David Mitchell's Offended by the BBC

[Servo]

I just didnt want you to think that just because I had not replied, that I had given up or worse had changed my mind.

as for Radio 2, I listen to it, but not shows I dont like, for example I wont listen to Chris Evans, and as you may have guessed I didnt listen to the Russel Brand show either.

and do I like that shows are being or are self censored, no I dont.

anyways im off now

Let me get this straight. You want to be informed about every little slip-up the BBC makes, so that you can then determine how offensive that is (to either you, or the people involved), so you can then moan on the internet about how your license fee is spent - a license fee that I know for a fact you will continue to pay, regardless of how offended you are - which will accomplish absolutely nothing?
And you also see nothing wrong with incidents like this being blown out of all proportion by the tabloids, turned into a media circus, and dragged out over a period of weeks, when it could have been done and dusted and forgotten about in a day, all so you can now feel "informed", and justify your own righteous indignation about an incident which does not affect your life in the slightest?



Oh, and as for what Mitchell had to say; fucking spot on mate.

 

[wamdue]

do I want to be informed of every little slip up? no I dont, I want to know about the major slip ups it makes, my remarks are about the Brand & Ross incident, not any of the others that have come to late since. I am sure there are many people who would find every episode of the Brand Radio 2 show offensive in some way, I am not one of those people, I didnt like it, but I never didnt like it enough to complain.

and when did I say I liked that the incidents were blown out of all proportion? the point is the people who pay for the BBC should know what its airing, what its doing with the money they give it.

 

[wamdue]

do I want to be informed of every little slip up? no I dont, I want to know about the major slip ups it makes, my remarks are about the Brand & Ross incident, not any of the others that have come to late since. I am sure there are many people who would find every episode of the Brand Radio 2 show offensive in some way, I am not one of those people, I didnt like it, but I never didnt like it enough to complain.

and when did I say I liked that the incidents were blown out of all proportion? the point is the people who pay for the BBC should know what its airing, what its doing with the money they give it.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

My god. Good thing you don't have Howard Stern in your country or you'd never get a moment's peace.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

My god. Good thing you don't have Howard Stern in your country or you'd never get a moment's peace.

Horward Stern was used to be broadcast on TV, no one cared. The thing that started it was the tabloids moaning about how public money was being spent... and stirred it all up. Basically, it was just a way to have some shit to fling at the BBC.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

do I want to be informed of every little slip up? no I dont, I want to know about the major slip ups it makes, my remarks are about the Brand & Ross incident, not any of the others that have come to late since. I am sure there are many people who would find every episode of the Brand Radio 2 show offensive in some way, I am not one of those people, I didnt like it, but I never didnt like it enough to complain.

and when did I say I liked that the incidents were blown out of all proportion? the point is the people who pay for the BBC should know what its airing, what its doing with the money they give it.

And they do know, you can listen for yourself if you care that much. The way I see it, if you didnt see it and you didn't hear it then you have no business being offended by it. If you hear about it, then check it out to see if it was offensive, then sure you have the right to be offended but why should you care if the people who are directly effected by it don't? And they do have a complaints department that have to look in to any complaint, and they have to stick to the rules or face fines. The news could inform you without turning it in to the dog and pony show they did.

 

[wamdue]

I think I have explained enough, why I should have an opinon on a show even if I have not watched it, and it would be impossible for me to monitor all of the BBCs output 24/7, I trust the media will some form bring any thing note worthy to my attention, I then decide if I approve of the fact the BBC did that, or if the press is over reacting, sadly at the moment must of it is over reaction.

but why should you care if the people who are directly effected by it don't?

I dont exactly recall Sachs being over the moon about it, and trying not to make it into a story, which does not mean he was not offended, it just means he didnt want to make it in a bigger story, that it already was.

 

[Servo]

do I want to be informed of every little slip up? no I dont, I want to know about the major slip ups it makes, my remarks are about the Brand & Ross incident, not any of the others that have come to late since. I am sure there are many people who would find every episode of the Brand Radio 2 show offensive in some way, I am not one of those people, I didnt like it, but I never didnt like it enough to complain.

and when did I say I liked that the incidents were blown out of all proportion? the point is the people who pay for the BBC should know what its airing, what its doing with the money they give it.

You can't have it both ways. Everything the BBC does is covered by the license fee, so you can't now cherry-pick which incidents are damnable, and which ones get swept under the rug because they're not newsworthy.

And no, you didn't specifically say that you liked these incidents being blown out of proportion, but the viewpoint you're putting forward here validates the fact that they are. You say you want to be informed about these incidents as a license fee payer, which in effect legitamises what the tabloids do. They can take a story like this and blow it out of proportion and drag it on for weeks, all in the name of informing the public. They then whip up a media storm about how the BBC is out of control, and how the "overpaid talent" is allowed to run wild and unchecked, creating virtual lynch mobs all over the place, and before you know it, the actual point is lost amid the cries of outrage from people who probably weren't even offended in the first place, who have been convinced that they should be offended by the tabloids. The irony being, once they've finished shouting and calling for the collective heads of the BBC, they'll probably all bugger off home and watch Eastenders.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I think I have explained enough, why I should have an opinon on a show even if I have not watched it, and it would be impossible for me to monitor all of the BBCs output 24/7, I trust the media will some form bring any thing note worthy to my attention, I then decide if I approve of the fact the BBC did that, or if the press is over reacting, sadly at the moment must of it is over reaction.

but why should you care if the people who are directly effected by it don't?

I dont exactly recall Sachs being over the moon about it, and trying not to make it into a story, which does not mean he was not offended, it just means he didnt want to make it in a bigger story, that it already was.

But he had the ability to complain about it, and get an investigation started.

 

[wamdue]

so you can't now cherry-pick which incidents are damnable, and which ones get swept under the rug because they're not newsworthy.

of course some incidents are more damnable than others.

They can take a story like this and blow it out of proportion and drag it on for weeks, all in the name of informing the public.

as you said "in the name of" its not my fault the press behave like they do, even a serious story is blown up, and over used, but that doesn't make the original story wrong.

who have been convinced that they should be offended

that is not me, I can take a valid approach to these things, for example I got a leaflet in the post recently informing me about two new developments where I lived, the leaflet strongly suggested that I should be angry about it, but you know what I looked up the planning applications online, and despite the fact I agree with some of the view points, like the extra traffic, I will not be putting a complaint in about the plans to the local council.

The irony being, once they've finished shouting and calling for the collective heads of the BBC, they'll probably all bugger off home and watch Eastenders.

of course they do, its where they will get there next story from

At the end of the day I think what Brand & Ross did was wrong, and im glad the press acts as an outside force to help regulate the BBC, even if they go about it in the wrong way.

 

[wamdue]

I think I have explained enough, why I should have an opinon on a show even if I have not watched it, and it would be impossible for me to monitor all of the BBCs output 24/7, I trust the media will some form bring any thing note worthy to my attention, I then decide if I approve of the fact the BBC did that, or if the press is over reacting, sadly at the moment must of it is over reaction.

but why should you care if the people who are directly effected by it don't?

I dont exactly recall Sachs being over the moon about it, and trying not to make it into a story, which does not mean he was not offended, it just means he didnt want to make it in a bigger story, that it already was.

But he had the ability to complain about it, and get an investigation started.

and there is no way that would have turned into a news circus.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I think I have explained enough, why I should have an opinon on a show even if I have not watched it, and it would be impossible for me to monitor all of the BBCs output 24/7, I trust the media will some form bring any thing note worthy to my attention, I then decide if I approve of the fact the BBC did that, or if the press is over reacting, sadly at the moment must of it is over reaction.

I dont exactly recall Sachs being over the moon about it, and trying not to make it into a story, which does not mean he was not offended, it just means he didnt want to make it in a bigger story, that it already was.

But he had the ability to complain about it, and get an investigation started.

and there is no way that would have turned into a news circus.

Possibly, but at least it would have been because an aggrieved party made a complaint, and not because some piece of shit rag news paper decided to kick up a fuss that until that point no one cared about.

 

[wamdue]

But he had the ability to complain about it, and get an investigation started.

and there is no way that would have turned into a news circus.

Possibly, but at least it would have been because an aggrieved party made a complaint, and not because some piece of shit rag news paper decided to kick up a fuss that until that point no one cared about.

or that until then no one knew about.

 

[Servo]

At the end of the day I think what Brand & Ross did was wrong, and im glad the press acts as an outside force to help regulate the BBC, even if they go about it in the wrong way.

But they don't serve as an outside force to help regulate the BBC. They are self serving, and probably couldn't give a fuck about the BBC's output beyond using any little thing as a way of selling newspapers. All they do is blow things out of proportion, which in turn makes the programming comissioners more wary of what they allow to be broadcast, tighten restrictions, leading to the general dumbing down of television. And exactly who suffers as a result of this? The viewers. The same viewers who, week in, week out, are complaining that TV is shit.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

and there is no way that would have turned into a news circus.

Possibly, but at least it would have been because an aggrieved party made a complaint, and not because some piece of shit rag news paper decided to kick up a fuss that until that point no one cared about.

or that until then no one knew about.

Which is exactly my point, no one cared, no one heard it, so where did the thousands of complaints come from? They came from the paper stirring it up with the unedited, unaired version, which no one but Sachs himself, and the people involved should have heard.

 

[wamdue]

and ive already said that im not happy with how the press do it.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

and ive already said that im not happy with how the press do it.

But you want them to do it even more, with every little thing, so the public can decide whether "their" licence fee money is well spent.

 

[Servo]

and ive already said that im not happy with how the press do it.

But you're happy with the end result?

 

[wamdue]

Possibly, but at least it would have been because an aggrieved party made a complaint, and not because some piece of shit rag news paper decided to kick up a fuss that until that point no one cared about.

or that until then no one knew about.

Which is exactly my point, no one cared, no one heard it, so where did the thousands of complaints come from? They came from the paper stirring it up with the unedited, unaired version, which no one but Sachs himself, and the people involved should have heard.

it does not mean the BBC was right to do it in the first place.

gees this is driving me crazy, I am normally someone who considers himself pro BBC, but in this case I think they did wrong, and whilst what did happen was over blown, it was right that something was said, and that people were made of aware of it. I know Russel Brand ive heard enough of his show, to know that he would have done the same thing again & again if no one had said anything, and the BBC would probaly have let him do it. The Russel Brand audience such as they are would have lapped it up, as they seem to whatever he does, and no one would have complained, but that does not mean that it was right to make that phone call in the first place. Its like saying that becasue you said something racist to a crowd of racist, just because no one complained about racism (they wouldn't as the audience was racist) it wasnt wrong that you said that.

The BBC is given a huge amount of money, and requires public opinon to help decide how to spend the money, if someone at the BBC thought it was ok to spend the money in that way, the BBC needs to be told that it is not ok to spend the money in that way.

I would have been quite happy if Brand had been fired, and nothing more was said about it.

 

[wamdue]

and ive already said that im not happy with how the press do it.

But you want them to do it even more, with every little thing, so the public can decide whether "their" licence fee money is well spent.

I want the press to not print the little mistakes that the BBC makes, and to focus on the big ones it makes.

and ive already said that im not happy with how the press do it.

But you're happy with the end result?

no I am not happy with how the press conducted itself in this matter, but I am happy the incident was bought to wider attention, than just Russel Brand & his fans.