JR
Hear, hear. The only reason this thing even became a scandal was because the Mail asked Andrew Sachs for comment. True, the phone calls should have been edited out of the programme, but one has to wonder how the Mail knew what was happening in Brand's programme: do they have some kind of "BBC Presenters Paid Over £100,000 Watch" department, repeatedly listening to tapes of broadcasts for something that may be mildly offensive to around two people?
Anyway, last night's show, it seemed, was a success. Ross's apology was sincere, and he seemed to have toned the swearing and innuendo down a bit (although, to be fair, Middle England gets in a tizzy if someone so much as mentions someone's shoulder.) Any news on overnight viewing figures?
Alexia posted:
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.
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.
Hear, hear. The only reason this thing even became a scandal was because the Mail asked Andrew Sachs for comment. True, the phone calls should have been edited out of the programme, but one has to wonder how the Mail knew what was happening in Brand's programme: do they have some kind of "BBC Presenters Paid Over £100,000 Watch" department, repeatedly listening to tapes of broadcasts for something that may be mildly offensive to around two people?
Anyway, last night's show, it seemed, was a success. Ross's apology was sincere, and he seemed to have toned the swearing and innuendo down a bit (although, to be fair, Middle England gets in a tizzy if someone so much as mentions someone's shoulder.) Any news on overnight viewing figures?
