[BBC News] Clarkson joke sparks complaints

[WTF]

what was the joan rivers 9/11 joke??

[manxman8180]

I can't understand how the programme should be considered part of 'Public Services' according to public service broadcasting. It 'coarsens the standards of public life' - by that test the programme as is should be scrapped.

The BBC isn't just about Public Service Broadcasting. It has that remit, yes. And it does a lot of it, yes. But is also has mass public appeal for some of its other content.

 

Top Gear attracts seven million viewers for each episode.

 

Sounds Public enough to me.

 

Actually, I found some of the news items pretty offensive last night. I move that the presenters and producers are sacked and the Six O'clock news replaced with a documentary on basket weaving and lace making in post modern times.

[manxman8180]

what was the joan rivers 9/11 joke??

Something about firefighters wives IIRC.

[Skeddan]

Yeah, why not? Humor is a way of expressing public feeling, cutting through the crap, establishing proportion and very often a way of dealing with the seriously traumatic. Should Joan Rivers 9/11 joke have been banned?

 

If you don't like it, turn it off. Choice is yours, but don't make mine for me.

Ah - I see the difference in views. I agree - comedians should be given a very long leash. There are some limits (repugnant racist comedians and the like - intended to be racist). With BBC, I think the standards should be higher - that does not involve censorship, but meeting their purpose. BBC Chairman recently accepted that items which coarsen standards of public life shouldn't have a place on the BBC. Have it on Sky or Virgin 1 if you like.

 

That's why with Brand I'd be very wary about going over the top. With Clarkson, he's not a comedian, and as far as I can see he has no comedic talent whatsover - just appeal based on acerbic opinionated arrogant loud mouthed attitude. Top Gear is, as you say a 'lads vroom vroom show', not comedic social-commentary. If Clarkson wants to do creative comedy like Russell Brand, then that belongs in 'comedy' not 'factual entertainment'.

 

Now I could accept that a comedy programme could well have quips about killing Jews in this way (e.g. as a satire and send up of Top Gear), and that would be a whole different matter. But Top Gear is not that programme, not was that the point. It was just 'provocative' and outspoken. Like Clarkson could say on the programme "niggers ought to be thrown out of the country - they make the roads an eyesore with their pimpmobiles" and BBC would say, that's ok - his viewers expect that from him, he's popular, nothing wrong in that.

 

But regardless of audience figures, it does not fit with the purpose or constitution of the BBC to be doing that. If Clarkson wants to do that, and you and others watch it, then go ahead, but with another broadcaster, not the BBC.

[spanna]

jesuss christ skeddan do you actually enjoy anything. Or do you just sit around in a grump waiting to kick off about anyone else daring to make people laugh and have fun.

Even tho i dont agree with clarksons treatment of langness, as a presenter he is one of the best. Its good to see someone sticking two fingers up to the nanny pc state.

[Skeddan]

I can't understand how the programme should be considered part of 'Public Services' according to public service broadcasting. It 'coarsens the standards of public life' - by that test the programme as is should be scrapped.

The BBC isn't just about Public Service Broadcasting. It has that remit, yes. And it does a lot of it, yes. But is also has mass public appeal for some of its other content.

 

Top Gear attracts seven million viewers for each episode.

 

Sounds Public enough to me.

 

Actually, I found some of the news items pretty offensive last night. I move that the presenters and producers are sacked and the Six O'clock news replaced with a documentary on basket weaving and lace making in post modern times.

The BBC isn't just about PSB. It also has Commercial Ops. Top Gear though falls under UK Public Services as set out in the Charter and Framework Agreement.

 

Just because it has 7m viewers doesn't mean the programme is consistent with the BBC's remit regarding UK Public Services.

 

Even if it sounds Public enough to you.

 

Do please write a complaint about the news items to the BBC together with your suggestions. I can imagine what you'd get back from the bowels of Bush House.

[jimbms]

Just because he made a joke about lorry drivers murdering prostitutes theres no need to hammer it home

[TerryMcCann]

Just because he made a joke about lorry drivers murdering prostitutes theres no need to hammer it home

 

It is a bit unfair though.

 

I'm sure they murder other sectors of the community as well. Illegal immigrants for instance

[Slim]

what was the joan rivers 9/11 joke??

 

She basically said that some women would be delighted to swap their husbands for 50 grand.

 

And I think basically the opposite to you about the bbc. They don't have to pander to a commercial audience, that makes them creatively unique and the best broadcaster in the world. Sadly that's now being systematically destroyed by the Antiques Roadshow crowd.

 

As for saying Clarkson isn't allowed to make jokes because he's not a comedian, well, get a grip, eh? It's a lads mag on telly that show, it's got jokes, tomfoolery, flash cars, pretty much everything except tits. He might not be a standup, but he's got plenty of one liners.

 

Can't stand Clarkson personally, I think he's a tosser and frequently wrong. I also think Top Gear is repetitive boring and staged shite, but I will still defend his performance.

 

I also think you've got no idea what the BBC should be doing, read up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/index.shtml

[%age]

Didn't see what was wrong with the comments personally

 

Heh!

[Skeddan]

Slim - can you clarify. I entirely agree with what you say about not pandering to a commercial audience, and also that they shouldn't become staid and only cater to the Antiques Roadshow crowd - if they did that they'd also be failing in their Public Purposes.

 

I've no problem with a lads mag on telly, and would also defend his performance - but don't see it fitting with the BBC. When you say "I also think you've got no idea what the BBC should be doing" - was that directed at me?

 

The relevant texts regarding 'what the BBC should be doing' is the Charter and Agreement.

 

This from the Charter:

3. The BBC’s public nature and its objects

(1) The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

(2) The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.

4. The Public Purposes

The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—

(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;

(b)promoting education and learning;

©stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;

(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;

(e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;

(f) in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

 

Maybe my limited exposure to Top Gear means I fail to fully appreciate the value of the programme.

 

Can anyone explain how Top Gear serves the public interest and meets the objective of promotion of the BBC's Public Purposes?

 

If it doesn't, then as far as I can see the BBC shouldn't be doing it. If I'm wrong about that, then please show relevant provisions of the BBC's constitution which would make this part of its remit.

[Silentbob]

Everyone who was offended by the Top Gear program is a cock.

 

Job Done.

[Stu Peters]

I think it's also worth pointing out that it's only Skeddan who has made repeated racist comments about Jews and 'niggers' under the guise of illustrating his rather weak point. You Sir, are acting like a troll.

 

Skeddan is trying to put words into Clarkson's mouth that JC has the innate sense and decency not to use himself.

 

 

Edited to add:

 

3. The BBC’s public nature and its objects

(1) The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

 

7 million viewers a week are interested. Your case is dismissed.

[Skeddan]

I think it's also worth pointing out that it's only Skeddan who has made repeated racist comments about Jews and 'niggers' under the guise of illustrating his rather weak point. You Sir, are acting like a troll.

 

Skeddan is trying to put words into Clarkson's mouth that JC has the innate sense and decency not to use himself.

No I wasn't trying to put words in Clarkson's mouth. What I said was clearly hypothetical examples and relevant to the discussion of the issues, and clearly for that purpose.

 

To state I was making racist comments "under the guise of illustrating [a] rather weak point" is an unjustified and unwarranted underhand personal attack entirely without foundation. Accusing me of making racist comments and attempting to misrepresent what Clarkson said in this manner is abuse.

 

I'd ask you to retract this wrongful accusation, and hope you will have the decency and courtesy to do so.

[Skeddan]

Edited to add:

 

3. The BBC’s public nature and its objects

(1) The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

 

7 million viewers a week are interested. Your case is dismissed.

If you as a presenter and employee of Manx Radio seriously think that this is what is meant by 'public interest' in terms of public service broadcaster, then IMO that should be a serious concern.