David Mitchell's Offended by the BBC

[Bob The Skutter]

I'm not sure that I shouldn't have put this in TNZ, because if it gets discussed it's bound to have a political side to it.

I have to say I absolutely agree with him, and I wish someone would stand up for the BBC, and for the freedom of expression that should be had.

From The Guardian

I was deeply offended by something on the BBC recently. It wasn't Clare Balding laying into a jockey's teeth, but this time with a cricket bat, or Frankie Boyle's 10 best jokes about the Queen's genitals, or even a repeat of Diana's funeral with an added laugh track. No, it was a new low.


It was Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, eliciting a round of applause on Any Questions for suggesting that Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand should pay the BBC's "Sachsgate" Ofcom fine. The rest of the panel bravely agreed with her.


"Well, you would be offended by that!" you may be thinking. "You work in television and radio. I don't suppose you like the idea of having to foot the bill if something you say appals the nation!" That's true, but we live in the era of the subjective offendee and my complaint is just as valid as those made about jokes involving dead dogs by viewers who say their dog has recently died.


As an insider, I can tell you that such opinions are deferred to by the post-Sachsgate BBC. Everything is scrutinised for potential offence by jumpy "compliance" staff who endure no professional setback if the comedy output ceases to be funny. They have the right to do this because they're ultimately responsible for what's broadcast - their organisation pays the Ofcom fine.


But it strikes me that, if I'm going to have to pay the fine, they no longer have the right to censor the content. And it's all academic anyway; if things continue as they are, TV comedies will only ever get fined for blandness.


Let me try to fake some objectivity and seriously address Blears's suggestion, which has since been reiterated by Jack Straw and Tessa Jowell. She says it's unjust that the fine comes out of the licence fee, paid for by everyone, so instead the wrongdoers should pay.


There are only four problems I can instantly think of with this. First, this idea of a net cost to the licence fee payer is nonsense; Ross was suspended for three months, saving the BBC £1.5m, and Brand resigned, saving it £200,000 a year. So the licence fee payer is well up on the deal and Ross and Brand have each taken a greater hit than the corporation will.

 

[captcalhoun]

what are the other three reasons?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Here's most of the rest of the article

Second, Blears defines the wrong-doers as only Ross and Brand and gives the BBC's producers and executives no share of the blame. This is grossly unfair. The offending segment was pre-recorded. As a sick comedian myself, I genuinely understand how they could improvise something that offensive in that context. But I cannot understand why the station chose to broadcast it. So the then channel controller, among others, is at least as much at fault. But she's not as rich, so suggesting she pays a massive fine is a less applausey route for Blears to take.

Third, Blears says that regulators' fines are supposed to hurt those responsible and that, in this instance, there was "no sense they're going to be hurt". I don't know whether the fine will hurt the BBC or whether it would particularly hurt Brand and Ross if they paid it, but how can she possibly think that the fallout from the whole business hasn't hurt that institution and those men?

Barely a day goes by when the press doesn't pillory them as a result and the announcement of this fine has given it another splendid opportunity, as have Blears's remarks. Far from the arrogant, unaccountable elite that it's portrayed as, the BBC is now a quivering shell, rattling with neurotics. The only truth in her statement is that even losing £150,000 could barely make it more miserable.
And fourth, the law requires that the BBC pay the fine rather than individuals. This is not a law that Blears, Straw or Jowell has ever queried before. But they're willing to come out against it for a short-term popularity boost for a beleaguered government - for an egg-cup sized bailer on the Titanic, for one round of applause.

That's what I really despise: the political opportunism. How long do these ministers imagine the friendships in the rabblerousing tabloids that they are so buying will last? And the price is high; they're supporting a campaign to associate the BBC, its comedians and producers - my whole profession - with all that is offensive, smug and self-serving; to encourage millions who are justifiably angry or afraid, who imagine a mugger in every hoodie, who fear for their jobs and houses or have lost both, to associate the causes of that fear and anger with entertainment and, of all things, the BBC.

The BBC is an institution of genius, one of the great achievements of the 20th century. It's famed for its news reporting, drama, comedy and documentaries; it provides the best radio stations and website on Earth. But there is a plot to destroy it; a plot to which Ross and Brand's childish remarks gave an unwitting but enormous boost; a plot led by people who say they support the BBC but not the licence fee, by people who find the word "fuck" more offensive than Holocaust denial. By its competitors.

The newspapers that take every opportunity to knock the corporation do so because they're in the same market and the BBC is the market leader. They can't dominate that market while the BBC exists in its current form because what they provide is so risibly inferior - the licence fee costs less than a daily tabloid newspaper. So they lobby for its destruction and whinge about the profit made by its commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, neglecting to mention how much money that saves the licence fee payer.

Without the BBC, they'd make more money, even if the whole nation would be left comparatively uneducated, unentertained and uninformed. Their argument is the moral equivalent of private hospitals campaigning against the existence of the NHS. And last week, three members of a Labour government joined in.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I still resent having to pay the license to fund the BBC. I really don't care how wonderful some people think it is. I'm subsidising their adoration.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

But you don't resent subsidising everything else on telly every time you buy something from the shops?

 

[Starkers]

As always David Mitchell talks a lot of sense, frankly if someone in the BBC had said 'You know what this is a bit over the line, let's not broadcast it.' then none of this would have happened.

For me phoning up an old man to tell him you fucked his grand daughter is unacceptable, but having said that the vitreol over this needs to end now. I'm no great fan of Brand, but I thought his comment that maybe Blears, Straw and co should pay for the billions wasted in Iraq was spot on.

As for the licence fee, I'm happy to pay it. I'm not always thrilled with what the BBC does, but a world without the BBC would be terrible. ITV is terrible, Channel 5 I only watch for the Mentalist and CSI, Channel 4 are dying and whilst Sky and Virgin are great for US shows their home grown output is 85% speed camera action type bollocks!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^I agree. Sure it was stupid, puerile and should have never aired, but no one would have heard the thing if it wasn't for the Mail kicking up a fuss a week later. Obviously no one cared enough to make a complaint, until the papers started the shit slinging. Not even Manuel himself.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

But you don't resent subsidising everything else on telly every time you buy something from the shops?

That's capitalism for you, I guess. Something with which the BBC should be made familiar.

 

[Starkers]

But you don't resent subsidising everything else on telly every time you buy something from the shops?

That's capitalism for you, I guess. Something with which the BBC should be made familiar.

Isn't it nice that there are at least a few channels where the programme isn't interuppted every 10 minutes so someone can try and sell us nappies or pizzas or flipping stool softener (its true I saw the add Friday night!!)?

And isn't it good that there's one channel whose Raison d'etre isn't just to make money? Who will go out of their way to make shows that won't appeal to the masses? Who don't feel that every show needs Ant and Dec?

I do think the licence fee could be trimmed down, the BBC is carrying a lot of fat, IMO at least, but trust me, most people would miss it if it wasn't there.

^I agree. Sure it was stupid, puerile and should have never aired, but no one would have heard the thing if it wasn't for the Mail kicking up a fuss a week later. Obviously no one cared enough to make a complaint, until the papers started the shit slinging. Not even Manuel himself.

Well I can understand why Sachs didn't want to make a big deal of it. Just because people didn't complain at the time it doesn't make it acceptable, and the BBC probably need to realise that twatty papers like the Mail are just waiting for things like this.

 

[wamdue]

I am a big fan of the BBC, and don't have any major objections to the licence fee, even when they use it to make shows I don't like, I dont normally consider it a waste of my licence fee. BBC 3 comes close to that line sometimes, "My life as an animal" WTF?

to be frank I watch nearly 4 hours of the BBC last night, and plenty during the week, so im quite happy with it.

 

[Ethros]

Sums up Question Time, a load of useless politicians just pandering to the audience, and then doing nothing whatsoever about it

ITV is terrible, Channel 5 I only watch for the Mentalist and CSI...

Never seen The Mentalist but I see it advertised a lot. It always just makes think of that classic Alan Partridge moment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV8tciBFpCI


My friend and I say that when we plan to go out "we'll have that pint"

 

[Starkers]

But you don't resent subsidising everything else on telly every time you buy something from the shops?

That's capitalism for you, I guess. Something with which the BBC should be made familiar.

Sums up Question Time, a load of useless politicians just pandering to the audience, and then doing nothing whatsoever about it

ITV is terrible, Channel 5 I only watch for the Mentalist and CSI...

Never seen the mentalist but I see it advertised a lot. But it always just makes think of that classic Alan Partridge moment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV8tciBFpCI

Hah ah, that's funny!

Question Time is like that some of the time, but occasionally the politicians don't play to the crowd. Few weeks ago I think it was Ken Clarke and Vince Cable (but could be wrong) both disagreed with the notion that you should scrap the prescription charge (making the point that ok sure you can do it, but the 5million it raises has to come from somewhere)

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^I agree. Sure it was stupid, puerile and should have never aired, but no one would have heard the thing if it wasn't for the Mail kicking up a fuss a week later. Obviously no one cared enough to make a complaint, until the papers started the shit slinging. Not even Manuel himself.

Well I can understand why Sachs didn't want to make a big deal of it. Just because people didn't complain at the time it doesn't make it acceptable, and the BBC probably need to realise that twatty papers like the Mail are just waiting for things like this.

I'm not saying it made it acceptable, I'm saying that it obviously didn't offend people listening too much, and the people who consequently complained only ever heard it because of the mail... and the version the mail had wasn't the version that aired... So while Wossy and Brand were in the wrong, and their editor/producers/etc. didn't do their jobs, the papers managed to kick up a fuss that wasn't warranted.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

But you don't resent subsidising everything else on telly every time you buy something from the shops?

That's capitalism for you, I guess. Something with which the BBC should be made familiar.

Isn't it nice that there are at least a few channels where the programme isn't interuppted every 10 minutes so someone can try and sell us nappies or pizzas or flipping stool softener (its true I saw the add Friday night!!)?

And isn't it good that there's one channel whose Raison d'etre isn't just to make money? Who will go out of their way to make shows that won't appeal to the masses? Who don't feel that every show needs Ant and Dec?

I do think the licence fee could be trimmed down, the BBC is carrying a lot of fat, IMO at least, but trust me, most people would miss it if it wasn't there.

To tell the truth, everything is so now dumbed down, including documentaries and especially the news, and the so-called drama is such lowest common denominator pablum, that I've been toying with the idea of doing without TV altogether, apart from watching DVDs and legal downloads, for which I undertstand a license is not required. Unfortunately, the TV licensing bureau fascists do not believe that anyone in the land of Gordon the Moron can possibly exist without broadcast TV.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

That's capitalism for you, I guess. Something with which the BBC should be made familiar.

Isn't it nice that there are at least a few channels where the programme isn't interuppted every 10 minutes so someone can try and sell us nappies or pizzas or flipping stool softener (its true I saw the add Friday night!!)?

And isn't it good that there's one channel whose Raison d'etre isn't just to make money? Who will go out of their way to make shows that won't appeal to the masses? Who don't feel that every show needs Ant and Dec?

I do think the licence fee could be trimmed down, the BBC is carrying a lot of fat, IMO at least, but trust me, most people would miss it if it wasn't there.

To tell the truth, everything is so now dumbed down, including documentaries and especially the news, and the so-called drama is such lowest common denominator pablum, that I've been toying with the idea of doing without TV altogether, apart from watching DVDs and legal downloads, for which I undertstand a license is not required. Unfortunately, the TV licensing bureau fascists do not believe that anyone in the land of Gordon the Moron can possibly exist without broadcast TV.

You don't need a licence to watch dvds, or download/streams, but you do need one to watch any live streamed TV.
And I believe the recent report from the Trust has said that they need to emphasise catching dodgers, while making it easier for people who really don't need a licence tell them that, and loosen up with the threatening letters.

 

[Ethros]

Didn't they have that Ferne Britton on Question Time the other week? Slagging off men, saying if women were in charge there'd be no money problems?

Fuck me...


Who will they have on next? Roy Chubby Brown? Saying its all the gooks and wogs fault?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

You don't need a licence to watch dvds, or download/streams, but you do need one to watch any live streamed TV.
And I believe the recent report from the Trust has said that they need to emphasise catching dodgers, while making it easier for people who really don't need a licence tell them that, and loosen up with the threatening letters.

That's good to know -- I can live without access to live TV. However, there has recently been talk about introducing an additional license for broadband access. That's nuts -- can't they just levy a charge from the ISPs proportional to a user's data usage? Otherwise, it's just another poll tax.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Didn't they have that Ferne Britton on Question Time the other week? Slagging off men, saying if women were in charge there'd be no money problems?

Fuck me...


Who will they have on next? Roy Chubby Brown? Saying its all the gooks and wogs fault?

Yeah, she did. If a bloke went on saying something similar they'd have been slagged off as sexist all over the papers and news the next day.
Jim Davidson, Prince Philip and Roy Chubby Brown on a panel would be worthy entertainment.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

You don't need a licence to watch dvds, or download/streams, but you do need one to watch any live streamed TV.
And I believe the recent report from the Trust has said that they need to emphasise catching dodgers, while making it easier for people who really don't need a licence tell them that, and loosen up with the threatening letters.

That's good to know -- I can live without access to live TV. However, there has recently been talk about introducing an additional license for broadband access. That's nuts -- can't they just levy a charge from the ISPs proportional to a user's data usage? Otherwise, it's just another poll tax.

That isn't exactly true. There is talk of needing a licence if you use your broadband to watch live TV streams, and possibly using licence fee money to plug the gap of the national broadband coverage in the areas BT won't cover.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

That isn't exactly true. There is talk of needing a licence if you use your broadband to watch live TV streams, and possibly using licence fee money to plug the gap of the national broadband coverage in the areas BT won't cover.

OK, it sounds like they'll be snooping to see where the live streams are going. That'll mean they'll need some way to correlate IP addresses with real-world addresses. I assume they'll use packet sniffing to see what's going to which address -- lots of scope there for invasion of privacy.