And so, after much anticipation, blogging, Twittering and opinions being shouted here, there and everywhere – here comes another, so if you didn’t like my X Factor rant, or don’t like long-winded passages in general, do not read on – Friday Night with Jonathan Ross returned to our screens tonight. Stephen Fry was great, Lee Evans was great, Tom Cruise was great, and Franz Ferdinand were great. To me, it was funny, it was entertaining, and above all, it was harmless. Just what the BBC needed in order to breathe a huge sigh of relief and move on to other matters of equal insignificance.
Let's be, as David Cameron might say, "crystal clear" about this: Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand did wrong. They've admitted so, they've apologised, and so we can move on. This, my very own opinion, shouldn't even be written (readers, please refrain from any smart alec "You can say that again!" comments, even though you are right!). But no, the papers kept reporting, and The Daily Mail, to quote Vic Reeves, "wouldn't let it lie". For what it's worth (arguably nothing), I believe that Jonathan Ross is a very decent, amusing, witty presenter. Some argue that he is overpaid, but considering that most of the money goes to his production company, not straight to him, that rather makes that argument irrelevant. Also, in my opinion, Russell Brand is an articulate, clever, funny man. Not the funniest guy I've seen, but not appallingly unfunny as some might like to suggest. I watched some of his Ponderland show, and it made me smile, and so in that respect, he did what he set out to do. Life is ridiculous = life is funny. Also, Andrew Sachs is a great actor, brilliant as Manuel in Fawlty Towers, and a lovely man, and Georgina Baillie...well, she does what she does, and I’m sure she’s nice too if you get to know her (I don’t know any of these people personally, but these are my beliefs, not concrete fact). Overall, no harm with anyone there at all.
Incidentally, if anyone caught Andrew Sachs on Countdown last week, you will no doubt have noticed his lack of involvement in the revamped show's proceedings, with poor Susie Dent often coaxing him into saying a word he had found in the dictionary, only to be faced with silence. Luckily, the wonderful Jeff "I love Hartlepool" Stelling kept the programme rolling on, as did a very resourceful Rachel Riley. But pity Mr Sachs. No-one can possibly know the torture he has gone through, especially since it has been reported that he and his wife are no longer in touch with their grandaughter. I'm sure he won't read this article, but I say sorry in advance, and the same goes for everyone else involved, because enough is enough (don't worry, it's only a few more paragraphs...).
Perhaps it was unwise for producers or whoever is responsible for booking guests to allow him on, just as it was for Lesley Douglas to approve of the original phone call with Ross and Brand. Sure, he's a big name, both for comedy and for recent events, but he is clearly fragile and uncomfortable. Well, that was the impression anyway. For all we know, he may have been the life and soul of the party at the recording. But I feel sorry for him, and for everyone involved with Sachsgate (quite why everyone attaches "gate" to every so-called scandal is anyone's guess. If I misplace an essay, does it become Essaygate. Maybe if Andrew Marr were to be somehow embroiled in something, it would be known as Marrgate. Har har.
And so it all goes back to the relentless snobbery, pervasiveness, inconsiderate nature and general patronising of the media, and in particular The Daily Mail. Notice how, in many instances, when they actually make a mistake in accusing someone of committing benefit fraud or making obscene remarks, their apology is wedged in almost anonymously in the middle of the paper, between a memoir of an actor who doesn't want publicity, and an account of something involving Nazis. Honestly, there is at least one reference to the N-word or the Great War in there once a week, because, you know, it's a British paper. British. We hate the Nazis. We were there in the Great War. Duh.
But Wossy is back, cheerful and cheeky as ever, and a lot of viewers love it. Andrew Sachs is not one of them, and indeed my own grandparents find his style of interviewing based on him more than the guests, and often dissolving into crude jokes. But he knows it is only a bit of fun, as do many of his regular viewers. Conversely, some find Michael Parkinson's style too relaxed and a little doddery. Personally, I like both, and it is still a shame that most people cannot find a balance in their emotions. They are either vehemently for something or staunchly against it, both times like a raging bull heading towards a proverbial china shop. As people (as opposed to “As political viewpoints” or, if you want to be more surreal, “As amphibians”), we should take a step back and not be overly pessimistic or cynical, nor be fawning over a celebrity like a mad schoolgirl (for all schoolgirls out there, I apologise for that stereotype - first thing that came to my head, which says more about my views on schoolgirls than it does about you!).
So what have they proved? Nothing. Nowt whatsoever. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they did themselves a disservice by getting them off the air, because they could no longer complain. Same goes for Jeremy Clarkson. He annoys them by deliberately being provocative, so they begin a campaign to get him noticed by Ofcom. It's a two-way love/hate relationship, and I do wonder if Clarkson and the editor-in-chief are secretly friends at their local pub. I will leave that to my own imagination...
But it re-enforces a point I have about opinions. To be noticed, you have to be big, brash and uncompromising. If someone said "Well, I agree with what you say, and I think what you said has credit...", that's immediately criticised as being too soft. We have to be hard just for the sake of being hard (no innuendoes please!). I suppose that’s what the Internet is for – being expressive. And that’s fair enough. Yet often, I can’t always believe that these are the real beliefs which people they say they are. I could be very wrong of course, and you’re welcome to disagree (again, that’s partly why the Internet exists), but surely a lot of us are getting a tad, well, extreme? I don’t know, but I do think that until we learn to be a bit careful with what we say and how we say it, we will have endless controversies and endless articles in the tabloids which should be filled with actual news. Heh. News in newspapers? That'll be the day.
Rent-A-Mob seems like the gist of the guy, talks like an outraged ''the sun'' headline.
Hardly "outraged". Merely a measured overview of events. And I am an English student, so it helps to get some practise in! If you meet me, you'll find me to be nothing close to the idea of a Rent-A-Mob.
I noticed Baille's mother has got in on the act by becoming a rentagob for the Mail this morning....pathetic.
The Mail doesn't represent reality, it represents some hyper-reality that its owners/editorship believes exists in this fictional world called Middle England. "Outraged of Trowbridge" doesn't exist except in the letters pages of the newspaper, or the phonelines to Points of View or Ofcom. The people who were "offended", "morally outraged" etc are just egotistical borderline psychotic cases with an inferiority complex the size of Taunton. Happily for them, the Mail is there to feed their fears, inflate their sense of importance and re-affirm their beliefs that they are the only true victims of society; and as a result inflict the knee-jerk reactions we have seen over the Sachs affair. Apologies were made, people moved on, but that wasn't good enough for the Mail. An end to a scandal? Involving the BBC? And people who occasionally use... shock horror... swearing and sexual references in their act? Nope...let's keep banging (excuse the pun) on about it until they get fired. And by using these tactics, it continues to be a strong player in the newspaper and media industries in general, because the people who read the Daily Mail need it to bring any sort of sense of purpose to their lives.
Of course, if the producers of the Russell Brand show had done their job properly and vetted the show in favour of entertainment rather than shock value, then none of this would have happened.
Of course, if the producers of the Russell Brand show had done their job properly and vetted the show in favour of entertainment rather than shock value, then none of this would have happened.
Nick Philps (producer) did as he should - he forwarded a long email to Lesley Douglas asking whether it should go ahead. She sent back a one word reply 'yes'. I don't see what more he could have done.
Rent-A-Mob seems like the gist of the guy, talks like an outraged ''the sun'' headline.
Hardly "outraged". Merely a measured overview of events. And I am an English student, so it helps to get some practise in! If you meet me, you'll find me to be nothing close to the idea of a Rent-A-Mob.
No he really did seem like playing to the crowd, and as for my grammar, im sorry, thought it best to put it that way as to avoid confusion.