I have been viewing from afar the fallout regarding the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross affair, in which - in a pre-recorded show - both presenters left rude messages on the answer phone of actor Andrew Sachs regarding his grand-daughter, despite his request for the show not to be broadcast.
1) One strange occurrence is that the programme only received a few complaints, perhaps four or five, and a lot of the indignation or hot air has been fueled by the media reporting of the matter. Even Gordon Brown has commented on the matter. It is most odd that everyone I speak to has an opinion on it, even if they never heard the broadcast!
2) There seems to be a degree of generational divide among people approving or disapproving of what Brand and Ross did, with the younger generation more inclined to dismiss it as a harmless prank, a bit of a laugh, and the older generation inclined to think it was disgusting.
3) One of the arguments against the presenters is that they are paid lots of licence payers money for their shows, and should they behave in this way if we are paying them. The logic of that argument would seem to suggest that minority viewpoints and behaviour cannot be tolerated, because the majority of licence payers get upset with it. It is as if Mary Whitehouse is revenged from the grave! But surely it should be not settling blame, but opening a debate about what is acceptable on radio and television, and when different presentations are acceptable, what boundaries there might be, and why they would be important. Instead, the debate is not even started, and judgment has already been made.
4) Another argument - from the other factions - is that Sachs Granddaughter goes under the stage name of Voluptia, in a group called "The Satanic Sluts". The logic of this argument is that if she is that provocative, and dresses in a particular way, she is fair game for all kinds of insults. Continue with this line of reasoning, and we end up with the "she was asking for it" school of thought. Do we want to go there?
The best assessment I have seen of the situation is from someone I have not often agreed with, Janet Street-Porter, who places the context of the remarks in a male culture than sees nothing wrong in "men behaving badly", being "blokish" or "laddish", and showing how "macho" you are. It is a pertinent criticism, because it is not just behaviour in this instance that she critiques, but a whole male culture which ultimately sees other people, and women especially as "fair game" for the butt of their jokes.
I admit, I've used bad language regularly on television. When the BBC broadcast a fly-on-the-wall documentary about my stressful time running Live TV a decade ago, it contained more bleeps in an hour than any documentary previously aired on BBC2. But they were bleeps, and there weren't many complaints.
Now, when we reach the 9pm watershed, an announcer will almost invariably tell viewers (on all channels): "The following programme contains strong language". Indeed, the only programmes without a warning are probably about the life of polar bears or butterflies. Bleeping is largely a thing of the past, unless you're using the c-word.
Telly and radio has become increasingly bloke-ish, and the incident with Andrew Sachs is about that. A few years ago I took part in Nine out of 10 Cats with Jimmy Carr. I was the only woman on that show. During the recording my fellow panelists were more and more lewd (a lot would be edited out for broadcast and was only for the live audience's entertainment) and I felt increasingly uncomfortable.
When a gay man I knew was mentioned, my fellow panelist made a joke about anal sex, at which point I nearly burst into tears and asked to leave. Everyone was told to behave and the recording completed with me saying little. Incredibly, they asked me on the show again, but I declined.
Brand and Ross were reflecting this attitude. Senior executives should have junked the item, and insisted the apology was appropriate. Fines, sackings and investigations can't alter a culture.
Links:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/janet-street-porter/janet-streetporter-men-like-russell-brand-thrive-in-the-macho-culture-of-the-airwaves-976802.html
Café
-
Drop-in Jèrriais chat today 1-1.50pm at Santander Work Café (upstairs in *LISBON
*room)
6 days ago
.jpg)
Posts
4 comments:
Blokey "lad mag" culture is a direct backlash against the demeaning attitudes we males have had to put up with since the "new man" situation emasculated us. Males became fair game for female humour, sitting targets to be shown up and ridiculed at any opportunity.
Jokes that couldn't target women or minorities happily had a go at men, leaving us as disrespected second class citizens constantly told how useless we are.
Lad culture was the inevitable response - and don't forget that 'ladettes' followed too.
I think that anyone who has felt emasculated by the changing culture, and feminism, may well have serious insecurities about their sexuality and identity.
Much the same happened at the Reformation, many Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican clergy all felt that being married might give rise to accusations of being emasculated, and grew beards to show their masculinity was not in question! Not a joke - see Diarmid McCullough's "Reformation"!)
This is not about lad culture. Ross is almost as old as we are, and cultivates the image of a family man.
It is about the personal arrogance of successful entertainers who have let their fame go to their heads, like countless more before them. Some stars feel that their status absolves them from any moral duty to show courtesy and consideration to lower ranking performers and civilians, and these oafs are just two more. It does not have to go with the territory: There are plenty more stars who are respected for their integrity and gracious manners.
I've been trying to think of objective criteria for judging this behaviour, and one idea I've had is this: if they were not TV presenters, but ordinary people, who rang up someone's grandfather and left that kind of message for them about their grand-daughter, it would be verging on an obscene phone call. If that is the case when the trappings of celebrity are removed, then it should still be when they are in place.
Post a Comment