h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello, Clive!
I take your points. However, just to answer one -
<.
Not necessarily... This particular show may strike them as being "the last straw", the one that breaks the camel. Maybe that's why they seem obsessive. But there's been just so much lately!
I understand various people's points about their being "offended" by such things as 'Songs of Praise' - but my point about *my* "play" was a way of saying the protestors' point of view might be more easily understood if I was compare the protestors' attitude to that of some people here, should say, ITV broadcast a play that they considered homophobic, or which showed the Buddha as a big fat dope in a shell suit, or which had a bunch of people in an abortion clinic brandishing knives and counting money!
<< erm I do not dispute their right to protest - I just decry all the wasted effort.>>
You're probably right here, too, but they probably saw it as their duty, even though I am equally sure it'd get them nowehere. In fact, they were probably resigned to failure.

<>
No, it won't help in the least, any more than people in NZ trying to halt the Virgin in a Condom exhibit at Te Papa. (One TV channel had a wonderful time, BTW, showing a protest against it outside the museum and cropping it to cut out anyone under 60, or non-white. However, a newspaper published a full view of the protestors. Not just a bunch old white men in anoraks at all! )
So, I do see your points, I just got into this because I *know* how frustrated these people felt, and I am sad that the media and people here want to portray them all as blue-rinsed fascists!

Thanks for the reply. I understand the futility point I remeber well having to defend my decision to go and protest in London against bush and the war. 'but it won't change anythign so what's the point?' they said 'sometimes its just important to take part' I said.

So the right to protest and the futility of doing so are not really the substantive point to me. I welcome their attempt to protest - sometimes it is just important to at least try nd make you views heard.
I think where I part ways with them however, the 'wasted effort' as I called it is that what they are protesting for is the censuring of the media for moral probity and that I don't agree with.

That's exactly it! The anti-war protests proved futile, and I am very sad about that - but the effort had to be made.

I know some Christians disagree (Reefgirl's Mum, David B.,) but I understand their wanting to censure (not censor necessarily) the media. The nastiness just keeps on coming.

Who'd have guessed we'd achieve equanimity afterall?

>>"...a way of saying the protestors' point of view might be more easily understood if I was compare the protestors' attitude to that of some people here, should say, ITV broadcast a play that they considered homophobic, or which showed the Buddha as a big fat dope in a shell suit, or which had a bunch of people in an abortion clinic brandishing knives and counting money!"

The thing is, if a programme was inciting homophobia, that *could* directly impact people who actually exist, which isn't the same thing as (debatably) insulting a deity that in many people's view, *doesn't* exist.
I don't know if there has been an anti-abortion play such as you describe, though if there were, most people apart from extreme antiabortionists would be liable to see it as drama, rather than a documentary.

There have certainly been many drama programmes that put numerous other normal careers in a dubious light, but people from those careers generally don't bother wasting their time protesting against them.

Although I agree with anyone's right to protest I see a huge difference between, say, protesting against an illegal war and protesting against a television programme.

At worst, a tv programme might only insult a small segment of the population's sensibilities, after all.

At worst an illegal war will .

And now that there has been such a bruhaha about this programme I am quite interested in seeing it - has anyone taped it who could send me a copy?


az

Sadly no tape.

jetlag got the better of me. I fell asleep waiting for it to start.

About protest in general, granted, context is always the mitigating factor. I disagree with what the protest at the BBC is about. And yes there are far more important events that deserve protest. And their is a difference between protesting against war and protesting media output and I did not intend to draw an absolute equivilance.

I think I was merely trying to establish that in disagreeing with the protestors, it is not their right to protest that is contentious for me what is contentious is their message of censure.

I don't think we are actually disagreeing, are we Az?

Sorry Az, didn't think to record it. It's worth a view though.

Reefgirl: Good point. I'm not sure that I would have even known it was on if it hadn't been for all the publicity.

I.

<>

Doesn't seem so to me, Clive.


az

There is a critical difference between criticising people's beliefs that they choose, and between criticising a person's sexuality where the element of choice is sadly limited, which is something of a shame because it'd make the world a whole lot simpler if we could choose to fancy anyone we wanted.

Consider, you dislike Monty Python (I'm getting confused, but you are the artist formerly known as Della, vrai?), indeed apparently believe it to be some sort of instrument of class warfare. The general hootoo response would be to respond saying your belief was a load of nonsense, and that Monty Python is quite clearly brilliant. The equivalent response from those protesting Jerry Springer the Opera who also like Monty Python would be to yikes your post.

Critical difference in criticism? Geddit?

I doubt many people are actually offended by Songs of Praise, but let's face it its a crap show, and totally put me off the 5th Doctor, Peter Davidson.

What has Peter Davidson got to do with Songs of Praise?

I don't like Songs of Praise, either. But I do like the services at my church (and others, when I'm away from home), I attend on an aesthetic as well as spiritual level, so who knows why?

To answer a question raised a while back, Jerry Springer didn't have anything to do with writing the opera, but he did see it in Edinburgh and persuaded the bosses of whatever network his show belongs to that they shouldn't stop it going ahead. He must have a healthy sense of self-deprecating humour.

Oh, and another. Jesus wasn't in a nappy, not really, he was in a loincloth. The actor who played him *was* in a nappy in act one, though. The costumes are clearly different (though similar in size!).

If a documentary which made unfounded claims about Christianity, or distorted Christian beliefs, was shown, then I would probably complain (but I'd watch it first!), but this was drama, satirical drama at that. Obviously, whether you call it art is up to the individual, but it's definitely not presented as fact, and it wasn't forced on anyone (if it was beamed 1984-style onto screens you couldn't avoid, or whatever, but now we're in the reams of the bizarre...

David - who has seen reports of malicious phone calls made to BBC bosses and their families over this. I hope that they find whoever made those calls (if the reports are true) and prosecute them.

I heard on Radio4 that a website run by the protesters published the names and addresses of the BBC bosses.

Anyone got the link to it? I think it was a Christian website but not sure.

Ice.

See
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050107/325/f9v8c.html

"...torrent of abusive phone calls [to BBC chiefs] ... many answered in daytime by the executives' young children"

Well, well, well, so much for protecting innocent young minds. Just shows the calibre of *some* of the opponents of the programme. Nothing to do with decency, just their own little prejudices and insecurites.

With any luck, the bigots and hypocrites who made the calls will have done so from a traceable phone, and will be recieving attention from the police fairly soon.

Cheers Potholer, very interesting.

....and bl00dy Nora! I didn't recognise David Soul. The article mentioned: "David Soul, who stars in the show..."

I thought he looked familiar but didn't twig. Doh!

Ice.

<<....and bl00dy Nora! I didn't recognise David Soul. The article mentioned: "David Soul, who stars in the show..."

I thought he looked familiar but didn't twig. Doh!>>

How could you recognise David Soul in The Jerry Springer Opera! At no point during the whole two hours did he plough throug one single card board box! Whcih I believe is normally in all his contracts.

I watched it: I got bored after fifteen minutes and switched off.

This is not a great surprise really. I couldn't stand Jerry Springer in the original format, and I find that opera leaves me entirely cold. Therefore combine the two parts together and you're bound to have a disaster on your hands as far as my viewine pleasure is concerned.

With regard to the offensive content? Well frankly I'm not prepared to sit through god alone knows how much to find it. And anyway, it's offensive to christians, and hence 1) not offensive to me, 2) I probably wouldn't recognise it anyway, owing to my religious knowledge being didly-squat.

The satire bit? Well maybe, but I've still to wade through Sprnger and opera to get there. So I'll pass if it's all the same to you.


Just as an aside: media stuff that passes right over my head, yet gets religious groupings hot under the collar. Did anyone else find 'The Satanic Verses' to be just about the dullest thing they've ever read?

My father once declared Rushdie unreadable; I've never felt inclined to find out.