Oh Come On!
Really?
Was it really that big of a deal? It reminds me of that whole Janet Jackson SuperBowl "fiasco", that was so unspectacular that Scott and I couldn't even remember it to tell Ed when we got home.
If you go back and actually listen to it, it's not violent or malicous; not at all like some of the horrible things I read about in Britain's newspapers. It was more like something they'd do in 'The Beano'.
Still, it was big enough news to make the headlines of every news channel and newspaper in the country.
Yeah. Way to show how grown up you are Britain. That reaction is worse that the offense.
Was it really that big of a deal? It reminds me of that whole Janet Jackson SuperBowl "fiasco", that was so unspectacular that Scott and I couldn't even remember it to tell Ed when we got home.
If you go back and actually listen to it, it's not violent or malicous; not at all like some of the horrible things I read about in Britain's newspapers. It was more like something they'd do in 'The Beano'.
Still, it was big enough news to make the headlines of every news channel and newspaper in the country.
Yeah. Way to show how grown up you are Britain. That reaction is worse that the offense.
2 Comments:
Ah, now, see... this is the nature of the broadcasting complaints system and the media. It starts with a few complaints from people who really have nothing better to do. Daily Mail readers who think they're being good upstanding citizens. Then - and this is the key - if it's a big enough name *and* they're already known for being somewhat controversial then you can bet your bottom dollar that a large number of people who didn't even bear witness to the event will jump on the complaints bandwagon just to have a crack at someone they have a distaste for.
Notice how the papers who like to run "hate campaigns" are printing things like "he's still earning £16,000 of taxpayers money per day while he's suspended." ? Absolute bollocks. He's paid per show not per day, but it's a perfect example of how things can be twisted to suit their purpose.
The real question everyone should be asking is: if this was a pre-recorded show and said shows have to be edited and reviewed then why was it allowed to be broadcast in the first place? Especially when the "victim" had already been asked and said he didn't want it broadcast? I think the real head that should roll is that of the producer of Russells show.
Also, it's clever on Russells part. Yes his fans will be very upset, but in resigning he has delt a huge blow to the BBC to which he was a big name/star for the station. Same goes for Ross. It would be one of their biggest mistakes to fire him over this as he's the biggest thing they've got (other than Top Gear ;) and they use him to advertise the BBC worldwide.
Just my 99p ;)
I listened to the entire thing on you tube and although should not have been broadcast thought it was the funniest thing I have ever heard. On the news it showed a queue of old women going to complain, which is funny because I didn’t picture Russell Brands audience to look like that!
Post a Comment
<< Home