Posts Tagged ‘russell brand’

Hypocritical BBC viewers must be stopped

November 19th, 2008

Quite often I find myself getting very irate with BBC viewers. Charlie Brooker summed it up beautifully last night when he said that there needs to be a counter complaint procedure allowing normal people to cancel out the actions of easily-offended, over-excitable humourphobes. 40,000 complaints about Ross/Brand, but no way to support them. Is that fair? I don’t think it is.

Complaints processes are necessary to give viewers a voice. But, as Charlie explained so eloquently, it seems that viewers seem to view their television schedules as a reality TV vote, complaining-off any shows they’re not too keen on, whether they watch them or not.

I agree with Charlie when he suggests that if viewers have the right to complain, they should also have the right to uncomplain. After all, there is no official method of praising a program. In reality TV terms, it would be the same as voting for someone to stay in — rather that just being able to boot them out.

Charlie’s thoughts were obviously comical, but I think the point is serious. We can’t let the vocal BBC complaint-brigade, giddy with power, to dictate who keeps their job and who doesn’t. They’re too hypocritical.

Take the Have Your Say forum, for instance. Right now, it’s alight with comments about John Sergeant quitting Strictly. Here are the top comments, as voted for by Have Your Say readers:

Of course not. The public should decide, and we have decided to keep him in.

Does anyone really believe that this has not happened as a result of the overpayed judges making threats to the producers and John being forced to quit, despite what he is saying publicly.

Yet another disgraceful editorial error from the BBC with the public face and the viewer suffering the consequences.

Daniel Porter Jones, London, United Kingdom

Sergreant succumbed to bullying and age discrimination sanctioned by the BBC. What a shame!

Ellie, London

What a shame John feels he has to leave Strictly. I feel totally cheated after all the votes I’ve cast. The programme shouldn’t invite people on if it doesn’t accept the public could vote an ‘entertainer’ to win over a dancer. That’s it – no more votes from me on Strictly.

K Rogers, Wootton Bassett

In contrast, here’s the top comments from the debate after Daniel’s exit from X-Factor last week:

Who Cares?

EU equals, Extremely Useless

Get a life !!!!

These programmes are total rubbish.

Matt Lamb, Portsmouth, United Kingdom

I ‘ve got talent show fatigue. Fed up, I am.

BB

Am I the only one that thinks discussing this rediculous facade of a program in parliment is in itself rediculous.

The program is a bad example of the entertainment industry’s attempt to make filler instead of getting out there and finding people.

Get this reality rubbish tv off my tv. Now.

Dan, London

Wake up Britain. It’s a talent show. It doesn’t matter.

Harry, Manchester

Just so we’re clear of the rules: Talent shows that old people like are important. Talent shows that young people like are not important.

Likewise, comedians that young people like should be off the air, but comedians that old people like — even offensive ones — are OK.

Say what you will about the merits of X-Factor, but there is no denying it’s as worthy of schedule time as Strictly. Ratings-wise, X-Factor consistently comes out on top — and that’s all that we need to know.

I’m sick of the grumpy minority that, without a proper complaints/praise procedure, are speaking on behalf of all the sane people who just like laugh and watch talent shows. On behalf of the youth of Britain, please shut up.

(Views expressed are solely my own and do not represent those of the BBC. Or John Sergeant.)

Selling the BBC licence fee to the public (and Terry Tibbs)

October 30th, 2008

A few media commentators have used the Brand/Ross fall out to take swipes at the BBC licence fee. I fear it’s a debate that will escalate even more now that Jonathan Ross has been suspended for 12 weeks, an admission that the presenter got it very, very wrong.

I feel I’ll struggle to show objectivity with this post, given my current career developments, but hopefully people who know me can verify that my admiration of the BBC has existed for a long time — not just in the past few weeks.

When I taught in New Zealand, I introduced the BBC website as being the greatest news organisation on earth. Several students expressed their envy at not having such a well-respected public broadcaster on their own shores.

So why do I constantly come across opinion pieces, comments and blogs rallying fiercely against the £131.50 yearly fee? Do we really believe it isn’t good value for money?

The fact that we pay the wages of both Brand and Ross seems to have added an unwelcome fuel to this current fire. Anyone resents having to pay compulsory fees for anything; even something we enjoy as much as television and radio. Surprisingly, though, millions upon millions of us think nothing of paying the fee amount three for four times over to receive Sky Sports. Ironically, if the licence fee were higher, BBC Sport would be able to compete in that arena too.

It’s not often I agree with Noel Edmonds, but a while ago he made a terrific point about the BBC licence fee. Here it is (from the Independent):

Edmonds claimed his one-man protest was against the corporation’s “we know where you are” ad campaigns against those who didn’t have a TV licence, which he argued were threatening.

Spot on my shoddy-shirt wearing friend. The TV Licensing adverts are disgusting. They’re said in the same grumped-up tone as the adverts on benefit fraud. The psychology is all wrong. The BBC shouldn’t just be telling payers that they have to pay, they should be shouting about why it’s good to pay. What am I getting? Where’s the benefit? Where does my fee go?

Fonejacker — brilliant show about, topically enough, prank calling — has a wonderful character named Terry Tibbs. Terry is your old-school business man. And, ridiculous as he is, he could have some choice words when it comes to persuading people that the licence fee is worth it. In one sketch, he says this about buying a car:

“Hang about. Look. We’re not talkin’ money jus yet. Alright? I wanna know a bit more about the car before we get into that. Come on, you gotta seduce me. You don’t just jump into bed with Terry Tibbs. You take Terry Tibbs out to lunch. You wine and dine him. You give him an oil massage, and then he gives you nineteen-fifty, if you’re lucky.”

Now while that may just be an excuse to mention Terry Tibbs in a blog post, I think if the BBC imagined Terry when pushing TV licence adverts, there’d be a lot more enthuasiasm for our public broadcaster.

Rather than: “We’ll find you.” They should be saying: “Look what you’re getting, isn’t it brilliant?”

Yesterday, I visited a friend in Norwich. While I was there, I went to the wonderful new BBC building. In it was a library, cafes, studios… loads of stuff. Around the floor, stalls sold products for charity or small business. It was packed out — on a Wednesday. It’s just one small example of the goodness an organisation like the BBC can bring.

Think of the licence fee as a tax on a nation’s intellectual well-being. We pay tax to keep our roads in order. We pay tax to keep our health service running. Personally, I think a tax that ensures knowledge, entertainment and world class journalism is just as valid. Let’s never forget how important it is.

Sure, you may not like Russell Brand. That’s fine. Millions of people, however, do like Russell Brand, making the money paid for his services justified. The same can be said for Jonathan Ross, too.

I don’t like Cash in the Attic all that much, but I don’t object to my licence fee going towards it because I know many people do.

If we can get the public to understand all the goodness that comes from the BBC licence fee, then the battle to regain faith is almost complete. The first step is some positive fee-related adverts. Seduce me.

Russell Brand: Analysis or overkill?

October 30th, 2008

Wowzers. Take a look at this list of stories on the Russell Brand fiasco, all taken from Media Guardian. There’s 49 in total — and that’s before the inevitable truckload of posts that will follow now that Brand has resigned. I predict we’ll hit the 100 mark by the end of the week.

None of the links I’ve added here have been online for more than four days. Can anyone honestly say there has been this many developments? I don’t think so.

There’s analysis, and then there’s just anal. Enough of this madness.

Web-savvy standup with a licence to thrill and offend
Puerile prank that left BBC stars and executives on the ropes
Suited and booted: fall and rise of a showman
Patrick Barkham on Russell Brand’s ‘Hare Krishna’ chant and temple visits
Georgina Baillie: the Satanic Slut at the centre of the Ross-Brand controversy
Video: Russell Brand quits as BBC radio host
John Harris: What they did was grotesque
Andrew Sachs: profile
Russell Brand resigns from BBC as Jonathan Ross apologises for ‘juvenile remarks’
Video: Andrew Sachs on Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand: ‘I’m not collecting apologies’
Maggie Brown: Suspension is not enough for Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand
Broadcast rules should have saved BBC
In pictures: ‘Sachsgate’ – who’s who in the BBC hierarchy
Media Monkey: more from Sachsgate
‘Sachsgate’ – who’s who in the BBC hierarchy?

Loads more after the jump…
» Read more: Russell Brand: Analysis or overkill?

What do you call a man hiding in a bush? Russell.

October 27th, 2008

Poor Russell Brand. Or perhaps not.

I often say that people are quick to tread on Russell Brand because they don’t like him. And that dislike ends up clouding their ability to judge if something was offensive or not — much in the same way that many of the Big Brother complaints after the whole Shilpa Shetty affair wanted the show to be pulled. Not because of the alleged racism and/or bullying, but because they just didn’t like it.

Likewise, I have to concede that I could be guilty of the opposite. I think Russell Brand is one of the smartest comedians we Brits have ever had the pleasure of producing. My love for his work may getting in the way of admitting that his phone call stunt was way out of line.