Jeremy Clarkson on One Show

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:29:24 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

You could probably find a hit man who'd be willing to do the deed for a
suitable consideration without travelling anywhere. You could just tell
him to make it look like a robbery and make it as quick and painless as
possible, and it wouldn't place any burden of guilt or possible
prosecution on anybody you cared about. In fact, it might make the hit
man feel good about his job just for once, for doing someone a favour.

Wasn't there a TV programme of film with a similar plot?

A dying man hires someone to kill him, then discovers he's not really
dying at all and has to avoid being killed.

Thinking about it, hasn't this plot has been used more than once?
--
Martin Jay

In article , George
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:13:40 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote this:

I'm sure the headlines tell everything worth knowing about this silly
story, so I haven't bothered to read any of the rest. My reaction,
probably the same as that of most sensible people was "Oh not him
again" and "What's he said this time", before ignoring it and getting
on with the rest of my life.

I don't mind some celebrity making a rank spectacle of himself. But I do
object having to pay for his platform. (The license fee!).

To me it isn't really a question of dubious 'sense of humour', but dubious
*judgement*. And for me the real significance is wrt the BBC providing him
with a platform, which widens the question of judgement to them. I assume
he is/was just acting in the ways he thinks/thought will/would boost his
persona, etc. So in effect, doing what he thinks is required to stay a
'popular presenter' on TV. (And perhaps flogging his latest book / DVD /
whatever.) Which raises the question of how he comes to think the BBC
expect such behaviour. And what was in the mind of those making the
programme. For him, it may be a daft mistake by a clown. For those who
produce the programs it may be harder to explain.

WRT judgement, I don't think the only aspect of this is the upset to those
engaged in the specific strike, and their families. The reality is that in
many places around the world people *have* been executed in front of their
families for trying to oppose those in power. Presumably, this continues to
happen. Its a form or terrorism - sometimes systematically done by a state.
And in this case the 'joke' goes for many families who are having something
imposed on them by a government run by millionaries chums.

WRT to being a 'clown'. My own feeling is that there is a good tradition of
clowns and 'jesters' making very scathing 'jokes' about the wealthy and
powerful. That seems fair enough - if funny. But the point there is that
when doing so the *clown* is taking the risk, and may be helping those
weaker or in trouble.

Making an attacking 'joke' about those who have much less than the clown's
rich friends, or those struggling against having things imposed on them
when they are already worried or having problems seems less palatable. Then
it can seem more like putting the boot in to a soft target with the hope of
the clown pleasing their powerful friends and paymasters.

Again, IIUC those in combat may say to one of their mates who gets wounded
something like, "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have signed up!"
That may again seem pretty nasty to those never exposed to combat. But in
such a case it comes from someone sharing the same risks, and who may well
have put their own health and life in harm's way to protect the mate who
copped the wound. Part of a way of coping with their own *shared* risks and
problems. So again, perhaps not the same context as the Clarkson event, and
subject to a different judgement.

Irony sometimes has to be used with great care when discussing things which
sometimes *have* come upleasantly true. That is why judgement is called
for. And what may be OK in some contexts may in other situations turn out
to seem more like the playground bully who thinks his 'jokes' are 'fun'
when he and his gang have a go at others. Just larking about, sir.

All about context and judgement and ensuring people think about the effect
of what they do when being viewed by a large general audience. The clown
and his court may have lost contact with the people outside. The court
laughs when told, "Sire! The people are revolting!". Cake anyone?...

So my attention would be more directed to asking if this sheds an awkward
light on 'Destroying Quality First' at BBC1 (and a lesser extent BBC2 these
days)? And on the judgements at BBC1 (and 2) about what some of their
output should contain. In particular I admit I do wonder why BBC1 gets such
a big slice of the cake, largely for doing what commercial providers can
also do.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sunday, December 4th, 2011 at 17:22:34h +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

And for me the real significance is wrt the BBC
providing him with a platform

That is exactly the point which everybody else is missing.

Clarkson is entitled to his opinion. Clarkson is entitled
to have his opinion publicized in the newspapers.

Whether or not anybody regards his comments as significant
should be left entirely at the discretion of the individual.

Television is a broadcast medium and so it should be regulated
according to common decency and community standards, especially
so for a publicly funded state broadcaster.

There is no justification for the BBC transmitting program
material in prime time to a family viewing audience which
consists of degrading and deliberately offensive material.

In the case of Monty Python programs which others have suggested
support the notion that comedy about suicide is appropriate,
there are several key points to note

1) the show was broadcast after 21:00h

2) the show was clearly understood to be satirical and
cover controversial subjects

3) viewers knew what type of material was being presented

The One Show is supposed to be an informative family
oriented show. Clearly Clarkson's comments were
inappropriate for such a show and time of day.

Once again the BBC has succeeded in keeping the standard of
acceptable material for family viewing at an abysmally
low level.

As to those who maintain "it was all just a bit of harmless
fun because he was not being serious", would these same people
also consider jokes about the holocaust or the bombing of
Nagasaki on the One Show to be equally acceptable material?

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 18:37:34 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Sunday, December 4th, 2011 at 17:22:34h +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

And for me the real significance is wrt the BBC providing him with a
platform

That is exactly the point which everybody else is missing.

Clarkson is entitled to his opinion. Clarkson is entitled to have his
opinion publicized in the newspapers.

So far as I am concerned it is the responsibilty of each 'publisher' (and
here the BBC has that role wrt the 'One Show') to decide what content they
decide suitable for their 'publication' or not. Then there is open
competition between publishers, so the 'author' can seek one(s) who may be
willing to publish their 'work'.

[snip]

The programme goes out live, elsewhere in today's Sunday newspapers you
can read about the advice the producer gave him before the programme and
how Jeremy Clarkson ignored that advice. Time to ban chat shows on BBC
that are only there to advertise, DVDs and books etc. BBC is not allowed
to advertise.

If the producers told Clarkson *not* to say what he did, then their
recourse is to ensure the BBC don't trust him on a live programme in
future, and to make this decision plain.

However, chat shows seem to me just a portion of what I'd consider. I'd
rather widen the view to the question of what the BBC considers as
'entertainment', and if BBC1 should get so much for this as part of the
funding, etc. This can be approached from various angles.

e.g. Private Eye say that BBC1 entertainment seems to have rather a lot of
'programme makers' per programme. Although it is hard to tell when everyone
including the tea boy is being called a 'producer' to get them past the
"DQF" obsession with firing all the indians whilst keeping the chiefs. :-)

And there is the question of how much the 'talent' sic? gets.

Given the open claims of aiming for "Quality" and "not salami slicing" I
remain curious about the failure to direct the cuts almost entirely at BBC1
'entertainment' and largely protect the 'quality' in other areas of BBC
output that commercial channels would have no interest in. The few figures
I have seen make BBC1 entertainment very expensive per hour, and does it
really do what commercial channels can't or won't?

That said, it does seem that when 'popular presenters' go from BBC to
commercial their 'popularity' falls away. But maybe this is because people
can't resist trying to 'improve' (to destruction) what had worked well...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Op zondag, 04 december, 2011 om 23:27:50u +0100,
schreef Martin van Nederlands:

BBC is not allowed to advertise.

That never stopped them from advertising DAB radios
as seasonal gifts.

In article ,
Martin wrote:
Time to ban chat shows on BBC that are only there to advertise, DVDs
and books etc. BBC is not allowed to advertise.

It's called reviewing things. You have a strange idea about what is
advertising.

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, December 5th, 2011, at 23:57:25h +0100, our favorite Martin wrote:

It hasn't stopped them advertising many things, including TV licences.

Are you going to buy one for Christmas?

"J G Miller" wrote in message
...
On Monday, December 5th, 2011, at 23:57:25h +0100, our favorite Martin
wrote:

It hasn't stopped them advertising many things, including TV licences.

Are you going to buy one for Christmas?


I get mine free next year.
--
JohnT

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:23:30 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Martin wrote:
Time to ban chat shows on BBC that are only there to advertise, DVDs
and books etc. BBC is not allowed to advertise.

It's called reviewing things. You have a strange idea about what is
advertising.

You have a very strange idea of the meaning of review and an even
stranger idea of the meaning of advertising. Time you bought a
dictionary?

Collins GEM English Dictionary
advertise v. present or praise (goods or services) to the public in order
to encourage sales.

It is in your view that the *purpose* is to encourage sales. So presumably
*you* go out and buy all these things you say the BBC advertises?

You can't watch/listen to many such programmes that give bad reviews, then.

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Martin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 23:55:35 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Monday, December 5th, 2011, at 23:57:25h +0100, our favorite Martin wrote:

It hasn't stopped them advertising many things, including TV licences.

Are you going to buy one for Christmas?

I live in a TV licence free country.

So a freeloader as far as the BBC is concerned but still want to slag it
off? Why do you watch something so appalling to you, given there must be
local broadcasters that are so much better?

I haven't bought one in UK since my kids graduated.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.