Options
BBC ''Got It Wrong'' Over Balding Joke
ftv
Posts: 31,668 Forum Member
✭✭✭
The BBC has admitted it ''got it wrong'' in a Radio 5 programme where panellists joked about ''curing Clare Balding of homosexuality.'' The remarks - on a live programme - were inappropriate and have been removed from the BBC i-player, the BBC said.One panellist said that Balding ''appreciates a bit of power between her legs''.
www.bbc.co.uk/aerial
www.bbc.co.uk/aerial
0
Comments
They removed an episode of Saturday Kitchen from it because of one swear word in the 90 minute episode.
They could have edited the programme to bleep/blank the word.
They could have put up a warning on the programme or page explaining about the language.
Or possibly they could have just ignored it and put it up how it went out live.
It pleases Ofcom and that's all really care about...
Perish the thought that its only a certain metropolitan elite that might be offended.
The comments about Claire Balding were offensive, but if they pull them off the iPlayer, Ofcom views it as the BBC taking steps to counter the offence caused, and it may aid the BBC's cause when (or if) Ofcom decides to investigate.
When I said "that's all they really care about" I meant that the BBC cares about pleasing Ofcom and not offending the audience more than preserving history. It was not intended as commentary on the remarks...
Really, i feel that people are missing the bigger picture here.
The Beeb feels forced to apologise for everything, even humour, in order to head off negative publicity from certain sections of the media.
Soon they will be unable to broadcast anything at all just in case it offends anyone.
Humour will be gone if we're not careful here.
All the while those publications that like to "go big" on these things will still do their own sordid buisness with no risk of a comback.
I hear comments of an outrageously un-PC nature from Graham Norton all the time on his chat show. Often they are aimed at showbiz drug addicts and mental cases of course, pathetic wretches with little social standing. So that's all right then.
This is the problem, it's so hypocritical of the BBC to block anti-liberal comments directed at certain social groups while allowing similar comments to go ahead at entirely different social groups.
Norton is endlessly having a go at Lindsay Lohan for example. And I'm sure Britney Spears. Complete wrecks in their time. Mock them but not Balding?
Quoting what was said without giving any context to why it was said is just fanning the flames.
I don't think they were upset about the victim, they were upset about the arguably homophobic nature of the comments...
What a bizarre action.
There will always be a minority who don't get this type of deliberately provocative humour.
Al Murray (pub landlord) comes to mind.
Such a character could never appear on a BBC channel nowadays that's for sure.
Who is this "they"? The Daily Mail readership?
After the DM printed a one-sided, out of context, article about the broadcast, their readership duly got outraged - despite not having listened to the broadcast. The same readership who will be back on their anti-gay, anti-same sex marriage agenda tomorrow.
The comments were not homophobic at all. The idea of "Defend the Indefensible" is to have an ironic rant about something you don't agree with - that's the whole point, to see who has the guts to go the full 30 seconds defending something quite obviously considered to be indefensible - the clue is in the title.
Claire Balding has been on FT before - apparently flashing her boobs at Colin Murray to gain extra points! She has never denied this, and its a running joke when she is on the show. She gives as good as she gets and is obviously held in high regard by the panelists. No way was Bob Mills being homophobic and no way would he have meant any of it. It was a joke ffs.
Spot on, and that is why it is done.
Thanks to this, comedy might be saved for another few weeks....
Apart from the subject of this thread of course, and Norton's material which, you yourself, have highlighted.
So, it DOES still appear, just with an apology to head off the newspapers who will try and whip up outrage.
And these days, the apology comes before the firestorm.
My apologies I typed the link slightly incorrectly:
www.bbc.co.uk/ariel
Sorry, but repeating something that is acknowledged to be wrong or offensive is quite simply, wrong.
No ifs, no buts.
So we have cases when the BBC is criticised for not admitting that they were wrong (in the face of viewer complaints) - the oft-repeated line of "we're right and you're wrong" (look in a number of recent Points of View threads in TV forum for that phrase - i's very popular with a few posters).
And now they are criticised for admitting that they were wrong ("e're wrong and you're right")..
Can't really win can they.
So doesn't that demonstrate that each complaint is viewed on its merits (and in context) rather than a knee-jerk "we're right/we're wrong" approach?
I just don't get what people want here - they moan when the BBC refuses to admit that a complaint was justified. They moan if the BBC admits that a complaint was justified.
And remember - just because you might find something offensive (or not offensive) it does not mean that it IS offensive (or not) when viewed "in the round"
Seems fair to me.