Jonathan Ross suspended without pay and Brand resigns

Fourthed (if that's a word)

I agree, what they did was bad but surely the Producer should have stepped in during the first call & the fact he/she promised not to play it & then did it, then that person should shoulder the blame?

The controller of Radio2 said she would resign if any of her production staff ar emade the scapegoat & that Brand & Ross should take the full blame. They should take alot of the blame but at the end of the day the producer shouldn't have let it get past the first call let alone the fourth! to also promise not to air it & then do it anyway shows the producer is also partially to blame.

I also agree, regarding Mark Thompson, he just comes across as a bit of a misrable bugger to me, but then again if The Daily Heil is always on your back that's probably why.

It wasn't an issue before it became a national campaign. Only 2 listeners complained and neither of them complained about the incident itself.

It should have just been a fairly small incident that was cleared up in the normal way, just like similar incidents in the past

Fifthed!



This might explain a bit more background:
http://www.holymoly.com/page/NewsDetail/0,,12643~1438059,00.html

Sixthed (sp?)

For me the actions of Ross and Brand in actually thinking that making the phone calls at all was acceptable was a major error, and not at all what the BBC should be doing. They crossed the line when they made the calls.

Broadcasting the making of the calls was an even worse mistake. These weren't prank calls - these were just nasty messages left on an answerphone.

My understanding is that the programme was an independent production made by a company owned by Russell Brand. That is probably a crucial issue in this when it comes to producers having control over the editorial content of their output NOT presenters with no prodution qualifications (such as knowledge of BBC Editorial Policy, Ofcom compliance, Editorial guidelines, referral procedures etc.) If you are employed by your presenter, and they own the company making the show, would you refer to your BBC commissioner if your boss (and presenter) was over-ruling your decision? Would you even argue the toss with your presenter? How does the BBC ensure that producers working for suppliers are up to standard?

My understanding is that because the show was pre-recorded, as his TV show is, Jonathan Ross was not under the impression that most of the stuff that was broadcast would be broadcast. He trusts producers to protect him, because on his TV show, they do ... However - there is an ancient, and often dull, rule in TV and Radio. "Never say anything near any microphone that you wouldn't want the world to hear you say..."

Now the firestorm of complaints, unquestionably fuelled by the predominantly anti-BBC middle-market tabloids was allowed to fan the flames of this affair, and the BBC has to realise that it needs to do two things.

1. Ensure people don't make these stupid decisions - both in original production and in eventual broadcast - again.

2. Ensure that the BBC is MUCH swifter to respond to such issues - irrespective of school holidays etc. Anyone who has ever tried to get the BBC to make a quick decision will understand how paralysing the meeting and management culture of the corporation can be...

The result of the escalation in publicity meant that the BBC was forced to take strong action - which many feel was OTT (particularly when controllers are forced to resign)

I do wonder if Jenny Abramski (with her strong editorial background) would have nipped this in the bud before it reached DG level. I don't know...

I also think it calls into question the role of Mark Thompson as Editor-in-Chief (if he still holds that title)...

It could be fun to watch him getting some stick but i imagine ITV will drop him. You can't really tell a room full of drunk comedians not to mention it and expect them to obey can you? Now we're living in the 1950's again thanks to the Mail I just don't think ITV will want to risk the chance of it all resurfacing again. *******.

I could easily imagine someone saying along the lines of...
"Well I'm delighted to win this award, please excuse me whilst I phone someone to let them know, oh it's gone to answer phone..."

Breaking News on the ITV Lunchtime News.

He's not going to present this year's Comedy Awards.

Where will this end? Jonathan Ross won't be hosting The British Comedy Awards this year, he'd decided not too.

Quite an insightful interview from Paul Gambaccini at the bottom of this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7701308.stm

Not surprised he's not hosting the Comedy Awards. I imagine Angus Deayton will replace him...

Anyway talking of the Daily Mail.. fair enough they're reporting about the Ross/Brand scandal but I notice today on page 8 they've decided to rip in to Mock the Week and jibes about The Queen.

What is it with this paper? Yes, the Ross and Brand prank was wrong but are they now just using it as an excuse to out to ban all comedy at the BBC?

I think thats got to be the most accurate summary of the whole affair. I hope we'll begin to see the end of this tiresome discussion.