Swearing on the BBC pre-watershed
solenoid
Posts: 15,495 Forum Member
✭✭
The BBC have refused to accept a complaint about bad language transmitted on national radio – because the complainer’s letter used exactly the same words that they had used on air.
They told Colin Harrow that his letter’s tone and language were ‘unacceptably abusive or offensive’.
In other words, the BBC are ready to transmit words into our homes which their staff are not prepared to read.
The Corporation’s complaints staff are supposed to be more sensitive to bad language than (say) elderly ladies or young children.
The programme involved, a Radio 4 play called Paradigm, was broadcast on Tuesday, January 21 at 2.15 pm, long before any sort of watershed.
..
Mr Harrow thought he would treat the Corporation as they had treated him. He opened his letter with the same words and a similar tone (he did not use asterisks, but I have).
‘This afternoon’s play was sh***. It p***ed me off. The b*****d who wrote it needs sh****ing. Perhaps the b****r should be kicked in the testicles while stark b****** naked.’
He added: ‘I hope whoever reads this is not offended by the language used so far, but then if they work for the BBC why should they be?
'After all, every swearword and obscenity was used, some several times over, in this “afternoon” play, so I guess the BBC regards them as perfectly acceptable, including, I’m sure, in letters of complaint.’
The BBC, in pious mode replied:
‘When handling your complaint,’ they continued piously, ‘we will treat you courteously and with respect. We expect you to show equal courtesy and respect towards our staff and reserve the right to discontinue correspondence if you do not.’
They then offered to consider the complaint if Mr Harrow resubmitted it ‘using more acceptable language’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2550102/PETER-HITCHENS-The-BBC-just-loves-swearing-gets-dose-X-medicine.html
Therefore it is okay (in the minds of the BBC) to broadcast bad language pre-watershed (without warning either) but not for people to write to them using such language.
>:(
0
Comments
IIRC there is no watershed for the radio, but consideration has to be made for the sort of program it's in - so Radio 1 during a kids section would be out, but R4 which is not traditionally a station kids listen to, during a play might be ok (in the same way that R4 has some reasonably adult topics discussed during the day).
It basically sounds like the guy who wrote the letter set out to be offensive and try to make a point, but just made himself look silly.
If there is no watershed for radio should there be one? As the BBC has shown itself not capable of making some rudimentary decisions.
No need to shoot the messenger. Either the story is true or not.
Either there is a case for reform of radio laws or not.
And I don't see why it's an issue. It's PG level language, do you mean to tell me that Radio 4's audience haven't ever seen a PG rated film?
(Intriguing that they waited until the show was off the iPlayer to post the article, wonder why that could be?)
A customer swearing at people who are effectively customer service isn't in context, especially if he gets abusive, which swearing out of context would seem to be.
Example: in one of my previous jobs, which was in customer service, I wouldn't stand for swearing aimed at myself or my company if it was for derogatory usage. If it was used casually, not as an insult, then it would be of no consequence.
Context is the key. The press know this, but conveniently don't mention it, in order to damage the BBC because of their shares in a BBC competitor.
Who says it was the BBC he was writing to anyway? It may be a company that the BBC outsource to and use BBC branding and letterheads?
Radio 4 is a speech radio station aimed at adults and this programme was aired when children would be at school, so what's the problem?
The complainer comes across as a dick. I'm sure the Daily Mail love him though.
Is it? Why?
Radio 4 have broadcast plays and programmes with this sort of "language" for as long as I can remember since it generally understands that its audience are adults and not 3 year olds who might die if they hear someone say "bum".
Oh yes. Well that goes without saying
"No warning of bad language was given." says Hitchens.
Christ, I hate people who call it "bad language". It's "strong language", usually, but in this case it's actually "mild language" and that's the warning I would've given. Doesn't hurt to mention it at the start.
As for the lack of comments being allowed, I shouldn't worry. Most of them are pre-moderated and they only bother with that for the first couple of hours. After that, if you can see that new comments haven't appeared for a while then you'll have a better chance of being heard if you write it on a piece of paper and throw it out the window.
This is the same BBC that employed Paedos, apparently, according to media reports!!!!
Are you surprised you are of the general public and the only communication they want with you is the £145 a year fee for what they want to do with it.
A contemptuous organisation rotten to the core and harbouring so many secrets they have no moral basis for any decision they make.
I'd be glad they responded in the way they did, they have a reputation and a standard to keep as low as possible.
It would have been a shock and out of character to give your complaint any credence.
An afternoon play, on radio, was once safe from the nasty profanities of late night television. It seems no more.
I wonder if that includes Jimmy Savile who has yet to be tried and convicted in a court of law, for obvious reasons?
But BBC R4 regularly uses this language, in fact I've heard a discussion about why men might enjoy prison rape on BBC R4 Extra in a similar timeslot (contextually justified as part of a reading of Stephen King's Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption). Why should BBC R4 stop because one person (out of a considerable number) was offended by mild language?
Admittedly they generally air the more adult with a warning, and I'm not convinced there wasn't a warning before this broadcast because BBC Radio are generally over sensitive when it comes to warning about language and adult content. Why is why the timing of the article is suspect...
Ummm... no. This is nothing new. But some people like to make stuff up to have a drama about.
But not over the person who is complaining to them.
The swearing in the play is in context, the swearing in the letter to the BBC was personally abusive and aggressive to the staff reading it.
It's the fact he was directing insults towards someone and became abusive to that person that was why he was rebuffed.
"I, Claudius," which is a classic BBC drama of the days you yearn for and would definitely appeal to the average Radio 4 listener, had swearing and graphic sex scenes - especially of naked dancers in the opening episode.
It's not dumbing down, it's called opening people's minds to words being used in context, rather than automatically assuming "swear word = bad and shouldn't be used".
From editorial guidelines
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-harm-watershed#radio-scheduling
The swearing in the play was not forewarned. As wasn't the swearing in the letter.
Why was it okay for the BBC to transmit a play with such foul language without warning but not okay for someone to send a letter of complaint with similar foul language?
Is swearing only okay if the BBC does it?