It seems to me that a lot more viewers are a lot more upset about the JS fiasco than were about the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand incident.

The JR/RB incident occurred on an obscure late night radio show. JS was on prime time TV, seen by 10M.

Are many viewers sufficiently annoyed about the treatmemnt of JS to make an official complaint to the BBC? If just 1% of 10M were to complain, that would be a lot of complaints.

The BBC management were criticised over Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand for being slow off the mark to respond to the problem. As each day passed, the media storm grew.

The Sunday newspapers love a Strictly story. They might have plenty to say this weekend.

Should BBC management take any preemptive action: for example, to invite Phillips, Horwood and Jordan to graciously resign from the show, right now; or get fired.

The US show does very well without any caustic individuals like Phillips/Horwood. I'd like to see Brian Fortuna replace the pair of them.

I think this is called stirring.

Since it's already been blown out of all proportion I have to tell any tempted complainees to 'get a life' (just as in the previous case).

The idea of Brian as a judge does appeal, but it's not going to happen.

G

The judges were the worst thing about last year, and I didn't think they could top it.. But they have

That's exactly where the comparison with the JR/RB is apt.

And of course to what extent the media are reflecting public opinion and to what extent they are driving it.

The herd mentality of the British public is really highlighted in these kind of situations.

Agree completely.

What has perhaps exacerbated the media furore is that JS is one of their own, and also keeps up his connections with political journos and politicians themselves.

Paxo's precence at the news conference said it all.

G

When you see the arch-basher of public service broadcasting, Kelvin Mackenzie, leading another campaign, you know what agenda is being promoted.

No, I think the subject has been sufficiently aired and individuals will have learned their lessons.

Let's hope so.

Individuals should include voters and DS posters

G

Good point, I'd lost sight of the journalistic connection in all the hysteria. And on a slightly unrelated note, how refreshing to see a poster on here who can spell furore

It's actually forure.

Are you serious?

Sorry - I got the wrong forure which is french for a hole.

Probably thinking of the hole SCD have dug themselves into.

Exaggerated zeal is as you rightly say furore.

No.

Next question please....

Phew. <mops brow smiley>


You need to look beyond the headlines...

This is, as is typical when the media get involved, a storm in a teacup. I don't understand what the big deal is. John was invited to take part and chose to do so and now he chooses to leave. His decision. By his own admission, he wasn't forced to leave. Anyone claiming that he was bullied clearly hasn't looked beyond his avuncular exterior. He's a savvy political journalist with plenty of backbone, having weathered much worse than anything thrown at him by the Strictly judges. These so-called villains haven't been any worse to him than to any other contestant in Strictly history - it's all just been sensationalised by the BBC and by the rest of the media. No one needs to be fired, no one needs to step down but what we all need to do is take a chill pill! It's a only a game.

The comparision is the media feeding frenzy and the newspapers liking to attack the BBC.

As Charlie Brocker pointed out about the JR/RB affair on his Radio Four program Screenwipe - newspapers are losing out to on-line news and their only real weapon to fight back with is campaigns of which anything related to telly is an easy target.

Actually, I think the two situations are totally different. The JR/RB hysteria was public-driven, the JS one media-driven.

As an example, it took two weeks after broadcast for people to start complaining about the Radio 2 show - and that's because the media didn't tell them it was happening.

JS has barely been out of the headlines since it was announced he was competing - in news, in features like Esther Rantzen's column, in quotes from other celebs in the competition - he's been plastered everywhere. The fact he's made the front page of just about every national today shows how much the papers have made of it. Yet as the OP suggests, few people have rung up to complain about his continued presence on SCD.

And of course, let's not forget the fundamental difference - Georgina Baillie has never admitted to sex with John

Thankfully! That's a hideous image!

Interesting article in the Guardian, which says there IS a link between JS and JR.

Basically saying its all about the public getting one back over broadcasters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...geant-strictly

That is an interesting article - not least the bit about the new rule so the judges can vote out any performer who finishes bottom for three weeks running. Have I missed that?

But I do think the producers should take the rap for all this. They actively encouraged Sergeant-gate and this is where, for me, we creep into parallels with Brand/Ross.

Before I go any further, I think the BBC is great. It makes more brilliant programmes than I can begin to name here and I do not subscribe to the 'abolish the licence fee' argument at all.

However, speaking as someone who works in television and has done stints at the BBC on several different occasions, I have to say that the quality of management there is generally pretty bad.

This is not sour grapes on my part, nor is it exclusive to the BBC - it's common across British television. The difference with the BBC is its size: it's unwieldy and stuffed with more management layers than you can shake a stick at. Decisions take forever and bullying is widespread (way, way beyond anything John Sergeant was allegedly subject to). It is a testament to the many people 'at the coalface' that so many great programmes get made - and they do.

But when something like Sergeant-gate happens, BBC management go into denial for ages, then plan some meetings, then do nothing, hoping it will all go away. In the meantime, the problem is being so badly managed by the people closest to the programme in question that they manage to make it worse, not better.

Sounds familiar?

There is much less at stake with Ross/Brand than there is with SCD: they are nowhere near as popular and don't have the same reach. There are, however, similar lessons to learn. Whether anyone will bother to realise that is, of course, another thing altogether ...

I've seen some of what Servalan's talking about at first-hand and I agree with what's been said about the quality of management in broadcasting.

Getting ahead in television is based on who you know, and how much experience you have - it is NOT based on your ability to manage people.

Hence, you can end up in a situation where people who've worked in the hothouse for 10 years, schmoozing for all they're worth to get jobs (no reflection on them as people, that's just how the industry works) suddenly end up in control of a programme - but forget that that means they're effectively in control of the welfare of a bunch of cast and crew members as well.

I'd never thought about it before now, but it definitely makes sense

I never heard John Sergeant making phone calls apart from that one on the dance floor the other week - he left simply because he was contracted to do after dinner speeches on a cruise ship - his timing as always was off

Sorry, but I have to take issue with that. If the JR/JB hysteria was not media-driven, why were there only two complaints made to the BBC in the seven days before the papers went with the story, and 30,000+ afterwards?

In my view the JS situation has, by a whisker, been slightly more driven by the public, if only because of the amount of internet chatter about it before the papers got there, but it's a close thing.

In any case, both are excellent examples of how easily public feelings are fuelled by the media.

Exactly the JR/RB hysteria was TOTALLY driven by the Media (esp. Daily Mail)

Judging by this forum, the main 'vibe' (hate that word) I got regarding JS was reactance i.e. people resenting being told how to vote. In addition to that, there was a baffling insistence by some that the judges didn't realise what reactions they would be provoking. Simply an over-emotional reaction to reverse psychology.

That said, I think there are aspects where comparisons can be made. For example, some of the bitterness towards the other celebs I'm getting now - with John being seen as somehow detached - could be indicative of the love-hate relationship with celeb culture. By that I mean the desire to watch and read about and discuss these people whilst harbouring real resentment towards them. That seemed to be a prominent feature of Manuelgate.

Also I think the over-reaction to some of the judges 'nasty' comments could be argued to be another manifestation of offence culture.

Whether or not there was a significant anti-BBC element to the JS vote, I think that's speculative but I don't rule it out.