Oh for crying out loud! Are we still talking about this bullshit outrage over two comedians making an offensive, fact based joke that wasn’t actually that offensive to anybody except for one man whose racial stereotype has been much more offensive to an entire nation for decades? This whole debacle of reason was referred to as “Sachsgate” on television today. I suppose that’s the sort of lazy journalism I should expect from Channel 5, but when the other choices are ‘Will & Grace’, ‘Bargain Hunt’ and getting out of bed, Channel 5 unfortunately wins.
Today’s rant has been inspired by Ofcom’s decision to fine the BBC and the inevitable pointless media frenzy which is following. I could have avoided witnessing any of this nonsense by simply not watching televisions equivalent to the Sunday Sport, however, rather worryingly, I’m incredibly happy that I decided to tune in to ‘The Wright Stuff’ this morning. I’m happy because if I hadn’t pressed the number five on my remote, I would have missed out on Marcus Brigstocke’s wonderful defence of comedians and his excellent and correct highlighting of the gutter press’ role in whipping suggestible morons into frenzies over mediocre situations. “It’s almost as though the Daily Mail have a vested interest in another media group...almost”. These might not be Marcus’ exact words, as I’m quoting from memory, but that’s pretty close to his brilliant sentence.
The fact that I’m writing about it shows that I too have been sucked into this unnecessary argument. But I have to. I’m overwhelmed with the need to share with you what I witnessed this morning. For those of you lucky enough not to be familiar with the formulaic pattern of ‘The Wright Stuff’, I shall explain. This show consists of a smug looking journalist, namely Matthew Wright, asking a panel of talking heads searching questions such as “are big boobs best?” and “are fat kids stupider than their skinny friends?” These questions are each followed with what, as far as I can gather, is supposed to be some sort of reasoned debate. One of today’s questions was about who should pay the fine levied at the BBC for Russell Brand’s and Jonathon Ross’ “behaviour”. This then lead to Marcus Brigstocke looking genuinely annoyed with the “witch hunt” as he put it, lead by the press. But what then followed was the final, decisive part of ‘The Wright Stuff’ formula which makes for truly cheap, generic television...the viewer phone in section.
First came one or two reasoned comments from callers expressing their dismay at this story still being considered news and debating who, if anyone, should foot the bill for Ofcom’s fine. But then, then came a call from a man I can only describe as basic. This short phone call really gave an insight into the type of person who takes the time to complain about something they neither witnessed, nor were affected by. The timbre and accent of this man’s voice suggested that he was elderly or at least middle aged and had lived in this country, presumably in a small town, for all of his life, and yet inexplicably had still not fully grasped the basics of the English language. I listened intently as this simpleton fumbled through his limited vocabulary searching desperately for the words needed to express his misguided outrage. From knowledge gathered, we can only presume by having newspapers read to him, this man had come to the conclusion that Brand and Ross should foot this bill personally, as it was totally disgusting how they had accused Andrew Sachs of committing incest with his own granddaughter!
This comment was met with laughter by host and panel alike, and lead to Marcus Brigstocke expressing dismay and sheer disbelief with quite possibly the best facial expression I have ever witnessed. The caller was cut off and dismissed as ridiculous immediately and reasoned debate was resumed over whether a £150,000 fine is a good use of licence fee payer’s money.
What a shame all Daily Mail readers aren’t dismissed with the same urgency, instead of us all having to suffer their bile fuelled misinformation as relevant comment. Perhaps this backwards caller could be the catalyst needed to make Ofcom consider only counting complaints as valid if accompanied by a reasonable, sensible explanation for why the complainer was offended in the first place. And perhaps if politicians kept their mouths shut when it came to subjects that have nothing to do with them, instead of trying to score cheap, populist points by jumping on every media driven bandwagon, then maybe we could reverse this ridiculous culture of censorship.
And as for Andrew Sachs, who has been swept along in this media circus and only ever wanted an apology for an answer phone message which offended him personally, perhaps he should realise that his fame hungry granddaughter Georgina Baillie knew exactly what she was doing when she had sex with Russell Brand, a man famous for, amongst other things, womanising. I’m pretty sure that Russell Brand didn’t have anything to gain from ‘leaking’ tales of his shenanigans with a mediocre page 3 wannabe, which begs the question how did this story enter the public domain in first place? If you’re going to attempt to use the fame of a comedian, who has his own radio show, to callously further your own ‘career’, then you should expect some sort of retort.
