David Mitchell's Offended by the BBC

[Servo]

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.

Why? So that everyone and their grandmother could join in the public bashing of the BBC, Ross, and Brand? What purpose does that serve exactly?

You said you were glad that the press acted to help regulate the BBC, even though their method was questionable. I'm saying that they don't act as an aid to the BBC's regulation. All they've done is inflame the situation to the point where the BBC was backed into a corner, and the point was completely lost. Nothing good can come of it at all. It's a slippery slope, leading to a corporation that is scared to take risks and push boundaries, for fear of offending anyone.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I don't think anyone is saying they were right to air it, but you can't blame the entire corporation for the mistakes of a couple of producers and editors.
Like I said, if Sachs had a problem and complained they could have ended up with the same result without all the bollocks. He didn't complain, so why the fuss? Seems to me that you either let them get on with their jobs, and trust the system to give them a slap on the wrist when they need it, or you want informing of every single mistake so you can tut and feel some moral indignation about it.

 

[wamdue]

well if the BBC is not going to do anything about these incidents then something is going to have to be done, the Russel Brand show is pre record, the BBC had a chance to edit it, but they did not, they had a chance not to put it on air, they missed that to, which suggests that the BBC saw nothing wrong in what Brand was doing.

this kind of thing is what I expect from Brand, but I didnt expect that the BBC would let him get away with it, and it would seem that since they aired it, they were happy to let him.

and I agree, that the press acting as an outside regulator is not an ideal solution, im glad there is something that can do that, the press just go about it in the wrong way.

Nothing good can come of it at all. It's a slippery slope, leading to a corporation that is scared to take risks and push boundaries, for fear of offending anyone.

and I dont want that either, but since this incident went out on air, it seems clear that the BBC does need to look at what its doing, and if some of its people were doing there jobs.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

You're saying "The BBC" like the entire £3bn corporation is a single entity, when in reality each station and channel has different people in control, different guidelines and each show has different producers and everything. Some producers made a mistake, complaints were made, it would have been investigated regardless, but then the tabloids had to make a fuss, and turn it in to a media circus. The BBC and OFCOM have procedures in place for regulating these things, and when they fuck up they try to do something about it.

 

[wamdue]

the entire BBC is funded in the same way, and all of those different people are paid by the BBC, and covered by the same BBC Charter, so yes the same BBC.

and yes I have said the press went over the top, but im glad I heard about this incident, but I would have liked it if it was just a new article on Digital Spy about OFCOM starting an investigating, and another one where we find out the result of the investigation, yes the press went over the top, but these investigations should be in public.

 

[Servo]

and I agree, that the press acting as an outside regulator is not an ideal solution, im glad there is something that can do that, the press just go about it in the wrong way.

You're missing the point entirely. The press DO NOT act as an outside regulator. Their only agenda is to sell newspapers, and they will sensationalise anything and everything to the Nth degree in order to do that. There are regulatory bodies set up to investigate things like the Brand/Ross incident already, it IS NOT the tabloids job to do that.
I doubt any of the papers had the intention of acting as a regulator, and they didn't do it for anything as noble as informing the public - although they would claim that they did. They did it to sell papers, and they don't care how much shit they stir up in order to achieve that.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

And they are. You can go look at the BBC's complaints page, and Trust to see the reports, also OFCOMs web site. Often when they're complete even when they find no wrong doing they have an explanation on air somewhere.

And are you so naive as to think that in a corporation that size it is easy to treat the people in there as if they act as one, and have oversight in place on 1000s of hours of programming, just in case the people who are already there to catch these things slip up?

I'd far rather the BBC have a free hand, and run the risk of being offended once in a while, than having a shit scared BBC who have guide lines in place stopping their talent from doing anything the slightest bit risqué.

 

[wamdue]

The producers should be the kind of people who can over see themselves, based on BBC guildlines, and I think they should be more visible than people having to go to the BBC or Ofcom website.

Radio 2 should not have given Brand carte blanche to do whatever he wanted, they know he is going to say something that some may find offensive, and most of the time he probaly didn't cross the line far enough for it to be a major issue, what I dont understand is why it was allowed to air.

If the BBC had cut it from the program, said sorry to Sachs, punished Brand in some way, and all sides presented a united front when they owned up, the press would have had a couple of days of something to print, but we would have seen that the BBC can take care of these things itself, the story would have been over before it began.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

And so what if someone says something offensive? I don't care if people say offensive things, not even using my licence fee to do it. In fact, I'd prefer that the BBC allow all different points of view to be broadcast no matter if they think it might cause offence.
Russell Brand was an extremely popular presenter, as is Ross, their audience expect a certain level of edginess to them, and personally I say fine.
So they crossed the line, so the producer made a mistake, she was fired, brand quit, Ross suspended, the people responsible did get punished. Which would have likely happened anyway after they got investigated. Actually, no probably not, it was an over-reaction caused by the papers, probably they would have both been suspended, and the producer disciplined, which is basically all that really needed doing.
You can't give the excuse of "Well it's my licence fee money" because it's the licence fee money of the people who like them too, and they have just as much right to hear/see things they enjoy as you do.
So there was a mistake made, and editorial guidelines crossed. So? It isn't like anyone got physically hurt, and the people directly involved had the ability to complain or bring it in to the public eye, they chose not to, and to me that's all that should really matter.

 

[Deckerd]

I remember for a few days after Wossie came out of purdah, the press were jumping on every single joke he made. They quickly realised that nobody gave a shit and went on to frenzy feed on someone else. Wossie is paid almost 100% by his BBC work, whereas Russell Brand has made a highly successful stand up tour based around one night's intemperate behaviour on a Radio Show. How many outraged press columns have you seen about that? Anyone who thinks the press or the politicians give a flying fuck about moral standards in broadcasting is nuts.

 

[captcalhoun]

1. the ross and brand thing was stupid.

2. it should never have been broadcast

3. saying that though, the Mail's shitstorm was wrong and i said that at the time, it was ridiculous the way people were complaining about something a week later and that they never heard.

4. i thought they had a point about making R&B pay the fine, but looking at it like Mitchell does that the beeb saved more money than the fine by suspending Ross and Brand resigning, it doesn't seem so bad.

5. the best part of the press hoo-ha was when the Mirror's columnist Polly Hudson said that Georgina would wind up in Zoo or Nuts in a photoshoot and she was. one week later.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^The point in these sorts of fines though is to keep broadcasters with in the rules, not the talent, the talent are supposed to be kept within the rules by the producers/execs from the broadcaster.
It'd be like you doing something for your employer, which your line manager allowed you to do, and their head of department allowed them to do, then the company getting a fine for it not meeting standards and your company making you pay for it.