PT
pthurst
Founding member
We devoted half of our Sunday breakfast programme to this issue yesterday and now that the fuss is on the decrease I thought I may add my comments as someone who works within the media and also a 'committed christian' (whatever one of those is...)
I agree that it is wrong for any group to try to bully a broadcaster into not showing a particular programme. Although I can see the reasoning behind their complaint, I don't think that this is acceptable. The BBC should not let mere 'ideological' pressure dictate what is shown. I think that it may be right to pull certain programmes in the interests of sensitivity, however programmes should not be pulled on the basis that certain minority groups may find them offensive. I can see this even though I do belong to that minority of people who find this kind of thing tasteless and offensive... and yes I did watch some before forming my opinion.
All that said. I do think that the real question to be raised should center on accountability. We all know that the BBC is funded via the licence fee. This means that as payers of the fee, we effectively 'own' the corporation. So did the BBC act appropriately by choosing to spend public money on transmitting this, despite over 45,000 complaints from 'investors'?
This issue of accountability is both complicated and vital to the future of the BBC. With massive job cuts coupled with post-Hutton blues, the BBC has made the headlines for all the wrong reasons within the last year. People often find the BBC out of touch, aloof or irrelevant to everyday life despite massive efforts on re-inventing an image to focus on community and public accountability.
The problem is that ideas like public accountability carry responsibilities. The BBC received forty five thousand complaints from licence fee payers regarding this broadcast so even with the matters of taste and decency aside, this matter of accountability remains.
A lot of people have rather foolishly commented that people can 'vote with the remote' and simply turn off the TV but this ignores the fact that these people who have complained pay the licence fee and as such, are entitled to demand a level of public accountability from the BBC.
Its also worth remembering that the number of people unhappy with this programme far exceeds the 45,000 people who actually complained. There will be MILLIONS who deemed it unacceptable. Even if most people didn't act upon their impulsions, the fact that 45,000 did, cannot and should not be brushed under the carpet. Not by anyone on this forum or even by those who may have enjoyed the programme itself.
Flame away
I agree that it is wrong for any group to try to bully a broadcaster into not showing a particular programme. Although I can see the reasoning behind their complaint, I don't think that this is acceptable. The BBC should not let mere 'ideological' pressure dictate what is shown. I think that it may be right to pull certain programmes in the interests of sensitivity, however programmes should not be pulled on the basis that certain minority groups may find them offensive. I can see this even though I do belong to that minority of people who find this kind of thing tasteless and offensive... and yes I did watch some before forming my opinion.
All that said. I do think that the real question to be raised should center on accountability. We all know that the BBC is funded via the licence fee. This means that as payers of the fee, we effectively 'own' the corporation. So did the BBC act appropriately by choosing to spend public money on transmitting this, despite over 45,000 complaints from 'investors'?
This issue of accountability is both complicated and vital to the future of the BBC. With massive job cuts coupled with post-Hutton blues, the BBC has made the headlines for all the wrong reasons within the last year. People often find the BBC out of touch, aloof or irrelevant to everyday life despite massive efforts on re-inventing an image to focus on community and public accountability.
The problem is that ideas like public accountability carry responsibilities. The BBC received forty five thousand complaints from licence fee payers regarding this broadcast so even with the matters of taste and decency aside, this matter of accountability remains.
A lot of people have rather foolishly commented that people can 'vote with the remote' and simply turn off the TV but this ignores the fact that these people who have complained pay the licence fee and as such, are entitled to demand a level of public accountability from the BBC.
Its also worth remembering that the number of people unhappy with this programme far exceeds the 45,000 people who actually complained. There will be MILLIONS who deemed it unacceptable. Even if most people didn't act upon their impulsions, the fact that 45,000 did, cannot and should not be brushed under the carpet. Not by anyone on this forum or even by those who may have enjoyed the programme itself.
Flame away
GS
I find it puzzling (at best) that 40,000 of those complainants managed to object to a programme PRIOR to transmission.
Did they all get advance previews through some holy vision?
I think not.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
pthurst posted:
Its also worth remembering that the number of people unhappy with this programme far exceeds the 45,000 people who actually complained. There will be MILLIONS who deemed it unacceptable. Even if most people didn't act upon their impulsions, the fact that 45,000 did, cannot and should not be brushed under the carpet. Not by anyone on this forum or even by those who may have enjoyed the programme itself.
I find it puzzling (at best) that 40,000 of those complainants managed to object to a programme PRIOR to transmission.
Did they all get advance previews through some holy vision?
I think not.
PT
I find it puzzling (at best) that 40,000 of those complainants managed to object to a programme PRIOR to transmission.
Did they all get advance previews through some holy vision?
I think not.
Holy vision aside (not sure where that's leading...).
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.
The only importance surrounding the timing of the complaints surrounds whether the complaints should be made to the BBC (prior to Xmission) or, since the BBC gave up self regulation OFCOM (after Xmission).
raising questions about the timing of 40,000 complaints simply tries to sidestep the real issues, and may I say, in my opinion, rather unsuccessfully.
pthurst
Founding member
Gavin Scott posted:
pthurst posted:
Its also worth remembering that the number of people unhappy with this programme far exceeds the 45,000 people who actually complained. There will be MILLIONS who deemed it unacceptable. Even if most people didn't act upon their impulsions, the fact that 45,000 did, cannot and should not be brushed under the carpet. Not by anyone on this forum or even by those who may have enjoyed the programme itself.
I find it puzzling (at best) that 40,000 of those complainants managed to object to a programme PRIOR to transmission.
Did they all get advance previews through some holy vision?
I think not.
Holy vision aside (not sure where that's leading...).
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.
The only importance surrounding the timing of the complaints surrounds whether the complaints should be made to the BBC (prior to Xmission) or, since the BBC gave up self regulation OFCOM (after Xmission).
raising questions about the timing of 40,000 complaints simply tries to sidestep the real issues, and may I say, in my opinion, rather unsuccessfully.
GS
Oh I think the timing of the complaints is *precicely* the point.
Without having seen it I could not have known that it was an amalgam of high-art and trailer-trash cultures - both of which receive a drubbing. Its irreverent, sure, but I've seen worse - and I've seen a few shows in my time. Is Jesus such a fragile figure that Christians fear his image can be tarnished by a dream sequence in a stage musical?
It is not for the BBC to defend religion, to spare me from graven images, nor is it for them to be the arbiter of the rights and wrongs of contemporary culture. AWARD WINNING contemporary culture.
Its original, well-devised and brilliantly executed. Its EXACTLY what I'm paying my licence for.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
pthurst posted:
Holy vision aside (not sure where that's leading...).
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.
The only importance surrounding the timing of the complaints surrounds whether the complaints should be made to the BBC (prior to Xmission) or, since the BBC gave up self regulation OFCOM (after Xmission).
raising questions about the timing of 40,000 complaints simply tries to sidestep the real issues, and may I say, in my opinion, rather unsuccessfully.
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.
The only importance surrounding the timing of the complaints surrounds whether the complaints should be made to the BBC (prior to Xmission) or, since the BBC gave up self regulation OFCOM (after Xmission).
raising questions about the timing of 40,000 complaints simply tries to sidestep the real issues, and may I say, in my opinion, rather unsuccessfully.
Oh I think the timing of the complaints is *precicely* the point.
Without having seen it I could not have known that it was an amalgam of high-art and trailer-trash cultures - both of which receive a drubbing. Its irreverent, sure, but I've seen worse - and I've seen a few shows in my time. Is Jesus such a fragile figure that Christians fear his image can be tarnished by a dream sequence in a stage musical?
It is not for the BBC to defend religion, to spare me from graven images, nor is it for them to be the arbiter of the rights and wrongs of contemporary culture. AWARD WINNING contemporary culture.
Its original, well-devised and brilliantly executed. Its EXACTLY what I'm paying my licence for.
PT
Oh I think the timing of the complaints is *precicely* the point.
Without having seen it I could not have known that it was an amalgam of high-art and trailer-trash cultures - both of which receive a drubbing. Its irreverent, sure, but I've seen worse - and I've seen a few shows in my time. Is Jesus such a fragile figure that Christians fear his image can be tarnished by a dream sequence in a stage musical?
It is not for the BBC to defend religion, to spare me from graven images, nor is it for them to be the arbiter of the rights and wrongs of contemporary culture. AWARD WINNING contemporary culture.
Its original, well-devised and brilliantly executed. Its EXACTLY what I'm paying my licence for.
I'm glad you enjoyed the programme, I don't want to get into the argument of was it good or bad television. I don't think there is an answer to a question like that. After all some like Picasso or Dali, others do not.
Jenny: I'm glad you picked up on that! I really do hate labeling myself. Yet society constantly demands me to be more precise and then criticises me for doing so
pthurst
Founding member
Gavin Scott posted:
pthurst posted:
Holy vision aside (not sure where that's leading...).
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.
The only importance surrounding the timing of the complaints surrounds whether the complaints should be made to the BBC (prior to Xmission) or, since the BBC gave up self regulation OFCOM (after Xmission).
raising questions about the timing of 40,000 complaints simply tries to sidestep the real issues, and may I say, in my opinion, rather unsuccessfully.
I don't think it's relevant whether the complaints were lodged prior to, or after Xmission. What is of importance here is the actual content.
The only importance surrounding the timing of the complaints surrounds whether the complaints should be made to the BBC (prior to Xmission) or, since the BBC gave up self regulation OFCOM (after Xmission).
raising questions about the timing of 40,000 complaints simply tries to sidestep the real issues, and may I say, in my opinion, rather unsuccessfully.
Oh I think the timing of the complaints is *precicely* the point.
Without having seen it I could not have known that it was an amalgam of high-art and trailer-trash cultures - both of which receive a drubbing. Its irreverent, sure, but I've seen worse - and I've seen a few shows in my time. Is Jesus such a fragile figure that Christians fear his image can be tarnished by a dream sequence in a stage musical?
It is not for the BBC to defend religion, to spare me from graven images, nor is it for them to be the arbiter of the rights and wrongs of contemporary culture. AWARD WINNING contemporary culture.
Its original, well-devised and brilliantly executed. Its EXACTLY what I'm paying my licence for.
I'm glad you enjoyed the programme, I don't want to get into the argument of was it good or bad television. I don't think there is an answer to a question like that. After all some like Picasso or Dali, others do not.
Jenny: I'm glad you picked up on that! I really do hate labeling myself. Yet society constantly demands me to be more precise and then criticises me for doing so
GS
The question of whether it is 'good or bad television' is very much a decision for each viewer.
What sparked the row was the question of whether the BBC should or shouldn't show this (and potentially other) controversial productions.
I think the answer is yes.
What do you think?
And by the way, I did enjoy it but I'd still rather sit through Oklahoma or Chess again, if forced to choose.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
pthurst posted:
I'm glad you enjoyed the programme, I don't want to get into the argument of was it good or bad television. I don't think there is an answer to a question like that. After all some like Picasso or Dali, others do not.
The question of whether it is 'good or bad television' is very much a decision for each viewer.
What sparked the row was the question of whether the BBC should or shouldn't show this (and potentially other) controversial productions.
I think the answer is yes.
What do you think?
And by the way, I did enjoy it but I'd still rather sit through Oklahoma or Chess again, if forced to choose.
If you complained and didn't watch it - what gives you the right to complain about something you didn't watch?
PT
The question of whether it is 'good or bad television' is very much a decision for each viewer.
What sparked the row was the question of whether the BBC should or shouldn't show this (and potentially other) controversial productions.
I think the answer is yes.
What do you think?
And by the way, I did enjoy it but I'd still rather sit through Oklahoma or Chess again, if forced to choose.
Ahhhhh... Now the question has changed!... Do I think the BBC should show potentially controversial material? Absolutely!
Controversy should offend no-one. It will offend the 'shallow' type who cannot bear to look beyond their own nose but it shouldn't offend people who see value in other people's opinions, even if they know those opinions will not match their own. Thats the wonderful world (and forum) of diversity!
The BBC defines its remit as to inform, educate and entertain and with an audience of over 60 million here in the UK, it will often fail to please everybody however, due to the way the BBC is funded, accountability is not optional.
Thats the dichotomy. How can the BBC not be scared of using controversy to entertain, inform and especially educate, yet still maintain full accountability to its funders? Surely if we remove the controversial, we have little left?
The Springer issue simply brings these things to a head. But what disturbs me equally as much as those who want nothing apart from 24 hour Bible or Koran TV are those who are prepared to 'write off' someone else's concerns without thinking twice about the consequences attached to that choice.
In fact, one of our Muslim guests made an excellent point yesterday when he commented that of equal threat to the world as the religious fundamental is the secular fundamental.
pthurst
Founding member
Gavin Scott posted:
pthurst posted:
I'm glad you enjoyed the programme, I don't want to get into the argument of was it good or bad television. I don't think there is an answer to a question like that. After all some like Picasso or Dali, others do not.
The question of whether it is 'good or bad television' is very much a decision for each viewer.
What sparked the row was the question of whether the BBC should or shouldn't show this (and potentially other) controversial productions.
I think the answer is yes.
What do you think?
And by the way, I did enjoy it but I'd still rather sit through Oklahoma or Chess again, if forced to choose.
Ahhhhh... Now the question has changed!... Do I think the BBC should show potentially controversial material? Absolutely!
Controversy should offend no-one. It will offend the 'shallow' type who cannot bear to look beyond their own nose but it shouldn't offend people who see value in other people's opinions, even if they know those opinions will not match their own. Thats the wonderful world (and forum) of diversity!
The BBC defines its remit as to inform, educate and entertain and with an audience of over 60 million here in the UK, it will often fail to please everybody however, due to the way the BBC is funded, accountability is not optional.
Thats the dichotomy. How can the BBC not be scared of using controversy to entertain, inform and especially educate, yet still maintain full accountability to its funders? Surely if we remove the controversial, we have little left?
The Springer issue simply brings these things to a head. But what disturbs me equally as much as those who want nothing apart from 24 hour Bible or Koran TV are those who are prepared to 'write off' someone else's concerns without thinking twice about the consequences attached to that choice.
In fact, one of our Muslim guests made an excellent point yesterday when he commented that of equal threat to the world as the religious fundamental is the secular fundamental.