»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Sex god radio disc jockey, burlesque risque dancer - Mk II cleaned up hopefully!
»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Sex god radio disc jockey, burlesque risque dancer - Mk II cleaned up hopefully!
| The Alley |
|
Sex god radio disc jockey, burlesque risque dancer - Mk II cleaned up hopefully! |
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
(NOTE TO MODS: PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EDIT, DELETE, MOVE, ERADICATE, CENSOR AS NECESSARY - I'M NOT GOOD WITH BOUNDARIES!) Sex god radio disc jockey, burlesque "Satanic Slut" (name of burlesque dance troupe), £18m motor mouth chat show host, prime minister forced to comment, BBC director general rushes back from holiday ... This is the Mk II version of my attempt to connect with the younger - under 30! members of PiP to see what their views are about a row which has now dominated the British news for several days. My first post was removed from the Alley following protests from Balladeer and Nan because I included links to: A verbatim recording of the BBC Radio 2 programme with Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross. The Times - with an article including a transcript of the programme. The Mail - with articles commenting on the controversy. These articles and the recording obviously contained the profanity and the disgraceful behaviour that led to this becoming the debacle it has. What didn't occur to me, and perhaps should have done, is that by linking to articles in two of the largest newspapers in the UK and a direct recording of a radio programme on one of the largest radio stations, I might breach the g-rated status of the forum. Which just goes to illustrate the depths our biggest newspapers and radio stations have sunk to I guess. Balladeer and Nan clearly feel, as I do, that this behaviour was not acceptable on a radio programme broadcast mainly for the teen to 40's age group, or maybe in fact any age group at all. The issue in my view wasn't so much what was said, as who it was said to (private answer machine), and who it was said about (loved grand-daughter). This is the point that I can only think must have escaped some (mainly younger) listeners, for them to have reacted so callously. Balladeer mentioned in his reply to my original thread that I could have got my point across without the links. I suppose this is true, in that I could have simply suggested that people who wanted to consider the points I was making might research the issue for themselves by searching on the names of the main protagonists: Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross, Andrew Sachs (Manuel the waiter in Fawlty Towers) and Georgina Baillie (the satanic slut!). The fact is though that, distasteful as the episode is, it is necessary to have some idea of what happened in order to join the debate. Balladeer also said that 4000 complains were made to the BBC; the number is now up to 35,000! So, yes, clearly people are offended, but interestingly the overwhelming majority of much younger (teen/20's) listeners apparently found the show "funny". This article demonstrates the situation: "Shock and ordinary by Mark Easton 29 Oct 08, 01:24 PM GMT Reactions to the Russ-Ross affair reveal a generational divide. On last night's BBC News at Ten, my colleague David Sillito demonstrated it beautifully when asking the views of people queuing for the Alan Titchmarsh TV show and others lining up to see 'Never Mind the Buzzcocks'. The former were outraged by the antics of the Radio 2 presenters. The latter, broadly, felt we should all get a life. "I think it's quite funny - I think everyone should lighten up", said one young woman. Analysis of the texts and emails sent to Radio 1Xtra echoes the point. Four out of five responses were in support of the pair [a young audience]. A more general sample of the audience online saw the findings reversed. Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. We should not be surprised, but I wonder if this generation gap is exposed because we are increasingly witness to people trying to close it. The young have always taken to shocking their elders. It is an arc within the circle of life - the bit where one finds green hair, loud music and loose morals. The occupants of this territory imagine they are the first settlers, that their behaviour is more outrageous than any that has gone before. Little do they realise that their "challenge to the very fabric of society" is but a phase - they will almost all conform eventually. They will grow out of it, as my mum used to say. We need young people to behave like this, to stir things up. Society could calcify and seize up without a little agitation. But what happens if the maturation process stops? Imagine legions of callow youths still determinedly trying to shock as they enter middle age. It would be an offence to nature. The youth market is necessarily mercurial. People who once understood it intimately wake up one day to realise they are baffled. And yet in our media and in business 30, 40 and sometimes even 50-somethings are expected to appeal to this generation. The answer often is to reach, metaphorically, for the green hair dye, whether that is chefs who swear, jocks who shock or simply men, (and women) behaving badly." The latest is this, a senior BBC Executive falling on her sword: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radi o/article5051781.ece But, as I said before, the issue I wanted to raise, isn't the actual matter of the obscenity or even the illegality of leaving such messages on someone's private phone line, but the incredible fact that a fairly high proportion of people under the age of 30 think that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable, and indeed very funny. This is worrying imo. Sure, the young, have always, as the in-phrase goes, "pushed the boundaries", but this reflects in my view, a growing trend in young, and mainly ill-educated people, to confuse reality and fantasy. They view behaviour such as this in the vacuum of a tv game show or a computer simulation game or, more pertinently, a tv reality show, where the edges of real life and not real life blur. This raises the question of whether, morally, behaviour in unreal life should have a lesser standard than in real life - or whether in fact the two should be separated at all (consider the rules here at PiP). But assuming, as most people seem to, that it is perfectly acceptable to saw off someone's head with a chainsaw in a computer game, or swear at a game show host, or jump into bed with your best friend's fiancee in a reality show, there is then the risk of young people, growing up with this alternative unreality flung at them all the time, applying the "rules" of that unreality to their everyday living. Ergo, an obscene phone call becomes part of a perfectly normal "game" called life. [This message has been edited by moonbeam (10-31-2008 05:33 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2008 moonbeam - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
MB, I have to agree that we are seeing a downslide in life, which I believe is partly due to movies and such going back as far as 40-50 years where "teens were allowed to rule" and "push the boundaries" and we took them for what they were - we were "aghast" for the moment, but they made money the more we gasped. A slice of life? Perhaps. But we've given over a far chuch of life for the behavior we have allowed to evolve. In this particular country, though, I believe that government has stepped in too far to "take care of children's needs" and have literally taken disciplinary action and control OUT of the parents' hands. It's a no-win situation. [This message has been edited by Sunshine (11-01-2008 10:04 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The Mods being MORE prudish than Auntie Beeb!!  |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Sorry, Grinch, but I agree that the links provided overstepped the boundaries of THIS site, and even Moonbeam asked that we review his work to make sure he was within the guidelines. Of course, if you don't like the restrictions...  there's always other sites out there.   |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Who is Auntie Beeb? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"Auntie Beeb" is an affectionate name for the BBC reflecting that organisation's impeccably restrained and decorous image! ~splutter~ The serious point is that the links I posted contained some strong swear words, but none that most young teens wouldn't be very familiar with. The offense to my mind didn't so much lie in the language itself, but the manner and circumstances in which it was employed. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi All: I kind of like the keep it clean policy on this site. There's enough filth for anyone interested elsewhere. I'm not suggesting that M's links were particularly obscene, I looked them up under the names in the revised post, but they maybe weren't PiP-Fit. I do think there are some inconsistencies in how the rules are applied, but that's going to happen on any site that attempts to maintain some standards. As to kid's shocking their elders, I remember when my 16 year old son came home with a pierced-ear ear-ring. There was a great deal of mumbling about among the kid's as to how I would "explode" when I saw it. I let him get half way through dinner without saying anything, building the suspense, as it were, then retrieved a picture of myself from 1965 with a gold stud in my nose, and passed it over to him without a word. He stared at for a bit then gave me one of those "looks" and called me a name, something slightly stronger than "spoil-sport!" I let him get away with it, first, because he didn't use a word that had never passed my own lips, and second because he recognized the joke was on him. When my 15 year old grand-daughter on the other hand, came home with a black, barbed wire chain tattooed around her neck, it got to me. Seriously considered being the fist to light the fire while the "spoil-sport" who did this to her was burned at the stake. In Arizona, at the time, and probably elsewhere and still now, it is illegal to tattoo a minor professionally, no matter how good their fake ID's are. My granddaughter at least had an excuse: general teenage stupidity. The tattoo artist, IMO, had none. Now, my nose stud came out when I recieved my draft notice. I assumed, correctly as it turned out, that the Army had less of a sense of humor than I did. My son's ear-ring phase lasted about a year before he grew tired of it. My grand-daughter, on the other hand is stuck with this particular barbarity for life barring, laser surgery of some sort. Ha Ha Ha! Not! I think M's point was more about how his references were on or in mainstream media, meant possibly to suggest that there are depths of degradation not even the British will accept on the telly or in major news rags. I see a disturbing trend in mainstrem television here, too. It appears that the basic qualification for being a "weather girl" on the local network affiliate stations is a set of big breasts. Previoulsy, the basic qualification was being a failed stand-up comic. In Los Angeles, Fox Channel 11 has tried to combine the best of both worlds with a "Jillian" person, who is not only uncommonly well endowed, but so dumb as to be hilarious. Ah well, the kids at least, will grow out of it, especially if they wish to rise from burger-flipper to burger-flipper Assistant Manager. For some truly raucous humour, not always scatalogical, one might try: www.theonion.com I think it is a funny site, but that's JMO. Best, Jimbeaux  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ah...thank you! Auntie Beeb, eh? sweet I learn much because of the diversity of this site. And nice to meet you, Rob! (That's another new thing I learned in this thread--your name.) And I'm nodding with Jimbeaux--I have noticed that even commercials on mainstream television are getting a bit...out of hand? I'm thinking in particular of a commercial for a fingertip personal vibrator--anybody catch that one? Then there's the notorious E.D. commercials as well. (oooh, watch the lightbulb as Karen makes connections!) OH But more to my concern is the blatant sexualization of children this Halloween. Nobody wants to be a mere "witch" anymore--one of the more popular costumes being sold at the local "party" store was called "Naughty Nurse"--complete with fish net stockings, starting in sizes that would fit a four year old. And sorry for popping in here Rob, I'm neither British nor under the age of thirty, so I'm not sure you needed my input. I exit, shaking my head, thinking of that vibrator commercial. Even I must agree that some things are just not nice no matter how discreetly the script is written.  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: No not really Jim. Knowing the "entertainers" involved, and the way the BBC's editorial policy seems to accommodate, uh, "change" for the worse, I've just been waiting for something like this to happen. I think what bothers me most is this issue of a seemingly substantial minority or even majority of young listeners not being able to see the difference between a show which simply contains foul language, and a show which using, foul language, personal insults and macabre suggestion deliberately drives a coach and horses through the privacy of a private individual and his granddaughter. And if it's that they DO in fact see the difference, but it's STILL funny, then that is REALLY worrying. I personally think that "reality" shows such as BB inhabit a sort of grey world between fantasy and reality where much more "goes" than out in the classroom, or at home, or even on the street or in the mall. That grey world is I think for some youngsters, becoming more and more the "real" one, and regrettably it's essentially an entirely selfish one. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: That's what you think, heh! It's always nice to see you though Karen, under 30 or not! |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
No, I watch crude shows alot. However those comedians are plain filthy. There is a certain point when we all must control ourselves [which is different than repression]. It got me to thinking why do I even watch these shows. So I decided to cut down my exposure to them. Cause I don't ever want to laugh at at those peoples jokes. -Juju |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I don’t watch much TV, but some of the shows I do watch are far from the age of the Andy Griffith and The Waltons, etc, which I remember those well and I enjoyed those shows. I love NCIS, House and the Colbert Report. My fav channels are History and Discovery. NCIS and House tend to be pretty graphic and have a risqué use of innuendo and language. Colbert isn’t exactly squeaky clean by any means. His sarcasm and wit is definitively edgy, whereas he may be blasé to Europeans. I was “surprised” but don’t know why I was, when I visited France and Germany and TV nudity is the norm. They have nude weather girls. I suppose I’m used to clothed TV personalities during the day. That’s all. It seems they get premium pay per view channel stuff for free, and hey? I was just looking for some news. LOL. The reality shows here must target a very young audience because most people over 15-20 years old would find more interest in a bag of rocks than in those shows that have nearly the entire segment bleeped out. I guess they like to sit and read lips or fill in the bleeps? I think I’m just as concerned about young people finding such to be worthy of watching let alone funny. Women fighting over who will get to sleep with some guy? Is there a lack of men out there willing to sleep with women without having to fight over him on TV? Paris Hilton needs a show to find a best friend? People aren’t getting paid to act. They are getting paid to act up and act out and bank on stupid and wrong. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: There are other sites!! Do you have links?  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Juju that's good. Asking "why" is good. Because I think that it's NOT asking "why" that is the reason these shows get watched. They are all over the place ubiquitously invading the media, often featuring cool 20/30 somethings, maybe quasi "celebrities", just the type of person many teens/20's aspire to become. They are role models: drinking, using grown up swear words, talking sex, drugs, fighting over sleeping partners, experimentating with the taboos - all the exciting out of bounds stuff packaged up and presented in a glitzy or romantic setting, and with the TV/media stamp of acceptability. It's so easy to switch off your mind, slip yourself into that setting and let the cynical name "reality" show become your reality. The only reality is ratings and money, and the exploitation of young minds that haven't acquired sufficient defences. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Perhaps US censorship is more rigorous than UK. Your last point, about being "worthy of watching" raises the same point as I mention above answering juju, and imo goes to the heart of the issue of the way young minds (perhaps less educated, and therefore less inquiring?) can be anaesthetised into absorbing a "reality" which falls far short of the moral and social standards that are needed to hold society together in a way which minimises friction and hurt. I don't believe a lot of these young people are consciously thinking about the "worth" of what they are watching, I think many just accept this way of behaving as a valid mirror of life, and therefore as normal and necessary as air. In another thread Ron and I started to discuss the "role of society", and Ron mentioned that he thought that the main (perhaps the only) role of society is to "help protect people from other people". Well imo something is going very wrong with societies that deliberately allow their young members to be fed this mind altering garbage in order to make billions of dollars - these, mark you, are the same societies whose governments are fighting to prevent the inflow of drugs from Columbia and Afghanistan. As you say over there in the US: "go figure"! |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Grinch, I sure do. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Sex god radio disc jockey, burlesque risque dancer - Mk II cleaned up hopefully!
