Writing Exemplification – April 2010
1
Level: Higher
Genre: Discursive
Is It Time TV Loudmouths Are Put On Standby?
Earlier this year thousands of complaints were made to the BBC by an outraged public. The
incident hit headlines in newspapers all over Britain causing reputations and jobs to be lost,
sparking a whole new debate in the media fuelled by infuriated listeners. The cause of this public
outcry? Two foolish radio broadcasters made an obscene phone call to a veteran comedy actor. All
this controversy was caused over a few sentences but in many people’s opinion the content of these
sentences was completely unacceptable. In a world where freedom of speech is embraced, can
broadcasters really say what they want or are the boundaries of good taste being stretched too far in
the name of comedy?
Fifty years ago when the people of Britain watched the TV or listened to the radio they were
watching or listening to the BBC. Now, many generations later, there is a never-ending list of
channels and the beleaguered BBC are desperately trying to stand out from the crowd and appeal to
younger viewers. At the forefront of the BBC revolution is television presenter and broadcaster
Jonathon Ross – the ace up the BBC’s sleeve. His no-subjects-left-untouched approach to comedy
is rewarded with a ludicrous ten thousand pound payment for each show. Ross recently teamed up
with fellow “cheeky chappy” Russell Brand in The Russell Brand show on Radio Two where the
pre-recorded phone call that caused the debacle was broadcast. The phone call, to the actor Andrew
Sachs, contained provocative comments about his granddaughter blurted out by Brand and Ross –
this was intended to be funny. Far from it; in fact it broke the law. Thirty-eight thousand
complaints were clocked up by the BBC, covering such topics as “ the programme should never
have been broadcast” to “Ross is overpaid”, but for me the real issue is that Ross and Brand broke
the law and got away with it because they are famous. The scandal forced Brand to quit and his
respected producer to get sacked, Ross, however, was merely given a twelve week suspension.
There tends to be a divide in opinion in Britain on this matter: most of the older generation think
that the phone call was completely out of order, while most of the younger generation think that
Ross was just having a laugh, being “edgy”. In my opinion being “edgy” does not mean that you
can phone someone up, insult their granddaughter and broadcast it on live radio. Many people can
remember the hilarious Fawlty Towers, which Andrew Sachs starred in as Manuel, a Spanish
waiter. The humour in Fawlty Towers could in fact have been offensive in the wrong context but it
was done in such a funny way that people were able to see beyond it. The programme probably was
accepted because Basil Fawlty, the offensive hotel owner, was made to look like an outcast in
contrast to Ross and Brand’s laddish jokes intended to be cool and appeal to younger listeners,
setting a terrible example. The phone call that backfired on them was intended to insult Sachs and
his granddaughter in a desperate attempt to be funny. The consequent sanctions may have lacked
severity but their real punishment is that their reputation and opinion in the public eye has certainly
fallen.
Another example of a comment that caused controversy is when cult car show presenter Jeremy
Clarkson implied that lorry drivers murder prostitutes in their spare time.. Not for the first time in
Clarkson’s career, he hit the headlines but some would argue that his comment was only a joke and
it was not to be taken seriously. A spokesman for the haulage company Eddie Stobart, replied to
the comment saying:
“They were just having a laugh. It’s the twenty-first century, let’s
get our sense of humour in line.”
Five hundred complaints made to the BBC show that many people thought Clarkson’s joke was not
in “good taste” but no matter what the complaints say, the comment was well within the boundaries
of the law.
Clarkson’s comment may have pushed boundaries but he would not be the first. Since the days of
Charlie Chaplin, comedy has come a long way and comedians are becoming more and more
outrageous. Due to this, people are able to talk about different races and religions without
constantly being wary of slipping up and offending someone. One of the great things about comedy
is that it brings us together because when we feel more able to talk about risqué subjects we are
more comfortable around each other, without any constraints. I believe that a way to stop people
being so uptight is to allow broadcasters to talk more openly about controversial subjects. We
should not let political correctness become so important that we cannot talk about certain subjects
and, most importantly, laugh about them.
The problem of pushing boundaries of comedy, however, is that the boundaries of “good taste” also
tend to be broken. But what is “good taste”? If you define “good taste” as we did one hundred
years ago, then we should be covering up table legs as they are unpleasant on the eyes! If you
define “good taste” as we did eighty years ago then, we should not be speaking to black people. If
you define “good taste” as we did fifty years ago, then gays should be victimised. My point is that
“good taste” changes with the times, and we should accept that people are pushing boundaries and
helping comedy to progress. For generations we have watched as our grandparents’ traditional
opinions become outdated. It is a process that has repeated for centuries: today is no different.
“Good taste” will change with generations and boundaries will be pushed: for me our guideline is
the law, hence my objection to Ross and Brand’s phone call.
“If I had no sense of humour I would long ago have committed suicide” is a quote from the famous
activist turned politician, Ghandi. After all of the troubles Ghandi went through, to me it is
incredible that he still kept his sense of humour and I think it is something that we could all learn
from him. Comedy is changing as society evolves. Nowadays outrageous comments come by the
bucketful and we need to learn to see the funny side. Jonathon Ross’ failed attempt at being funny
offended many and broke the law but there are may other broadcasters in the media who have a
great ability to make us laugh. We should embrace change and not let political correctness get out
of control, backing us into a world of tension between cultures.
To answer my initial question, the boundaries of good taste are not being overstretched in the name
of comedy; they are being pushed, just as they always have been as our “taste” changes, but the law
must be able to assert authority over the media. I suggest that we should look beyond the foolish
few at the bigger picture and learn to laugh together. Let’s not allow anyone to spoil the joys that
comedy brings – after all it is better to laugh with people that laugh at them.
[1188 words]
Principal sources:
bbc news website – Oct 2008 onwards [especially Timeline: Russell Brand prank calls, 3 April 09]
Daily Mail, 5 November 2008: “Ofcom Clears Clarkson”
saidwhat.co.uk [quotations website]