UK News
Insights from the UK and beyond
Should the BBC allow swearing on air?
******In reaction to an independent BBC review on taste and standards commissioned after offensive comments about actor Andrew Sachs created a public outcry, the BBC Trust has said that the most offensive language should only be used in “exceptional circumstances” on BBC One between 9 and 10 p.m.******Editorial guidelines should clarify that BBC should not make programmes that “celebrate or condone gratuitous, aggressive, intrusive and humiliating behaviour,” the Trust ruled, recognizing that “licence fee payers can distinguish between comedy and satire, which they appreciate, and unjustified humiliation, of which they disapprove.” ******The study, which polled 2,700 participants, finds that viewers don’t want more censorship or regulation.******”Most people value the creativity of the BBC and accept it may sometimes result in people being offended.”******What do you think? Should BBC allow swearing on air?
BBC scandals — the saga continues
Updated to include Jeremy Clarkson’s statement of apology
Another day, another scandal at the BBC. Earlier this week the Beeb announced that Carol Thatcher will no longer work on The One Show after she was reported for an off-air remark. The daughter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher referred to a tennis player as a “golliwog”.
Now Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has landed the network in hot water yet again. Speaking to journalists in Sydney, the host reportedly called Gordon Brown a “one-eyed Scottish idiot”. The prime minister lost the sight in one eye when he was a teenager and Scottish politicians are furious at the remark.
Clarkson is no stranger to controversy. Late last year the BBC received 1,800 complaints when Clarkson made a joke about lorry drivers murdering prostitutes following the conviction of Steve Wright in Ipswich.
The outspoken presenter has since apologised, saying: “In the heat of the moment I made a remark about the Prime Minister’s personal appearance for which, upon reflection, I apologise.” The BBC has said that it will take no further action.
This of course follows the scandal involving talk show host Jonathan Ross and radio presenter Russell Brand, which engulfed the BBC in October last year. The pair made several prank calls to Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs on Brand’s Radio 2 show. Brand quit the BBC and Ross was suspended for three months following the affair.
Despite announcing strict new taste guidelines, gaffes like these are becoming commonplace at the BBC. DJ Chris Moyles has had to apologise for making jokes about Auschwitz, suggesting that Poles make good prostitutes and making fun of singer Will Young’s sexuality. Elsewhere, comedian Harry Enfield sparked controversy in October 2008 after a skit in one of his television shows led to the Philippine ambassador to London accusing him of racism.
There’s a difference between things that are completely unfunny and in extremely bad taste aired on national television or radio, and throwaway remarks reflecting people’s personal opinions, however abrasive. If Jeremy Clarkson had referred to the PM as that “handsome and devilishly canny Scot” we would all be screaming that he had exposed himself to be a charlatan and a fraud. Let’s not get too precious about this.
Has “Auntie” got it right?
After a week of media frenzy, the BBC hopes it has taken action to end the crisis caused by the crude prank call made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand on the latter’s Radio 2 show.
Brand has quit and Jonathan Ross has been suspended after the presenters left lewd comments on the answerphone of 78-year-old “Fawlty Towers” actor Andrew Sachs. The head of Radio 2 Lesley Douglas has also resigned.
The outcome it would appear has left no one happy. Most commentators feel the BBC took far too long to act on an issue that had clearly angered the public with more than 30,000 people making a complaint.
Many newspapers feel Douglas was unjustly sacrificed, taking the rap for mistakes made by production staff she had little or nothing to do with. The Daily Mirror said she was a “big loss to weak BBC”.
What it means for the BBC is unclear. Its governing body, the BBC Trust, says lessons must be learned and editorial guidelines tightened without jeopardising creativity and “edgy” programmes.
Those like the Daily Mail, a regular critic of the broadcaster, want the corporation to go further, citing other “highly offensive” jokes, including one about the Queen, that have appeared on the BBC since the row erupted.
Others worry that fear of causing offence will make the BBC safe and irrelevant.
“who will watch him now” asked Offended of Tunbridge Wells.
Well I will, for one. And so will the millions of people who used to enjoy watching him before the mindless hordes of vacuous Daily Mail readers got onto their blue-rinse bandwagon. Those professionally-offended minority will not dictate to the quiet and sensible majority what we watch or listen to.
Hard as it may be for them to believe, but they speak for nobody but themselves, and I find their presumption that they in some way speak for the country simultaneously insulting and worrying.
Thatcher’s dead, get over it. (You mean she’s not? Ah well, another week or so…)
BBC row highlights “bad-mannered Britain”
The furore over offensive phone calls made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand to actor Andrew Sachs shows how society has forgotten how to behave itself, the Independent said in an editorial.
“Exactly what has happened to good manners and basic courtesy,” it asked on its leader page. “And isn’t it time they made a return?
The episode casts Britain in a “very shabby light” and raised the question: should a public service broadcaster employ such individuals, the paper added.
The incident was “ugly, cheap and nasty” and highlights a wider issue of falling standards in modern broadcasting, wrote John Harris in a column for the Guardian.
“Perhaps the spectral presence of Mary Whitehouse has hung around our discourse on broadcasting for too long,” he wrote. “Agreeing that too much TV is getting ever more coarse and idiotic doesn’t strike me as a sop to the authoritarian right.”
The Times used its august leader columns to discuss the incident under the headline “A Sorry Affair”, the same headline used by its sister paper The Sun in its “Sun Says” column.
Jonathan Ross should now do the decent thing and resign as well. At least Russell Brand has had the decency to apologise and back this up with a resignation. This has gone some way in the eyes of many to restore his standing.
Neither are my personal taste in entertainment but they obviously entertain some and will, no doubt, find some way of making enough to live on!
-
The Wall
Some of the views expressed in these comments about others in society (“the great unwashed”, “common people”) are far more offensive than the use of swearing, and should give more cause for concern about the state and future of our society. I’d worry less about children growing up using the f-word, and more about them growing learning from the example of Messrs Schwartz and Davis up to look down upon others.The same rules and standards should apply to all broadcasters, publicly-funded or otherwise. The 9pm watershed should be respected, but I think the most severe swearing should probably be held for after 10pm, maybe later.To Mr/Ms Franklin – the reason you should change the channels is because you have the freedom to do so, and avoid the swearing by only affecting yourself. For you to have it your way affects and restricts the freedom of all the other people, who are not offended by swearing, who want to be able to view programmes, and cannot because of you. That’s why censorship should always be reserved for the most severe, and legitimately dangerous, material.