Brass Eye Special

[old.^S0LIDUS^]

freak

Originally posted by Ch3tan
micheal jackson

this guy is a freak. I saw his face the other day in a mag and he looks like a fucking freak. Its disgusting tbh, his nose points upwards, what a freak.

And people these days think he is beautiful? erm? wtf?

 

[nath]

Re: freak

Originally posted by ^S0LIDUS^
And people these days think he is beautiful? erm? wtf?

Like who?

 

[Will]

Embattle - we'll agree to disagree mate. Everyone is entitled to their on opinion, and yours is as valid as mine.
I assume you're saying that it's OK to have that on TV, you just thought it was shit, yeah?
I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, what can I say...

 

[Ch3tan]

Just saw this on beeb site

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/tv_and_radio/newsid_1462000/1462692.stm

Now the politicians are in on it

 

[SoWat]

Tessa Jowell never saw a bandwagon she didn't want to jump on. David Blunkett is blind, and so was probably briefed by some civil service nonentity.

 

[(Shovel)]

.... hmm, I didn't watch it - but I can only wonder what the News of the World will make of it... it's them at the centre of the media problem.
Then again, NOTW is sister to the Sun isn't it? They wont be able to fit anything in next to the unavoidable Big Brother coverage. Not that they would ever acknowledge that it was them being satired either.

Which is the problem of course - yes, Morris may have had a target, and for those who realised it and found it funny, great, but the "problem papers" themselves wont learn, it gives the rest of us a chance to take the piss out of the News of the World, but wont actually change them.

Ah well.

 

[Durzel]

Most of the high brow papers will probably take it in the spirit it is intended. It's fairly commonplace for tabloids to single out mould-breaking programmes (especially those involving lesbian scenes - a popular favourite of the tabloids) for the usual "The Sun Says" treatment. I must say I find it particularly amusing to find tabloids "gettin' all serious" about a subject when it suits them, and destroying a person's life "because its in the public interest" the next. If you're moderately intelligent you would grow to basically ignore the editorials of a newspaper wherein one article lambasts the actions of a television programme one minute, and then prints something along the lines of "Jordan pregnant with alien baby!" the next. But then the British public are generally stupid, hence the 3 million+ readership of the Sun and suchlike.

Which is an aside. My point is that in the grand scheme of things, the Brass Eye Special was no different than the kinds of things tabloid newspapers print every day. What's more alarming is that at least you know with Chris Morris' heritage and the seemingly obvious (although clearly not to the celebrities involved) entrendres like "HOECS" and "NONCE SENSE" that he is being satirical, whereas most tabloids are deadly serious about whatever the flavour of the month (day) is.

 

[Summo]

Reckon you hit the nail on the head there, Durzel.

The Sun were claiming that Channel 4 should never have shown 'this filfth' and that Morris is sick and the Daily Fucking Mail (God, I fucking hate that newspaper so much!) once called him "'the most loathed man on TV" and asked the Vice Squad to monitor him.

The Guardian was highlighting Morris' 'media terrorist' title and called it "long overdue and, predictably, grimly hilarious."

In fact, I've cut n pasted The Guardians review below because I think it's refreshing to read a media opinion from someone who gets it. Just skip if, like you're not interested.

And finally to Brass Eye, and what the continuity announcer described as 'an uncompromising look at the subject of paedophilia'. Though long overdue and, predictably, grimly hilarious, the satirical content was slightly overshadowed by the numerous 'celebrities' who had been effortlessly duped into appearing. Do they never learn? If, for example, you were asked to contribute to a cutting-edge investigation into paedophilia and invited to sit in front of a camera wearing a T-shirt printed with the words 'Nonce Sense', or to read aloud from a cue-card saying: 'These hoax computer games can make your child smell like hammers', would you not immediately collapse weeping with laughter, throw your hands in the air and say: 'OK, it's a fair cop; where's that naughty Mr Morris?' Well, of course, you would. Because if I thought that any of you was as stupid as, for example, Gary Lineker, Phil Collins, Sebastian Coe, Barbara Follett, Gerald Howarth, Nicholas Owen, Kate Thornton, Michael Hames and Richard Blackwood, then life really wouldn't be worth living.

And how about the former Blue Peter presenter, Philippa Forrester, who last week left her job on Tomorrow's World after six years. Dare one suggest that she resigned in the shameful knowledge that the following day she would be appearing on Brass Eye, explaining how a paedophile wearing a pair of motorcycle gloves can reach through the screen of his PC to grope young children , a claim that would surely undermine any credibility she may have gained by working alongside Peter Snow on a popular TV science programme for several years? No, it's probably just a coincidence. Anyway, eager for more potential Brass Eye fallout, on Friday morning I tuned in to the Capital Radio breakfast show, presented by DJ 'Dr' Fox, to find out if he was going to pretend his own appearance had just been a very bad dream.

In fact, instead of ignoring it, which would have been understandable, he was gracious about the stitch-up: 'I'm a fan [of Brass Eye] and Chris Morris is very clever.' But perhaps this was because the point of the exercise appeared to have passed him by.

Indeed, Fox assured listeners that of course he hadn't wittingly taken part in a wicked satire on the media hysteria surrounding the reporting of child abuse, because, hey, that sort of thing just isn't funny, right? Instead, he was keen to let all those distressed listeners who'd phoned in to the station questioning his judgment know that, yes, of course he'd been conned, but only in a good cause - he'd wanted to help kids recognise paedophiles.

Which still doesn't answer the most pressing question: how the hell did he allow himself to be filmed comparing the genetic make-up of a decapod crustacean to that of a paedophile ?

(Or, as Helen from Big Brother might have put it: 'So a crab's a person, innit?') A pile of steaming elephantine shame is thus deservedly heaped upon Forrester and Dr Fox and all the other gullible Brass Eye participants for making Helen and Brian look like the finest minds of not merely their generation, but several others too.

 

[Will]

Cheers for that review, very funny.

 

[~Lazarus~]

There is nothing funny about paedophilia.

Of course I thought differently when I was younger, single and childless.

When these things change they give you a new outlook on life.

Paedophiles? They should have their genetilia chemically removed without anaesthetic

 

[Summo]

Originally posted by SomeGuy
That said, it did get a bit close to the bone sometimes and if I actually had children of my own I would have viewed this entirely differently.

I was waiting for you to turn up, Laz and I agree with you! I would not have recommended this programme to any parent as it was disturbing enough as it is. The 'comic target' was the media's portrayal of paedophiles, not that this makes much difference.

 

[~Lazarus~]

Originally posted by SomeGuy


I was waiting for you to turn up, Laz

Am I that predictable m8 ???

 

[SoWat]

Well I'm a parent of 3, and I still saw it for what it was, a huge unsubtle (though too subtle for some celebs) swipe at the way the media reports cases of child abuse.

People are getting a tad confused about the difference between taking the piss out of the reporting of, and child abuse itself.

 

[Wij]

It wasn't all about the media. The bit where he's quite shocked cos the Kiddie-fiddler says he just doesn't fancy his son wasn't about the media was it ?

 

[nath]

They had the guy in stocks, and wanted him to fancy his son so that they could all shun him etc. It's just an exageration of the type of thing the media does. News of the world releasing names of listed paedophiles anyone?

 

[Wij]

The only reason that made me laff was the way he looked personally offended that his son was not fanciable.

 

[Sir Frizz]

Could it be that the entire show is just one big puntaking the piss out of real life situations, made up ones and the media?

 

[bodhi]

I saw about 5 minutes of it, thinking it was a serious documentary. Then I saw Richard Blackwood talking about odour emitting keyboards, and I pissed myself. Very Very funny stuff. And anything which pisses the Daily Mail off is a good thing in my book. But I didnt think Daily Mail readers stayed up past 10:30 anyway......

 

[Will]

Anthony O'Hear, professor of philosophy, writing in the Daily Mail

The Brass Eye program was sick, stupid and offensive. It manipulated public figures, who presumably thought that they were doing something to counteract the tide of child abuse.

It was also deeply unfunny. It should never have been transmitted, and in a civilised society would not have been.

But, of course it has been defended by bigwigs from Channel 4. No doubt defenders of the programme would say my sense of humour is lacking.

Further, my "stuffy" attitude to free speech shows that I am out of touch with the changes in society and the national mood over the past two or three decades.

Over the entrance to the BBC there is an inscription, put up in 1931, which prays that "all things foul may be banished hence" and that people should "incline their ear to whatsoever things are lovely and honest and tread the path of virtue and wisdom".

Michael Jackson would no doubt condemn this exhortation as paternalistic, along with any attempt on behalf of the rest of us to suggest the boundaries of what might be permissible on television.

To which one can only reply that if you want to know what happens when you have no standards, just look at Channel 4.

What a well balanced view...

 

[Durzel]

But I didnt think Daily Mail readers stayed up past 10:30 anyway......

Oh I expect they do - Eurotrash is on about that time remember.

 

[Durzel]

It was also deeply unfunny. It should never have been transmitted, and in a civilised society would not have been.

Surely the basis for a civilised society is the notion of "free speech"? I'd rather live in a country where the media is uncensored and free to broadcast controversial material with appropriate warnings without having to resort to censorship to appease a minority (2,500 complaints out of however many millions that watched it is a minority by anyone's standards).

But, of course it has been defended by bigwigs from Channel 4. No doubt defenders of the programme would say my sense of humour is lacking.

At least he admits he lacks a sense of humour - doesn't this render the rest of his argument null and void?

To which one can only reply that if you want to know what happens when you have no standards, just look at Channel 4.

Which is rubbish.

Chris Morris' forté has always been to serve up controversial subjects with a dash of satire to produce a full-course comedy meal The fact that his programmes are so blindingly obvious to those with a shred of intelligence and yet so unbelievably offensive to those that miss the joke at the same time is what makes Chris Morris and the programmes he creates/associates himself with so timeless and brilliant.

Whilst I don't usually consider myself to be any more intelligent than the average Britizen it never ceases to amaze me how many people miss the joke completely and presumably think Morris/Brass Eye is somehow condoning paedophilia. If this were the case, and a programme was genuinely promoting a subject such as this the broadcaster would run a very serious risk of losing their licence.

 

[*Exor*]

Let's think about this....surely if you're one of those easily offended people...at the first sign of a program causing you offence, you'd just turn it off? If it really offends you THAT much, why sit through it? Just so that you can complain? What really does that acheive? Other than even more publicity for the creator of the program, absolutely nothing. Well done Mr and Mrs Complainer, you have played right in to the hands of the program creator. He is laughing at you.

 

[*Exor*]

Also, 1.5 million people watched the program, 3 000 complained. Do the maths.

That 1.5 million doesn't even compare to the amount of people (including CHILDREN themselves) who have access to quite seriously sickening and disturbing material that you can find on the internet (including genuine paedo's running picture swaps).

The program audience was pretty insignificant, aren't we forgetting this?

 

[SoWat]

If it really offends you THAT much, why sit through it? Just so that you can complain?

I'm sure that's exactly what happens. Some sad person sits there noting down all the offensive bits. It's quite revealing that the repeat generated more complaints than the original (probably because it allowed Mr and Mrs Complainer to get their notepads ready).

 

[Wij]

What really offends me is the government (Tessa Jowell and a few others anyway) wading in. Most won't have seen the program even but feel the need to state that they are going to do something about it.

The day the government can decide what we can and can't watch on TV is the day I up and leave for a country that feels less like a police state. Like China maybe :/

 

[Durzel]

It's quite revealing that the repeat generated more complaints than the original (probably because it allowed Mr and Mrs Complainer to get their notepads ready).

Very true. No doubt the storm of controversy that surrounded the programme meant that anyone who hadn't seen it the first time around made sure they were comfortably seated, pen and paper in hand, feverously writing down quotes from the show.

It's one thing to sit through an entire programme that offends you when you happen to find it whilst channel surfing, but it's quite another going out of your way to ensure you watch a programme you know through public/media furore is guaranteed to offend you.

What really offends me is the government (Tessa Jowell and a few others anyway) wading in. Most won't have seen the program even but feel the need to state that they are going to do something about it.

It's a win-win situation for politicians really. If they are outspoken about a programme such as this, it shows the "outraged" public that they are "in tune with the British public". And ultimately if, like me, you disagree with their opinions on the programme you're hardly likely to want to oust them from office because of it.

The fact many of them probably haven't seen the programme makes very little difference, since when have politicians actually needed to be knowledgeable about a subject before jumping on the latest media bandwagon.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Durzel
And ultimately if, like me, you disagree with their opinions on the programme you're hardly likely to want to oust them from office because of it.[/B]

Well if they feel the need to interfere in things they should keep out of in a civilised society (government interference in broadcasting is a sure sign of a government who wouldn't mind a totalitarian state one bit) then I'd consider it a pretty good reason to vote them out.

 

[Will]

They wouldn't dare - that would be a golden ticket for the Lib Dems to walk into office at the next election (not a bad thing imo)

 

[Wij]

Whereupon they would turn us into a small corner of Europe and never be forgiven by the electorate

I think not...

 

[Will]

What's wrong with the Lib Dems - very intelligent party, even admitted they would raise taxes to improve servics, whereas every other party said they would lower taxes and improve public services.