LOL, oh the irony: my earlier comment got pulled, presumably because I described some attitudes as 'sanctimonious'. How terribly shocking, what a dreadful word, can I consider myself 'edgy' now, LOL?
Comment self-edited to hopefully get Beeb approval:
To those who are puzzled by what is happening: it's the British public in revolt against chav nation. That's the divide here, not 'yoof'. I get the feeling that a lot of the people attempting to speak for 'yoof' here are actually young-middle-aged, same as Brand himself. I have two teen children, they both think what happened was disgusting. Radio One presenters seem to in the main aim their show at people who don't think much, so the reaction of R1's audience isn't surprising and doesn't tell you anything. Most young people have far better stuff to listen to than R1.
Georgina's lifestyle choices are hers to make and in no way justify the abuse of trust and bullying that has occurred.
And Beeb, you're _still_ allowing bullying of Georgina by not deleting comments such as that made by JonGloverPhotos (97).
Complain about this comment
I can't believe this, they pulled my comment describing posters criticising Georgina's lifestyle as 'sanctimonious', saying that broke the house rules, but won't pull the vile comments from Jon Glover (comment 97) describing G's lifestyle as 'sordid'. BBC stands for Big Bullies Corporation?
Complain about this comment
It's amazing how many people can blog. Mark, you are right in everything you say, a wonderful piece that has struck a chord with your blog readers. Reading a number of the comments I would say you have the X Factor too, you've crossed the divide of appealing to all - well done!
My only comment on the whole affair is Jonathan Ross should know better than to allow a younger less experienced broadcaster to take the lead- but having said that I'm Wossie's age and I've sailed close to the edge on occasions with my younger mates. I just wish I got paid 6 million for those edgy moments.
Shame about Lesley Douglas - she's a gem!
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately for Radio 2 I have given it up as we are now inflicted with the likes of Steve Wright, who is usually wrong and mashes up the English language disasterously, Chris Evans who should have been left in the wilderness where he belongs, Jonathan Ross who is just an idiot who has made millions but is worth pennies and now Brand a late nightidiot. Radio 2 has good presenters however having to switch off when those mentioned come on or be driven mad means that I no longer tune in. Light entertainment Bah!
Complain about this comment
Absolutely agree with anita_r (#59). When you say 'The "prank-call row" (as we now seem agreed to call it)', those of you at the BBC who are desperately trying to play down the significance of this incident may have agreed to call it that, but please don't think the rest of us agree with that.
To call it a "prank call" is to trivialise it, which is really not a sensible thing to do when so many people don't think the BBC is taking this sufficiently seriously and using it as ammunition to argue for the abolition of the licence fee (a point of view I have never agreed with before, but for which I now have considerable sympathy). If you seriously think you need to justify the licence fee, then a much larger dose of contrition would be in order.
How about you call it the "illegal, malicious, and obscene phone call row", and then show you mean it by referring the matter formally to the police for investigation?
BTW, you talk about being "edgy". If people at the BBC can't tell the difference between being "edgy" and being criminally irresponsible, then perhaps they should consider whether they are in the right job.
Complain about this comment
Basically the BBC has sold its soul the ratings devil, just like it sold a piece to the government after the Hutton Report for continued licence-paid funding.
There really isn't much left, BBC and I rarely watch many of your programmes now, but I still have to pay the poll tax/licence fee to keep the likes of Ross in Hampstead luxury or face fines or jail.
Enough!
Complain about this comment
I believe that the suspension of Jonathan Ross is an inadequate punishment and sends out the wrong message to the public at large i.e. we will employ whom ever we wish no matter what the people paying the bill think, if they don't like it tough.
Jonathan Ross should be sacked if the BBC want to maintain any credibility at all, he's an accident waiting to happen. Let him scrap it out with the other corrupt presenters. There's plenty out-there.
Why should we be made to keep someone in easy street who is so morally bankrupt and who does't give a hoot about anyone.
Russel Brand is an affront to all respectable people, the kind a guy the BBC love to employ?
Complain about this comment
I used to love the BBC, and still do some aspects of it. Radio 4 can be fantastic, but I'm not sure about some of the comedy on late at night. I leave the radio on quietly all night (can't sleep without it). Ten o'clock news is great, and sometimes the programmes at 11pm. However, the f*** word and other foul language is used too much on some of them, and then it's 'thank goodness' for Radio 5 Live!
Complain about this comment
Firstly, I'm amazed that a BBC emloyee talks about "pensioners" rather than senior citizens, given their zeal for all things politically correct !
Secondly, the article is a lot of simplistic assumptions which amount to clap-trap.
All the BBC needs to do is present quality broadcasting covering a range of tastes in music, drama, documentaries etc etc.
However, at all times it should remain factual, politically neutral and within its own guidelines for taste (which only need reflect broad public opinion, and not cater to every anarchist and retard).
Hence no personally insulting attacks, no f...ing and blinding etc would be welcomed by nearly all.
And sensible use of licence payers money would help, avoiding obscene payments to indiduals who can easily be replaced.
Sadly the BBC has failed in almost every area...when even the application of plain common sense would go a long way !
Complain about this comment
Goodness me - most of the replies to this blog are so reactionary towards, and ignorant of, the media of the 21st century! Wake up! Mr Ross does, as Mr Easton rightly points out, span the age gap in his broad appeal. He is a huge talent and I, as well as millions of others, will miss his contribution to the BBC over the next 12 weeks. The hardcore of 'Daily Mail' readers in middle England who relish in publicly beating down individuals guilty of a mistake made in the public eye expose a deeply rotten core in British society. I personally beleive this stems from envy; petty envy over money. Accept it - Mr Ross has a talent worth millions of pounds and you do not.
He made a mistake. He apologised. He has been punished. Take a closer look at your own conduct to those around you and resisit the easy option to smugly condemn those under public scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
Russell Brand resigns, the head of Radio 2 resigns. The immature idiot who let show be broadcast will have kept his job (pity - teaching him manners and responibility is a missed chance here) and, of course, Jonathan Ross is still there.
Pity the BeeB. Even gross misconduct isn't enough to get him out!!!! Bet they wish their lawyers were a good as his! But then, with £16,000,000 of licence payers money going into his bank, he can afford good lawyers!!
I don't want my extortionate and compulsory licence tax spent on over-hyped and sleazy rubbish like Jonanthan Ross - and yes, I am old enough to remember him as always hanging about better talent and known as 'the roadies' gofer' About right, that.
Complain about this comment
I think why people are getting irate here is that whilst so many people involved, including Ross and Brand themselves, have unreservedly apologised or agreed the abusive phonecalls were dreadful, others have played the role of apologist. What happened was indefensible. Ross isn't trying to defend it, Brand isn't trying to defend it, so why are some at the Beeb so determined to play it down with irritating euphemisms like 'prank phonecall' or vacuous claims that such bullying is necessary to appeal to yoof? Brand's apology was so heartfelt that it immediately soothed the angry viewers, but others at the BBC have just kept asking for shovels to dig the hole deeper.
One of the people I now have additional respect for is Chris Evans, his comments were excellent. If all at the BBC had commented in the manner he did it, or just kept their mouths shut for once in their lives, it would've blown over days ago.
And to the many who say, 'surely there are more important things wrong in the world?', well of course there are, but none of them are partially resolvable by people en masse sending angry emails, are they? Wish that they were!
Complain about this comment
Hello,
I am curious to know who thinks Jonathon Ross is so popular ?
How is it judged ?
I worked on a Radio Station for five years and it was all done by statistics, literally how many people were listening to a certain show at a certain time, this seemed to work fairly well,
though like all statistics a bit questionable.. but it was all analYsed by a statitician and I think general things were taken in to account,.
I was on the edge as far as Radio rules were concerned , reading Tarot cards live , which is strictly not allowed unless its for fun ,
the rules were more strict than Television rules, as apparently the Radion effects people on a more subliminal level,
becuase people enjoyed listening I was 'popular' but the rules outraged the powers that be !
Various church groups,in fact 'the church'.
But as far no 'man in the street' opinions seem to favour Jonathon Ross, or is he secretly popular ?
By some statistic no-one else has access to?
Yes being a Radion Presenter is hard, but no harder than being Prime MInister,
so why the exorbitant pay,
with the economy going into recession it seems obscene to pay anyone that amount of money for anything ?
Is it just possible that the BBC is totally out of touch with what people really do want??
Complain about this comment
At last a decent DJ on Saturday mornings, who doesn't whitter on about his own (boring) life.
Now I can keep Radio 2 on after Brian Matthew.
Shame its only temporary.
Complain about this comment
This all feels to me like the Mary Whitehouse brigade are re-surfacing, egged on by the conservative press to suppress any form of free, diverse cultural entertainment that provokes and challenges the establishment. It's the classic clash between popular culture and the suited execs that now seem set on wet nursing listeners/viewers and want to dictate what we should and should not watch or listen to.
The alternative comedy revolution of the 80's/90's (of which Ross is a part of) is now coming of age and handing over to a new generation, represented by a new wave of comedians like Russell Brand. Recent events remind of the infamous incident in the late 70's when the Sex Pistols swore on live TV. It just kind of woke people up a bit. So what.
It should be accepted that occasionally the envelope will be pushed too far sometimes but that's a very small price to pay for edgy diversity in broadcasting and entertainment in general. Radio 2 has improved so immensely over the last few years, it's shaken off the old safe, dull image of DJ's well past their sell-by dates.
I hope it doesn't return to that stagnation again. Bring back Ross!
Complain about this comment
it is not the Mary Whitehouse brigade, it is just people reusing to be teenagers and acepting like mules the latest on offer, good or bad.
As one gets older one gets more discerning, that's how one finds a wife and thanks god the old girldfriend for ever didn't work out.
Sure youth is about exploration and is exhilirating, but is is youth within a context.
A context called society.
By all means push the boudries but sont be too upset if you get pushed back.
Brant is a talentless but sincear fool, Ross is just a fool, but highly paid.
The BBC would do better without fools, both on air, and thankully not any longer in charge, for such was her crime.
Complain about this comment
Those who support Ross might like to watch iPlayer or repeat of last nights Have I Got News For You in which Ian Hislop sums the situation perfectly. As editor of Private Eye Hislop has been far more cutting edge than Jonathan Ross who is just a pathetic middle aged man trying to mimic an immature yob.
For those of us who value edgy comedy this has been a tragedy. The bullying actions of a couple of seemingly dim but very rich people will enable the right wing to increase control. Backing this rather pathetic middle aged phoney only makes their task easier.
I hate the Daily Mail and most of what it standards for but I hate cowardly bullies even more. There is nothing edgy about Ross's comedy. He has shown that he can abuse the small fry but fawns over "big celebrities".
Complain about this comment
I'm herartily sick of hearing the 'it was funny if you listened to it in the context of the show' argument, because it's a non-starter.
OK, let's do just that - check the context. For Andrew Sachs, the context was to receive the recorded messages when he got home from visiting his wife, seriously ill in hospital; to ask for the remarks not to be aired, and to have that request ignored, to the distress of his hospitalised and elderly wife.
Still funny? If so, you're so sick that your viewpoint shouldn't be allowed to count.
For the record, I'm under thirty, and find both men mildly amusing from time to time, but so woefully lacking the ability to self-censor that I've given up on them long since, and moved on to places where creative hunour is to be enjoyed, rather than the destructive kind they peddle. I wish the Beeb could grasp the fact that not all under-thirties like the f++k-and-fart type of humour; some of us have fully functioning brains.
Complain about this comment
Yet more youth-baiting by the mainstream media. The actions of two men in their 30s on a radio station aimed at other men in their 30s is blamed on "youths". Christ, what a self-righteous, intolerant, bigoted society we live in nowadays.
I also find it hard to swallow that Andrew Sachs, a man who became famous for a pretty unflattering (and possibly racist) depiction of an idiot Spaniard waiter - ie offensive, edgy comedy - is now some kinda national heritage and out of bounds. Why is it that the baby boom generation who fought so hard to break down conservatism and antiquated attitudes are now such fierce defenders of sterility and mundanity. This guy's a celebrity and a comedian, why should the country rally in his defense? He was never no shrinking violet.
Moreover, the original show only received 2 complaints. It was only when the media chose to make a storm out of it that anyone became aware of it. I wonder what were the ambitions of those inside and outside of the BBC in fanning the flames.
Complain about this comment
To all of the "discerning" adults, who clearly have more common sense and ability to judge a matter than us young'uns. It was not covered in a disproportionate way, it was not sensationalised by the media nor was it given undue space in editorial columns or in the tabloids.
Hit the panic button! The media are using hyperbole! Run for shelter. Get a grip really.
It was a shame the BBC reacted a bit slowly to the event but I'd like to have seen how other people would have dealt with the situation. Trying to please both sides of a generational, taste and common sense society.
The same old tripe is being spouted over and over again: young people are influenced by these two, "edgy" comedy is not an excuse... blah blah.
Edgy is just a vogue word which doesn't really mean anything so I don't know why anyone would try and justify (the reasonably harmless) actions of Brand and co.
Us youngsters occasionally have a mite of common sense and have been known to be rational sometimes.
It was a shame Lesley had to go; everything I've heard about her is positive.
One last comment, the high horse pedastal brigade: before you criticise the two for being offensive and not thinking; take a good look at what you're saying before you call Ross "Woss". Hypocrisy anyone?
A storm in a teacup from the media, and bloody good job I say. Life'd be pretty dull without them.
Complain about this comment
Can someone show me a shred of evidence that either Brand or Ross have ANY of the "appeal" or ANY of the "talent" that we are constantly reminded of by their appeasers?
I have always found them completely nauseating and lacking in any form of wit.
I wouldn't employ them to clean my lavatory bowl...
Complain about this comment
Well - lots of interesting comments, but Radio 2 seems to be in a time warp, to appeal to me it would have to play music from the 70s and 80s... as I am 45 and thats the stuff I grew up with. However it seems to play stuff that appealed to my Dad, although i'd have to dig him up so he could enjoy it.. the only 1/2 decent programme is Steve Wright, Sarah K was probably very good 30 years ago and Mr Wogan is funny the first couple of times you hear him but is now so outdated, but the old crusties must love him..it only the traffic news and Steve Wright that serves any useful purpose ..if it wasn't for that i'd never tune into it..
Complain about this comment
does anyone feel slightly oppressed by the media furore around this whole case?
certain people found this brand of humour 'offensive' and I've heard a lot about 'moral standards' on this blog etc etc
but while there is a code of conduct, and airing this silly set of prank phone calls that sachs did not want aired did break those rules - what else is there to say? talking about 'moral standards' is simply one group demanding what they feel is appropriate, and as Mark pretty much points out this whole case has basically taken the view of the older generations against the younger ones
c.30,000 complaints to ofcom? - that's quite big, however there are 2 substantial facebook groups (who you could lump as mostly young people probably) which makes up about 15,000 in support of the 2 broadcasters - they won't be listened to
there has basically been a judgement that this kind of humour is wrong and those who dislike it rule the roost
ok i am not in support of what they actually did, it's not my cup of tea and for me the fact that they didn't have permission to air it is the big no-no - but the BBC has regulatory processes that should have dealt with what is a single grievance against 2 people
the papers decided to pick this up and make an outrage out of it - a show aired at 9pm and listened to by 400,000 people, only 2 of which complained, as Mark points out fans of Russell Brand had no issue with the show
so basically people have heard what goes on in these scary young people shows - my point is not to particularly defend ross and brand over this case but that if the papers decided to show what happened on a regular basis in shows aimed at a younger generation they could easily whip up a storm - imagine if the daily express just started highlighting things from buzzcocks, 8 out of 10 cats, south park etc? - "there's too much swearing!" yadda yadda
the reason there isn't is because we let them get on with the antiques roadshow and countdown, and we are allowed to have our more risque stuff and swearing when they are tucked up in bed - they would probably disapprove of everything we watch - but there's a reason for this - it's not for you!
it's called an audience, and you aren't it - whipping up a storm with people who would never approve of it is basically censorship, and then getting the prime minister to wade in and talk about the "general public"'s disapproval smacks of a whole generation basically being ignored
the bbc should have dealt with this a lot quicker, but also as usual with ofcom complaints they should be mostly ignored - or we leave our (public-funded) media at the mercy of mob rule
Complain about this comment
116 - alanisdead
Ross is nearly 50 (ie a baby boomer) and has been in the mainstream media for over 20 years, it's a pity more of his generation can't get off their high horses tho
but it's ok because these people like mary whitehouse did far more to advance edgy and liberal broadcasting than the comedians and broadcasters ever could, in much the same way the daily mail readers will only fuel the internet generation
....i do wonder if I'll turn into an arrogant conservative in 20 years tho
Complain about this comment
Haha great post Tarquin.
And in #120 you raise an interesting point: imagine what would happen if us youngsters (GASP!!! the crime of youth eh?) were to complain about every incidence of bigotry and factual incorrectness that comes out of the Mail, the Express, Talksport and all those other bastions of Brigadier Smith Smith of Tonbridge Wells and his letter writing army. I personally have much more issue with the conent of the mainstream media with regard to its coverage of actual world events (ie those events which don't qualify as intra-clique bitching amongst media types).
Do the "older generation" (I'm not sure it's a generational thing but hey if there's stats to back it up...) honestly think that their values (such as they are) are beyond criticism and inherently perfect? Was noone offended by Manuel in the 70s? As someone with a whole load of Spanish friends and an intimate understanding of Hispanic history and culture, I find it to be ignorant to say the least. However, it is pretty funny and therefore kinda justifies itself.
And I repeat: bear in mind the motivations of those within and outside of the BBC in perpetuating this non-story. Think of who stands to gain from the demise of Brand, Ross et al within the BBC and the institution as a whole from outside of it. Don't believe the charlatans' self-portrayals as concerned citizens, they're manoevring for position.
Complain about this comment
Please forgive me if I am missing something. I thought I understood how the BBC achieved it's mass appeal. I thought R1 was for the youth market, R2 for those who had grown out of listening to R1, R3 for those with musically classic taste and R4 for those interested in current events and/or the spoken word. Over the past few years I have found myself drifting away from R2 because it had become the vehicle for more of the presenters who should have stayed on R1. Chris Evans asserts that R2 has lost a valuable asset with the resignation of Lesley Douglas; well he would wouldn't he. He is another reason, like Ross and Brand, why I listen less and less to R2.
Complain about this comment
@tarquin
"c.30,000 complaints to ofcom? - that's quite big, however there are 2 substantial facebook groups (who you could lump as mostly young people probably) which makes up about 15,000 in support of the 2 broadcasters - they won't be listened to"
-They need to send an official 'praise' comment through the contact us section of the BBC website. Then the BBC can gauge support accurately.
But a lot of them won't be bothered to do this - they will think it 'sad' to take time out of their busy busy lives to do so.
Complain about this comment
"That is why Chris Moyles and Alan Titchmarsh don't do a double-header (although it might be quite interesting). "
...Double header?
...Erm yes it would be 'interesting' to see them doing that, but probably a bit disgusting. Yuck.
Complain about this comment
The BBC Trust is consulting on the BBC and younger audiences
- tell them what you think at
www.bbcyoursay.co.uk
Complain about this comment
Alanisdead and others who make the point about Manuel. It was a fictional programme and they did not ring up Spanish people and abuse tham. From what I remember of Fawlty Towers it mocked the English more than anyone. Perhaps your Spanish friends thought that was OK!
I do not worry too much about the use of language in programmes (in fact I love Mock the Week etc.. ) or overweaning political correctness. I do however intensely dislike bullies.
The, generally younger, comedians on Mock the Weak attack public figures who are much richer and more powerful than them and they attack the views and opinions which these people chose to make public. It may cross the line occasionally but that's it. They use their victims own arrogance in order to mock them. Good for them they have talent. I do not want to live in a world ruled by reactionaries at the Daily Mail but here we are dealing with making abusive 'phone coulds which made no point at all. This was akin to the behaviour of playground bullies chanting at some small child. It was not brave but cowardly because they simply humiliated small fry for no reason other than the size of their own egos. Those of us who want to retain a liberal society can chose much better martyrs. Someone who picks on someone their own size would be a start.
Complain about this comment
I do not believe that this is about manwell at all.
It is about right and wrong.
if they had insulted that old bat 'hatcher i might have laughed, but they did not and so I didn't.
Essentially they thought it acceptable to abuse another, on air, and they got away with it ..at first.
The real question is why.
It is not about the individuals concerend, it is more about the culture and management within which it was allowed it to happen.
I fell that this has all one to far as regardes the indivuduals concerend. It is good that at least one BBC employee has gone, I worry about the others.
Comedy was let down by two fools, but by leting them be hung out to dry we let the institunional failures continue.
It is not right to blame onlt the Infantry, no matter how well paid.
Complain about this comment
Will you guys get real?
The very fact that you talk abour Tichmarsh is hillarious and just shows how redundant your views are to telivision.
The guy was a gardening bafoon and then they tried to reinvent him as some form of natural histirian.
The demise of that project should tell you all you need to know about those in higher salaries :-)
Complain about this comment
I think that the producer should have been repremanded and the other 2 SACKED!!!
For it was sheer distaste.Also why did they pick on Andrew SACHS? he hasnt done anything wrong y him?
Complain about this comment
I like to think I have a sense of humour...there was absolutely NOTHING humourous about this caper and one word alone comes to mind.
The remarks made on the actor's answering machine were UNKIND.
It was an appalling lapse of taste and maturity in airing them.....but more than anything, it was disrespectful of a senior citizen who indeed has a wonderful sense of humour and has shared that with the world.
He has shown Ross and Brand how to be a star. The great ones always shine through.
Complain about this comment
This article typifies the BBC's problems. It starts with a reference to "audiences" which may be in the charter but is interpreted by Easton in a multi-cultural way. What has a black 60 year old from Wales got to do with it? No more than a white 60 year old from Cheshire. The BBC should speak to and for the nation as whole and should do so in an impartial way - neither of these things can they do because the BBC is institutionally biased.
Complain about this comment
'Edgy' comedy should come from the brain not from gentilia. A comic genius can take offensive material and present it inoffensively. Nothing remotely clever or talented, innovative or creative about Ross and Brands humour- any fool can insult, made lewd comments and say f.... Just go down the pub on a friday night to find that. BBC cutting edge comedy is being taken down the toilet. Downturn.
How strange the most popular BBC programme attracting young viewers (age 30 and under) by a million more every year is New Tricks.
Made in good old school fashion and stars 4 'old school' actors- what does that tell you BBC!
Looking at the ratings a million people turn off after the news and before FN with Jonathn Ross comes on. His show doesn't even make the top 30 BBC shows list. If Big Brother is pitched against his time slot a million viewers turn over.
Hmmm- why is he the highest paid?
Complain about this comment
Stop calling this a "prank" call. It was a series of highly offensive, obscene phone calls made by a couple of imbiciles. They broke the law and should have been procecuted, fired and sued by the BBC for damaging it's reputation, it's future and it's income.
Ross and Brand may have some supportive friends (in some cases represented by the same agent) but these friends will evaporate when they realise the damage that these two have done to their earning potential. The BBC is about to change dramatically and not before time, life's getting "edgy" and I am enjoying every minute of it! Resign Ross before you're forced out by your "peers".
Complain about this comment
Not just Ross and Brand dragging the BBC into disrepute
Please take the trash Coming of Age off the excellent BBC Three. It really does drag BBC Three into the gutter, and there is so much other good stuff on BBC Three.
These reviews say it all...
http://www.tvscoop.tv/2008/10/tv_review_comin_1.html
http://www.tvscoop.tv/2008/10/dont_set_the_vi_8.html
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Malcolm-Barker-Disappearing-TV-diary.4653430.jp
Complain about this comment
I'm glad to see that there are so many people who are up in arms about the dumbing down of the BBC.
May I assume that you'll all be joining me in my call to have the following programmes also removed as they fail to provide sufficient intellectual stimulation:
Eastenders
Strictly Come Dancing
Casualty
Wife Swap
...and all the other dross that fills up primetime television and seems to occupy the time of most of the complainants.
Complain about this comment
"Alanisdead and others who make the point about Manuel. It was a fictional programme and they did not ring up Spanish people and abuse tham. From what I remember of Fawlty Towers it mocked the English more than anyone. Perhaps your Spanish friends thought that was OK!"
You're missing my point, which is that Sachs is actually a veteran of challenging, controversial comedy made to offend the stuffier, more pompous elements of British society. How ironic that he should now be the victim of it himself...only for him to court the limelight and give the media hourly updates on how much he was calming down from being initially very offended.
Brand's another case in point: you really think this will damage his career or do you reckon it will just add to his reputation? the more of a storm that's created over this, the higher salary he'll demand off whichever channel he goes with next. Actually, hasn't he just broken Hollywood?
I see that everyone's mate "Dave" Cameron has now weighed in to tell us how much he agrees with what everyone has already said. Isn't it amazing just how all of these spineless bureaucrats and ladder climbers come out of the ether when there's an opportunity to generate capital out of mock moral hysteria?
Anyway the very fact that this story keeps on going is an incredibly sad indictment of the British social discourse. Is there really nothing better to discuss than how one celebrity should not have offended another? And how cynical is it to use the event as a stick with which to bash youth and the BBC?
Complain about this comment
I would like to think that in generational terms, I am in the middle - my father is 74 and my son is 14. I am about the same age as Ross. To me it's simple - it's about respect. Let Brand ring Ross's number and leave as many messages about his daughter as he wants, no problem, a shared sense of humour and no doubt nobody would be upset. Andrew Sachs is from a different generation and deserves respect. I would have been incandescent if someone had done that to my dad, as would my son if someone had done that to his grandad. Don't tell me otherwise. Or have we come to a point where one 'yoof' can stab another because he didn't show him enough 'respect' in the way he was looking at him, but the genuine respect that is due to a valued performer and family man is overlooked? Personally I don't believe that the vast majority of the younger generation have this perspective. I have to belive that, or else I would just give up and let my son raise himself.
Just one more thing - why is a child as old as Ross playing with a much younger boy like Brand? Did nobody teach him that lesson at school?
Complain about this comment
Monkeybot5000 (136), yes, you can certainly have my vote and anyone of influence who read these things (which, let's be honest, it's unlikely they do) could take this as my call for an end to such dismal, unimaginative fare.
Complain about this comment
I am a teacher, and work with "youth" every day of my life. These are young minds which are still learning. I quite often have to squelch racist, sexist, anti-Semetic and homophobic "jokes" in my classes when students arrive for the first time. It's not that these kids actually even understand what they are saying half the time - they think these "jokes" are funny because they don't know any better. It is up to me, and others like me, to show them the error of their ways and teach them how to respect others. Now Mssrs Brand and Ross are in high-profile, public positions and unlike the "youth" they appeal to, they ARE old enough to know better. If they cannot behave more responsibly as role models, then the BBC is not the right place for them.
Complain about this comment
At 55 I feel put off by the zoo radio format of Brand,Ross and their cronies Wright,Evans and Radcliffe and hope they all b**off to Whipsnade FM ASAP.Poor John Dunn and Ray Moore must be birling in their graves at all the carry on(but it won't be to the music!).
Can we get back to broadcasters please who then can become celebrity,not the other way around?After 2pm Radio 2 is unlistenable apart from the features which I can't listen to as they are on too late.Someone of the style of Gay Byrne who used to be on RTE in the am who could mix all kinds of music,features and public involvement that would have you crying,laughing and angry at whatever injustices he could find.Thank God for Tom Morton on Radio Scotland in the pm,at least.
Complain about this comment
Actually monkeybot- even those programmes probably do provide more intellectual stimulation than the degenerates Ross and Brand who generate zero. They use humour that is old as the hills- been around since neanderthal times when women were used as property and to humiliate and taunt their male relatives. Nothing innovative about that, its not comedy its male sexual aggression masked as humour.
I don't watch those programs but the reason they are on prime viewing is they get massively high ratings. 3 times as high as Ross- who doesn't get HUGE ratings at all.
Complain about this comment
monkeybot5000
isn't wife swap on channel 4?
oh and 133 - I would thoroughly expect a million people to turn off after the news - they will go to bed, you only have to look at the timeslot to know the sort of audience and figures the show wants and it does (did) a pretty good job of that - also remember Ross gets his fee for his radio show and film 200-
Complain about this comment
Mark, if viewing and listenning figures are so important, where's the "map"?
Complain about this comment
143 Yes a certain number probably do go to bed but if you look at the percentage of viewers share in the stats- not that many.
Ross gets an average of 3.2 million viewers but only when rubbish is pitched against him- when Big Brother clashes Ross loses a million viewers.
Yes you're right he does other shows- couldn't find their stats in the ratings so I guess he doesn't get enough to figure.
As a comparison- HIGNFY (a genuine cutting edge prog) gets over 5 mill regualry. Antiques roadshow gets 8 million. EE gets 9 million sometimes. Dramas score highly- even Laurence LL-B gets just under 5 million. Ross gets big numbers but definitely not huge at all- he doesn't rate in the top 30 BBC shows.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for those stats, taffy; fascinating and very helpful.
Complain about this comment
A lot of comments seem to disagree with the line "If the Beeb cannot keep enough young people on board, it is sunk."
As one poster says" As a rule, teenagers don't pay for the licence fee. Maybe the BBC is aiming at the wrong market?"
Can't you look any further ahead than say the next 20/30 years? If the BBC aimed all programmes etc at the older market what happens to the future tax payers? The teenagers of today are the taxpayers of the future so of course the bbc need to keep young people on board.
With regards to the Brand/Ross debate... yes their comments were offensive but they should never have been allowed to be aired. Instead they should have been reprimanded for and dealt with the same way any other non-celeb prank would have been handled.
What I don't agree with though, is the demands for all potentially offensive humour/language/comedy acts to stop just in case someone doesn't like it. Comedy is meant to push boundaries and will always offend someone. Yes Brand/Ross went too far this time but I read today that there are calls for Jeremy Clarkson to be suspended for comments he made in reference to the lorry driver Suffolk strangler. Little bit naughty yes, but that's Clarkson for you, if you don't like his candour don't watch him!
Complain about this comment
Why is it so wrong to want somewhere that stands against the tide of verbal flotsam and jetsam our world is awash with at the moment? Why do those in charge always pander to the lowest brow they can find? Why is it considered 'elitist' to want to watch clever comedy, not vulgarity dressed up as funny? Why do TV executives talk about Ross and Brand as 'boys'? They're both full grown men, with, I understand, good intelligent brains, who should have moved on to sharper wit and comedy some time ago. I don't want to be shocked anymore. I want to be entertained.
Complain about this comment
It was a prank call. Just because you think it was in bad taste doesn't redefine it.
Anyway, lets all let the Daily Mail decide what should be broadcast. Its great. Can't wait for more "Are you being served?" (obviously with the homosexual references removed as they risk poisoning our young).
Maybe we could have endless reruns of The Good Life?
PS She is a stripper and she did sleep with him and sell her story to the Sun.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/30/rewriting_history_cached/
Complain about this comment
I'm gutted that the BBC were too scared to stand up for Ross and Brand. In my opinion they were only doing what they get paid to do; push the limits and entertain those of us that get bored watching My Family or some other equally bland rehash of old jokes.
I did listen to the show and found it to be extremely funny although I can understand why it's caused such offence since the tabloid trash started to repeat and reprint it for the masses in their usual shocked and disgusted manner.
What offends me most is the fake dissaproval of these vile journalists who pretend to be offended whilst repeating the whole thing for a middle England that they know full well can't take it. It's cheap talentless journalism.
I fear that another of my personal favourites, Clarkson, may well be the next to find himself in hot water - 517 complaints and counting.
I emplore the BBC to please stand up for themselves here. You can't please all the people all the time so please don't give in to the Mail on Sunday. You have more support than you think.
If we let the Mary Whitehouse bridgade win we never would have had greats such as Month Python (or Fawlty Towers for that matter) and League of Gentlemen. Don't start taking backward steps now.
Bottom line is if someone doesn't want to watch something they can turn it off and leave the rest of us to chortle childishly.
Complain about this comment
I think you are absolutely right in what you say about the BBC dilemma, but what about someone like Billy Connelly who has universal appeal. Though a foul-mouthed individual, the difference is that he is a genuine entertainer with real talent unlike Brand or Ross who have no talent, which most people realise. Peter Cook and Dudley Moore are two others who spring to mind with real talent, though incredibly offensive.
You either have it or you don't. Obviously there is such a dearth of talent around that the Beeb are forced to take what they can get.
Complain about this comment
What ever happened to free speech, I personally found the Brand and Ross phone call hilarious and there was an apology given, that was accepted, surly no harm no fowl?
And now with Clarkson, he has made worse comments to which no one even batted an eyelid, what is this? The new middle class hobby to complain about everything?
I am also a license payer and I am more than happy to see this money go to such fantastic shows
If you don't like it, just don't watch it... is it really that hard? Let the comedians at the BBC to continue making us laugh with out having to tread on eggshells
Complain about this comment
This was bound to happen eventually. The BBC as a whole is to blame. It is no good just blaming the protagonists. Just as a pyramid is broadest at its base, by aiming for the broadest base of public appeal, the BBC has been nose-diving down-market for decades, as have other terrestrial channels. Compare the quality of programmes now with those of forty years ago, when there were far fewer hours of broadcasting. There were concerts, not just during the Proms, and plays BY PLAYWRIGHTS, not just adaptations of great novels that are very well done - as Little Dorrit appears to be. Interviews were not all aggressive and antagonistic, achieving nothing.
When were any works of the following on BBC: Rattigan, Shaw, Wilde, Chekhov, Ibsen, Durrenmatt, Ben Jonson, Sheridan; Monteverdi, Schubert, Dowland, Brahms etc. etc.? When was there last an extensive interview with any important philosopher, novelist, entrepreneur, retired civil servant or foreign diplomat about their vision or analysis?
Instead we have soaps, sport, gardening, cooking, crime, celebs and gossip. Most of this ranges from mundane to utter rubbish. In place of wit and innovation, we have the need to shock at any price.
As far as the public can tell, the BBC has become somewhat complacent and riven with horrid 'political correctness' and tyrannical liberalism, which are very poor substitutes for reasoned and bold judgment.
I am grateful for Radios 3 and 4. However, I consider that the argument that such programming cannot appeal to younger audiences is quite wrong. Certainly, a more contemporary presentation would be required for them alongside the present channels, but there ARE cultured young people who could present programmes. I know because I have taught lots of them. They are starved of radio and television of any quality whatsoever: modern pop music is mainly worse than ever.
If the BBC really is 'public service broadcasting', it would do us all a service if it were to share the BEST of world culture with the young people of this country to bring them home off the streets.
Cut down on the committees and make better programmes. It is that simple.
Complain about this comment
The "prank-call row" (as we now seem agreed to call it)
That should be "Obscene call" something anyone else would be prosecuted for and instantly dismissed!!
Complain about this comment
The discussion about the two conceited characters at the centre of this "furore" has many interesting twists and turns of course, (especially issues about whose production company produced the programme in question) but they're so dismally smug and tedious, neither deserves the oxygen.
However, I'd like to take issue with three statements in the blog:
1. "If the Beeb cannot keep enough young people on board, it is sunk."
Well actually, this is probably incorrect, given the population statistics. Indeed the very opposite could be argued. Of course this doesn't mean that TV and radio need to be bland or boring - after all, it is the over-50s who invented "youth" in the first place and have grown up with fresh, vibrant and rule-breaking comedy and satire as well as music and much else in the media. But research shows that this age group is less likely to be amused or entertained by the sort of prurient drivel dispensed by the two in question.
2. "The challenge is true for many organisations - big multinationals also need to ensure their market doesn't simply die off. "
As Ford discovered with the Mondeo model, designing a car that can deliver high performance alongside ergonomics that make it more pleasurable to use by older people whose bodies aren't necessarily quite as supple as they would like, were two of the key reasons for its wide appeal and financial success. The BBC's audience might well be pleased to see a bit of this kind of thinking translated into programmes by the corporation's production departments and suppliers - even if they are dominated by "younger" people.
3. "But the pressure on the Corporation to appeal to youth is, effectively, enshrined in its Royal Charter. And it has a licence fee to justify."
Possibly so, but consider this for a moment: there are now more people over 60 in the country than those under sixteen. If any BBC programme makers were to visit any of the 330,000 odd care homes, or to step inside the living rooms of any of the 9.5 million pensioners around the country they would find a huge older audience which is positively aching for some really good informative, rich and entertaining TV content aimed at THEM - especially during the day.
Like Ford has shown, segregating a market generationally is not the only answer. And surely this lies at the heart of the BBC's responsibility to licence fee payers. Why not give older people the kind of programmes they yearn for, too - besides anything else, they have been paying for the privilege longer than any of the young audience which the corporation appears to pursue so energetically.
Complain about this comment
I am not one for public displays of affection, but HCPhillips (153) I think I could kiss you. What a wonderful contribution.
It is interesting that, in its assumption that prurience is the way to appeal to younger listeners and viewers, the BBC is grossly insulting them, as well as showing a staggering lack of ambition.
Complain about this comment
The best way to solve this is to make the BBC subscription based. This way people who don't want to pay all the extra costs for shows they don't watch/want to watch don't have to. We don't need a license for having a dog, child, or owning a PC, so why do we need a license for owning a TV??
It's not like it's a fire arm. Being forced to subscribe to a service seems unreasonable when it's not a necessity to use a device.
If I find no value at all in what the BBC provides on the TV I still HAVE to pay for it to enjoy anything else on it, or even just to own a TV to watch dvds.
This archaic system we have embedded in our society for paying the BBC to fund a bias media foundation which is tied in to our government and monarchy feels like we're paying to be brainwashed, and being forced to pay for it. Can I even opt out of paying for these services as *I* don't want them? No, I have to KEEP paying for them because someone else does. That's fair?
Complain about this comment
The BBC does NOT try to be fair or represent the full range of public opinion. 1. It uniquely proselytises Christianity, for example ( e.g 'Songs of Praise', Radio $'s 'The Daily Service') in programmes which do not 'cover' Christianity but practise it in prayer. Muslem attempts to have Islamic prayer covered are routinely rejected.
2. There is also a double standard about homophobic broadcasting. Allegedly racist comments such as those three years ago by Robert Kilroy-Silk led to his being effectively sacked. But Chris Moyles and Anne Robinson get away with 'puff' and 'faggot' and other hate language without penalty. It is only eighteen months since the corporation officially agreed to ban Jamaican murder music on radio. Producers of Radio 4's 'Feedback' confirmed that they have never accepted to publish comments about BBC homophobia in comedy, music, game shows et al. BBC television continues to exclude same-sex couples from competitions such as 'Strictly Come Dancing'.
Complain about this comment
The BBC are making a fundamental mistake in quoting their problem as being with young people. It is not all young people, although many are, but more a 'type' of person. These are the same people who think they should be able to do and say what they want, without regard for others. It is the person who thinks driving at 60mph in a built up area is a God given right, the person who thinks receiving an ASBO is cool, that being loud and disorderly is acceptable. The person who thinks carrying a weapon is justifiable, as is being part of a gang or taking illegal drugs. These people are no better or worse than someone who believes it acceptable to break the law by victimisation in the name of entertainment. It is just that over the years they have swelled in number to an extent that organisations such as the BBC feel they should cater for them as equal to everyone else in society. The vast majority of young people do not support this behaviour, and many older people do (Jonathan Ross is not a schoolboy, he is same age as me)
Please do not tar all young people with the same brush by supporting the 'Crass is Cool' movement, and stand by the right for standards of decency and behaviour that most of us still value.
I hoped the 'Telephone Victimisation' story would have died by now - but it would seem the BBC has started a moral debate far beyond, I just hope it will make a difference.
Complain about this comment
This incident occurred because the children were allowed to play without being supervised by a responsible grown up.
I was not amused by what Ross & Brand did but would defend to their deaths their right to do it.
Complain about this comment
Sorry,Mark - bit of employee tunnel-vision seems to have crept in. If to be "edgy" means to push the envelope, think outside the box or similar over-used and ill-defined cliches, must the push be always to the bottom edge?
Ross, who has only three modes - smirking,leering and sniggering, and Brand,aka Richard Cranium, are amongst the current role-models inescapably inflicted upon the impressionable by the media. Along with alcohol-soaked brawling footballers, foul-mouthed chefs,gang- and gun-glamourising rappers and brain-fried bad-boy drug zombies and similarly degrading influences, they present the yob-culture as the accepted and acceptable norm.
We need our comedians to be challenging and edgy? OK, but, firstly, R&B are not comedians - by definition these are funny - secondly, we have some:- listen to Chris Rock's mordant insider take on racism and racists, white, black and all shades between, or the gentle but so incisive insight of Omid Djalili into religio-ethnic stupidity and prejudice. They can make audiences think and question, as well as laugh. That's edgy, AND funny - but then, they are comedians.
Stereotyped, scripted questions, interspersed with off-colour double entendre, coarse innuendo and deliberately offensive personal comment do not constitute comedy, nor justify the ridiculous six-million pound salary-is it really a thousand times yours, Mark?
Nor do a Street-Porter accent, Winehouse hair and pantomime Principal Boy costume and makeup create comedy from a braying bufoon.
The BBC has been savaged by a monster of its own creation, but now has a public mandate to rid itself of a stupidly expensive liability.The villagers are at the gates with torch and pitchfork - throw the monster to them and get a little sense and quality back iinto Aunty B.
Complain about this comment
161. At 4:58pm on 05 Nov 2008, steamwheels wrote:
Sorry,Mark - bit of employee tunnel-vision seems to have crept in. If to be "edgy" means to push the envelope, think outside the box or similar over-used and ill-defined cliches, must the push be always to the bottom edge?
Ross & Brand did not 'push the envelope': they shot the postman, put him in a box and shoved him over a precipice.
Complain about this comment
One of the things I find amazing about this is the number of individuals who seem to think that although what they did was wrong the mere fact that they apologised is enough to exonerate them. That and the 'Freedom of Speech' brigade always come up with , 'I disagree with what was said, but I will defend to the death.............". What they are in effect saying is that if you apologise afterwards, (confess and seek absolution) all is well, or no matter how offensive you are or how much you hurt someone it is ok, because you have the right to say it. All these freedoms we have come with responsibility, or such freedoms become a licence to do what the hell you want, irrespective of the consequences.
Complain about this comment
Dear Prodnose (156), thank you. I really appreciate that.
Complain about this comment
The Beeb would get more respect if it concentrated its financial resources on better programmes, not grossly disproportionately high salaries for the favoured few over-hyped celebrities.
If those people (and I include the DG in that list) really think they are so good let them get on their bikes and try their luck with commercial stations.
Additionally, buying American junk shows (like Survivor) only goes to show how low the Beeb have sunk in the chase for the three most important things in broadcasting - ratings, ratings and ratings.
If we really HAVE to air rubbish, at least buy excruciatingly funny rubbish - lets have the Japanese game shows back.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What has happened to people? Why are we so easily 'offended'? Why have we lost the ability to cope with being offended without flailing our arms in the air and blubbing about it? The same applies to Jeremy Clarkson and his recent joke about murdering prostitutes.... sorry, 'women working as prostitutes'. I really wish people would shut up and stop behaving as fascists! Learn to deal with it.
Complain about this comment
Firstly, I'd like to remind people that generalising or lumping together “All” younger people or as many of you have some “Most” or “Many” isn’t fair, nor is it correct. It contributes to the myth.
Today's "Youth" as you so sarcastically seem to be referring to them are not mindless delinquents who enjoy happy-slapping and like setting fire to things. Not all of us are mindless, disrespectful or go around intimidating people. The few that actually do fall into this category shouldn't be your idea of what constitutes as youth.
A lot of under 25's watch the news, go to school because they want good results, are respectful and for the majority do as their told (within the usual boundaries of any normal teenager). Public opinion needs to change from viewing the minority as the majority.
Secondly, of course the younger generation watch different TV, it's only natural that the TV that attracts the middle-aged man (i.e. Match of the Day as a broad example) isn't going to always attract the 12-year-old daughter who wants to watch Shaun the Sheep on CBBC. The BBC tries it's best to cater to all age ranges because the country consists of all age ranges. It's a public broadcaster that everyone gets so will evidently try and appeal to everyone.
So for a channel that is all things to everyone it does extremely well. Occasionally broadcasters (people) make mistakes. The "prank-call-row" was just an example of this mistake - however, the idea that political leaders stepped in to try and gain themselves political ground is nothing short of ridiculous. The whole thing was turned in to a witch-hunt what with over-inflated media attention and it becoming the only thing that seemed to be on the news at the time.
It got out of hand. In the end everyone got what they wanted, Brand quit and Ross got suspended. But the fact of the matter is if Andrew Sax didn't want to prosecute then why did everyone get in such a tizzy about it? There are more important things to worry about than some immature phone call that shouldn't have been aired but unfortunately did.
Morals are not declining because of the younger generation. They may be changing and in some cases becoming less conservative but that's just natural social growth. As an example Smoking used to be "cool" about the time most 30-60 year-olds were younger whereas nowadays the moral and ethical opinion of smoking is that it's wrong and I think that opinion is probably held by an overwhelming percentage of the youth. To blame the prank on changing youth perception is unfair because the majority of the youth know they went too far – what they haven’t enjoyed is the public witch-hunt that followed – what a waste of time.
Complain about this comment
This whole debate about Ross/Brand and more recently Clarkson only serves to pander to the Daily Mail readers that like to complain for complaining sake.
I am 30 and although Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand overstepped the mark they have apologised and frankly I think that is acceptable. The big winner here is Andrew Sach's granddaughter who has raked in the cash through her satanic sluts group - nice girl!!!
I totally agree that the BBC is in a no win situation trying to appeal to everyone due to the mandate as a result of the TV licence fee but there is a simple solution. Stop the licence fee - accept advertising, cut out all the management fat in the organisation and for once compete on a level playing field with all the other broadcasters. Survival of the fittest might just result in the BBC being a more palatable long term proposition to the general public.
As for Jonathan Ross, Russell Brand and Jeremy Clarkson - BBC have some backbone and support your staff!
Complain about this comment
I find this whole topic deeply depressing. I really fear for the future of the BBC. I don't see how it can possibly continue to be a broadcaster of genuine quality while it continues to be so utterly terrified of having the license fee funding withdrawn because of pressure from one intolerant group or another.
I have discussed the Brand/Ross fiasco with several people - and they've all been absolutely appalled at what happened. And then I've explained to them what ACTUALLY happened - and they have all completely reversed their views.
As soon as I heard this story I did a bit of googling, listened to the broadcast, and did some background reading. What happened during that broadcast was a bit naughty (and knuckles should have been rapped), but the reaction to it among the population at large has very little to do with what actually happened. Why is it that even the BBC itself is so reluctant to report what really happened, instead of broadcasting the Daily Mail tabloid version of events?
Where's the mention of the fact that only two listeners actually complained about the broadcast at the time? That Brand was phoning Andrew Sachs in order to do a prearranged phone interview with him? That Brand and Ross then left a few silly (but hardly offensive) messages on Sachs' answer machine, as he wasn't there. That Andrew Sachs contacted the BBC after hearing the messages on his phone, not to complain about the silly messages but in order to reschedule the interview with Russell Brand? That his granddaughter has informed the world (via The Sun) that she has slept with Brand 3 times, and is a member of a group called the Satanic Sluts?
Brand and Ross were childish and stupid, but the reaction has been so grotesque, that I can't help feeling that a section of the population are using this episode to vent deep feelings of fear and frustration about society in general. The reaction has very little to do with what actually happened.
Unless the BBC gains some sort of reasonable perspective on this in the near future, I personally will lose a great deal of faith in the independence and objectivity of a great British institution.
And by the way, I'm 43.
Complain about this comment
163 pominparadise:
One of the things I find amazing about this is the number of individuals who seem to think that although what they did was wrong the mere fact that they apologised is enough to exonerate them. That and the 'Freedom of Speech' brigade always come up with , 'I disagree with what was said, but I will defend to the death.............". What they are in effect saying is that if you apologise afterwards, (confess and seek absolution) all is well, or no matter how offensive you are or how much you hurt someone it is ok, because you have the right to say it. All these freedoms we have come with responsibility, or such freedoms become a licence to do what the hell you want, irrespective of the consequences.
---
Yeah that's pretty much it - you have the right to be a racist bigot as much as you like, doesn't matter how many people dislike it or find it 'offensive' - because otherwise it's just mob rule and censorship (and there are consequences - unpopularity)
however this case is a particularly hard one to defend because it was personal and broke broadcasting codes, much like the old free speech addage "you can't shout fire in a theatre" - this case was a mistake but the point is still there
the clarkson 'incident' meanwhile is a far better case, showing that the problem is that universal one of where to draw the line - we have to be careful that line isn't forced upon us by readers of the daily mail and instead gives us as much freedom as humanly possible
Complain about this comment
Tuned into Radio 2 on Saturday morning for the first time for several years. Ross' programe there had made me listen to an alternative station!
I found Richard Allinson's programe thoroughly entertaining, pleasant voice, good choice of records and discusions. I will be listening again to this show regularly until JR returns which I sincerely hope he doesnt!
Super Major
Complain about this comment
"If you want to know why Jonathon Ross or Simon Cowell command such rich rewards, it is because they are deemed to possess a rare talent: they appeal to young people and older people at the same time."
That's debatable, but the point is that the reward is TOO rich. A highly talented person should be worth no more than, say, £150-£200k a year. There must be plenty of unemployed but talented actors willing to take the work on. The rest of the £6m could be invested in a "School of Excellence" for up-and-coming presenters/DJs/etc. Here they could be not only taught the skills of their trade, but also a few dos and donts of on-air policy.
Remember, it is the BBC itself that gives these stars their platform to become so famous; if stars decide they've become too big for the Beeb they can move to a commercial channel thus making room for upcoming talent. I understand Mr Ross was offered £4.5m by Channel 4, the Beeb should have let him take it.
Complain about this comment
What I find odd about the BBC is the low turn over of presenters. The same old faces seem to be being reincarnated in different forms as if they are employees who must be used.
The BBC is supposed to be a modern people facing organisation not a pension fund.
There should be no such thing as 'old hands' in a modern media outlet.
Current Talent, not old friendships and past glories, should count for more.
I of course do not consider brant to have any talent so lets not think that i am on any crusade.
I am merely pointing out that the BBC, full of jobs worths, would do well to rid itself of comfort zone huggies.
The BBC needs leading edge adrenelin not woganesque nonsense or PM rigidity in dullness.
The BBC needs to realise that it is not a job for life organisation and merge with 21st Century reality.
Complain about this comment
in all the furore about brand/ross/presenters etc ; apologies and then amended apologies the one disgraceful aspect of the whole business is the hypocrisy that an outstanding controller resigns (amongst others) but the one person - JR - who actually made the really offensive comments gets away with simply being temporarily suspended until management and trust hope the dust settles a bit.
Auntie is not going to recover the reputation that was so cherishable and respected world wide until its standards return to a level that used to be appied without a second thought.
Those at the top may "spin" all they wish - their words and inaction where it matters most are currently transparent and inadequate. We are still waiting......
Complain about this comment
Anyone ever heard of Popetown? This animated series commissioned by the BBC, never even made it to the air..... even though it had been completed.
Complain about this comment
I actually heard the broadcast "live", or what I thought was live. I do agree the content was offensive and should not have been broadcast. It was actually quite embarressing to listen to and I felt extremely sorry for Andrew Sachs and I am not at all surprised that there were complaints but didn't expect it to go this far with members of the beep actually resigning. I have to say I am more offended by Gordan Ramsay's continuous use of the 'F' word whenever he appears on the TV and now it appears Jamie has joined the band-wagon. It is a total 'dumbing down' of what is acceptable now on the TV. My 16 year old son says that the 'F' word is Gordan's catchphrase!! Swearing is not clever or funny but at least Jonathon and Russell are. Friday nights and Saturday mornings are quite dull at the moment...
Complain about this comment
175 hemmickchurch
Precisely nails it. Fine post.
Complain about this comment
175 hemmickchurch
Totally agree - Controller Douglas appears admired and respected by colleagues and subordinates alike - no easy thing to achieve - except for reportedly pampering and cosseting Brand regardless of warnings, a little like some women can see no fault in a small, hairy,yappy dog, despite it destroying the furniture and fouling the carpet.
It seems unlikely that it was her job to check and sanction the programme in person, yet she is scapegoated while the talent-free Ross gets a holiday.
It seems her protege has done to her figuratively what he boasts of having done literally to so many others.
Complain about this comment
I have a suggestion with Children in Need being broadcast this week why does BBC not do one of the following :
a)Give a donation equivalent to JR's suspension of 3 months salary.
b)Same as a) but the difference between what is being paid now to existing presenters & JR's 3 month salary.
Comments have already been made by Terry Wogan that the phone calls may damage the amount raised this Friday.The treatment of these people must not be viewed as a short term cost saving exercise for the BBC.
Complain about this comment
What I most object to isn’t the slightly off-colour phone message, but the witch hunt which has been started by the Daily Mail. I find it revolting and disgusting that a right wing rag has so much power that they can get people fired and get rid of entertainers they perceive as being overpaid.
They started this campaign months ago about Jonathan Ross being overpaid, and swiftly moved to Russell Brand. Of course the right wing bigots who read this propaganda have got completely behind this (even though most of them had never listened or indeed heard of Russell Brand).
I think the Daily Mail should be taken out of circulation for spreading their vicious vendettas against people they deem to be overpaid or just not suitable for their middle aged, middle class, jobs worth readers.
I condemn their actions and hope they are now satisfied they have their pound of flesh. It will be somebody else next week and then they can start baying for blood again.
I hope all the money dear innocent little Georgina received from the Sun has made her very happy, but I fear this was more a case of it all being about her and rejection from Russell Brand, with whom she had a ‘relationship’ than anything else.
Complain about this comment
Badger fruit, in post #5 you seem to be miserably unaware that you are NOT forced to pay the TV licence fee. If you don't watch TV, as you claim, why on earth are you paying the fee?
Then in post #28, you seem convinced that what is on the other side is better. Maybe you think so, but since you apparently don't watch TV, one wonders how you formed this opinion.
Perhaps the Sun told you what to think?
Complain about this comment
Sir Michaell Lyons defended Ross's £6 million-a-year contract, saying it reflected the market rate and that some members of the public had told him the presenter was the reason they tuned in to the BBC.
What market rate? Where else can Ross go for that sort of money? And 'some members'? Was that three or four? Come on. And doesn't the BBC multiply by 100 every complaint to get a true picture of the depth of the complaint to include those offended but not bothering to call or write? If so the depth of offence over Ross/Brand was the equivalent of about 4 Million
And remember the thousands that protested over the Jerry Springer broadcast?
And what is the BBCs usual response to any complaint? Disinterested,indifferent patronising arrogant disdain. Except in this case they greatly underestimated the strength of public opinion. The BBC has become bloated and patronisingly arrogant and self indulgent. The Ross/Brand affair being just a latest example. Probably hugely overstaffed with all semblance of impartiality long ago sacrificed on the altar of a PC liberal ethos at one end and a cheap 'celebrityism' at the other, pandering to the lowest dumbed down common denominator. In any other customer service industry interfacing with the public Ross would have been sacked. It's time the BBC was severely reined in and it's budgets subjected to close external audit and scrutiny and made accountable on how it spends the public's money.
Complain about this comment
As a PS to my comment. I don't need the Daily Mail or any other newspaper to determine for me what I consider to be poor taste. So please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting otherwise or describing my views as bigoted.
And if you consider all of the left wing sewer so-called humour funny that is often described as 'edgey' , such as this, then you need help
As for those that find life dull without Ross/Brand? I suggest that you go out and get a life. Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
Royalalbertdock:
Oh dear what a terrible rant. This, unfortunately, is exactly what I have been commenting on.
The licence fee covers a huge amount of entertainment which you can’t even possibly get around to listening or watching. The BBC consistantly comes up with well made, informative, intelligent programmes, whether it be on the radio or TV.
It is just ludicous to suggest that the small amount paid in the licence fee gives everybody the right to suggest that people, who they deem unsuitable, aren’t worth their salary.
I don’t find Last of the Summer Wine remotely funny, but I have never been driven to complain about this as I know there are a section of the over 60s who do enjoy it and in the next hour there will be another programme which I will want to watch or listen to.
If you want dummed down ‘lite’ entertainment like Heartbeat or The Bill then I suggest you watch the other side and leave other programmes to those who do enjoy them.
I certainly miss downloading Russell’s radio programme and listening to it on my way to work. It was the only programme that consistantly made me laugh out loud and it was sometimes a joy to listen to his extremely intelligent dialogue, due of course to his superior language skills.
I hope he settles in the US so he doesn’t have to put up with the witch hunting and baying of the so called rightous right. I also wish him luck in his forthcoming Shakespeare film with Judy Dench.
I’m not even going to stoop as low as to comment on the ‘get a life’ phrase – so very common.
Complain about this comment
Jonathon Ross should be sacked now.
Complain about this comment
the aunties dilemma is going to be around because of many services, the bbc provides
Complain about this comment
@35...
why do you think that if a person isnt left wing...then he must be right wing.
ever heard of middle of the road?
now for devils advocate...why are accusations of being right wing used as attempts of censorship. 30years of hard left doctrine have left people afraid to speak on a range of subjects. The usual smears of facist, bnp or nf sympathiser are used endlessly to close down debate and indeed to suppress democratic expression.
the laughable part of this is that the hard left accuse any right wing thoughts as antidemocratic!!
maybe you could consider this,
Does having a love and belief in your country and heritage make a person right wing,
Does freedom of speech and action and democracy make a person right wing .
Does personal accountability and rejection of victim status make a person right wing
does a hatred of oppression of the weak make for right winger
does an expectation that visitors and immigrants should view their entry to this land as a privilage and not a right make a person right wing.
the belief that despite bankrupting and mortgageing this country to the U.S.A.and losing millions of its citizens in a war (ww2)that was fought to protect the freedom of other nations,that the right thing was done and if we had knew how much it would cost ,we would have done the same again,if that is the opinion of a right winger then
i am right wing.
but a nazi iam not.
i despise the likes of the bnp too,
but i also equally despise the country that i know only as home being systematically stripped of its identity and future by those who care more for their own agenda and image on the world stage, making decisions on this country that can never be reversed.
and i believe that the left wing is the major player in this destruction.
But it seems that where my opinions and those of the left wing differ so completly is this,
i respect the right of anyone to speak their opinions without any attempt at censorship or suppression.
Why does it seem not to be the case for the left wing?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS