Give me smut and nothing but!

[brightlywoven]

 OK, so most of the BBC Ross/Brand commentary is exceedingly boring. Stupid idea, and not funny. But how many of the people complaining would actually ever have been listening to the show? Essentially the whole storm seems to have been brewed up in order
a) for boring people to have something to whine about (see http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/ for the long history of this)
b) for the conservatives to undermine public broadcasting on the flimsiest of pretexts.
c) both

I was unimpressed to hear the chairman of the BBC trust complaining about programs on the beeb sailing close to the wind (in general) around 'young and impressionable' listeners, and declaring this must stop. Thinking about the level of (albeit clever) smut on radio 4 programs like ISIHAC, it's clear that the debate about censorship hasn't advanced much since the obscenity trial of Lady Chatterley's Lover, where the prosecuting QC asked the jury 'would you allow your wife or even your servants to read this book'. That is to say, no of course such material doesn't corrupt *me* but won't you *please* think of the children???

Comments

[dr-biscuit.livejournal.com]

My problem is that several issues get mixed up into a frothing incoherent rage. Overpaid? Unfunny? Twerps? All these things may be true. I've never listened to them enough (at all) to know. But they certainly do seem to appeal to their audience. The fact that there were only 2 complaints in the week after the show suggest their audience weren't fussed by the prank (though I agree it was tasteless and offensive to the persons involved).

To my mind the person with a right to complain here is Andrew Sachs, and to a lesser extent his granddaughter. He's said he's prepared to accept their apologies and doesn't want to take it further. She wants blood, but then again, she's also just hired a new publicist, and perhaps there's a motive here involving her own career?

But to segue from that to taking the line 'we have to protect our vulnerable children' (which was the particular argument on the Today Show I really took issue with) is I think using the event as a flimsy excuse. The arguments I heard were about the level of 'filth' and how it had to be addressed. There's plenty of 'highbrow' filth on the bbc that doesn't attract this opprobrium, and I really do think it comes down to a class issue.

And to use the event as a 'reason' for dismantling public broadcasting is, I think, blatant opportunism.

[the-marquis.livejournal.com]

Actually I'd also consider two complaints as indicating that the listenership isn't very large anyway, despite what people might say in surveys.

As for the grandaughter, well she was slagged off and so has every right to get pissy.

Like you I fail to see the link to protecting kids, other than "here's a line we can use to get general approval of our evil schemes" - unless someone can show a lot of kids listen. And do they mean under 5s, under 10s, under 15s? I think the latter are being viciously undermined with this sort of thinking anyway. FFS when are they supposed to grow up into young adults: miraculously overnight on their birthday?

And yes I'm with you on the opportunism - I think the head hoincho who's left should have done the modern managemnet thing and sacked the underlings responsible but there's more afoot than we wot.