When the BBC does stuff like the Brand-Ross prank call, you know that rock bottom has been hit.
What was most interesting in the coverage I've seen is that although there have been thus far 10 000 complaints, the younger generation phoning in to Radio 1 seem generally supportive.
The answer as to what is going on is all too simple. Brand and Ross know exactly to whom they are appealing: the generation that happy-slaps. For that is exactly what it was: it was public, on air happy-slapping. They are appealing to the generation that thinks nothing of dropping litter and beating up policemen who ask for it to be picked up: for Brand's defending himself by saying it was funny indicates that he clearly thinks he did nothing wrong, and it's the rest of us who are being pompous by standing by common standards of decency.
Common standards of decency brings us ultimately to the point: common standards of decency flow ultimately from shared convictions concerning right and wrong. And whether it's Roger Bolton (see previous post) or Brand and Ross, common standards of decency and their religious underpinning are what is under attack.
If either Mr Brand or Mr Ross finds themselves on the receiving end of youth violence, we must all feel sorry for them. Because as decent people, we are on the side of the victim. They however must not push for prosecutions. They must laugh it off, extend a hand to their tormentors and say, "funny one, guys."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just seen a broadcast of Brand's statement today. He sounded genuinely remorsefull for his stupidity. (J Ross take note).
Your description of the episode as verbal happy slapping makes sense of the opposing opinions.
Brand's apology does seem to put things in a better light, as does his resignation. But again, on closer inspection, it can only cause more worry. Essentially, he says he got carried away in the moment and did something silly.
No. He's a professional. And the show was pre-recorded. There was nothing in the programme that did not go through editors, and about which the presenters and editors could have done nothing.
If Brand, paid £200k, and Ross, £6m, are so lax about their pre-recorded shows that things done in the heat of the moment that do not deserve broadcast still get aired, then they are complete amateurs - there is nothing about the quality of their work that deserves the tag "professional". In fact, the statement gives the game away on the arrogance of both men, and their sense, prior to the outcry, of their own utter self-importance.
Unfortunately, I draw a different conclusion from Brand's statement. He's like the kid caught saying rude stuff to or about the kid with special needs, or the one trying to prove himself with comments under his breath about teachers up in front of a deputy head. The remorse is totally self-referential: he's sorry for his career.
But more worrying is the defence the two men are receiving from listeners to Radio 1. Their point is that what these men did was legitimate. The generation growing up considers leaving abusive and harassing messages on the telephones of others legitimate. They consider making up offensive stories legitimate. Brand and Ross know their market, and all ought to fear the monster whose opinions on questions of basic decency has been exposed.
Post a Comment