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

What, I forgot the very thing I just explained to you

I explained to you that license payers have more direct control over the BBCthan purchasers do over independent broadcasters then you assume that Ive forgotten it. Do try to be consistent.

What would be thepoint of getting rid of Ross? Apart from anger fueeled retribution.

Which there might not be much of. Ross isnt merely a bloke who stands infront of a mic and/or camera spouting words, he owns a very successful production company. Even if he was off screen chances are he'd still be making programmes the BBC paid him for with license fee money.

Im also sure that the current media storm will have actually helped Brands career. Remember part of the scandal rests on the fact that the offending segments were recorded. So despite the generous renumeration they get for spouting dirty words they receive for doing such tey still both had better things to do insted of doing the show live.

If any of the papers who have been baying for their blood get their way the victory will be a hollow one. Brand and Ross will not be feeling anything but slightly annoyed at all the fuss and more likely pleasantly pleased at the attention it has brought them.

Standards in broadcasting will not suddenly change.

Think about this: I or anyone can still go to youtube-like sites and view sketches of simmilar smutty irreverence from the likes of Spike Milligan or Dave Allen.

Andrew Sachs wasnt bothered by this, he did not press charges over the initial messages they left did he? He did'nt complain to the press.

Infact the OPPOSITE was the case. He was willing so to speak, to get back into bed with Brand and record an interview for the show.

The real issue is one of jealousy and misguided sense that people are making an effective stand against declines in moral and broadcasting standards. They are not they are just making a fuss over something all the people actually involved werent too fussed about.

I see the Daily Hate is now attempting to move the bandwagon of outrage on to a joke made on a repeat of 'Mock the Week' broadcast on Wednesday. It's unbelievable that the Hate tries to appoint itself as guardian of moral standards given its own dishonesty and grotesquely biased and distorted "reporting". It's obvious to me which causes the most damage to our society.

There's plenty on the BBC that I don't like and/or don't approve of. But I don't think that gives me the right to start complaining or calling for things to be banned. If you don't like it, don't watch it. It's that simple. The programme has been on for long enough now for people to realise what it's like, and even if they were watching for the first time, the "offending" joke on 'Mock the Week' was made right at the end of an episode. Plenty of time to switch off if it's not your cup of tea.

I've done a bit more than just whinge here. I've sent a message via the BBC website in support of Mock the Week, and I'd encourage others to do the same. Even if you feel (as I do) that Brand/Ross were wrong to do what they did, it doesn't follow that it should be open season on anything on the BBC that the Daily Hate doesn't like.

"I see the Daily Hate is now attempting to move the bandwagon of outrage on to a joke made on a repeat of 'Mock the Week' broadcast on Wednesday"

Oh bob's sake - quick quick I can't think of what to write for my next newspaper column. There must be something I can pretend to be outraged by, complain about and get paid for.

How about "BBC supports Arms Trade" http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/30/bbc-television

"Why do the BBC persist on chasing market share when they are funded from the license fee. It's the wrong metric. They should be monitoring listener satisfaction. I don't remember ticking that box on the last RAJAR survey I filled in."

Because in order to justify the license fee they have to get viewers/listeners and in order to do that they have to be popular. What a lot of people can't stand is that the BBC is both more popular and (yes) better at what it does than its commercial rivals and so they demand it be unable to act as a commercial station can in order to reduce its popularity after which it can be declared to have become "a relic, a shadow of its former self" and then sold-off. All this is just complex arguments for wrecking something which works extremely well for various petty reasons. As long as the BBC remains good at what it does, long may it continue. Once it becomes crap (and not because it's been forced to be crap by politicians) then we should seriously talk about selling it off.

And "listener satisfaction" *is* market share, it's what makes people watch a TV network or listen to a radio station in the first place.

"The present BBC cult of increasing audience numbers from the 'Younger' set and 'at the edge' broadcasting which may be popular amongst the metrosexual, multicultural, London centric cognoscente but sticks in the craw of a lot of baby boomers is coming to an end."

The irony being that that's exactly what the Baby Boomers did with popular culture, especially TV and music, when they had their heyday. Remember the cultural turn of the 1960s? Remember cinema's New Wave? remember the rise of satire in the 1960s? Those were all a lot more shocking than two grown men being immature back then.

For all this obscurantist talk about "cults" you should know that the BBC needs high audience figures to justify its very existance (and the commercial stations, which follow the same "cult" need to do the very same) and the way they get that is by making popular shows. If this really were a silent majority rising up then TV would be entirely aimed at this group anyway because that's where the viewers and listeners would come from.

Why is it then that since replacing Johhnie Walker with the "edgy" Chris Evans, audience figures have fallen?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/30/bbc-television

"Evans loses 150,000 listeners since taking over Radio 2 Drivetime show"

And sticking with successful formats sometimes pays off -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/wogan-helps-radio-2-win-record-listening-figures-488474.html

"Terry Wogan's breakfast show - number one in the country - recorded its highest weekly reach of more than 8 million listeners, an increase of 410,000 on the previous quarter and 160,000 more year on year."

"Why is it then that since replacing Johhnie Walker with the "edgy" Chris Evans, audience figures have fallen?"

Johnnie Walker is hardly a good example of a nice, comfortable, safe pair of shoes. In case you've forgotten, he was suspended by the BBC in 1999 after he was caught with cocaine; he subsequently went into rehab for a longstanding coke problem which he seems to have managed to kick. He's also a bloody good DJ, I used to quite like listening to him on Radio Two sometimes and I'm only 31; Evans I'm not so keen on generally and it doesn't really surprise me he's getting less listeners (although 150,000 down isn't that devastating on a station as popular as Radio 2). He's also still on Radio 2, he just does a different slot (he might have stepped-down from the Drivetime slot due to health reasons, he's not been well recently).

Same with Terry Wogan, it might surprise you that he's popular with younger listeners as well as older. My mum, on the other hand, can't stand him.

I'll restate what I said - the likes of Jonathan Ross host the big, popular Friday-night shows because that's who the public wants and if the public didn't want them then the viewing figures would reflect that. There's still a market for more oldschool presenters (I gather Parkinson had a series quite recently and I expect it did quite well) but the myth that an "elite" "forces" its own vision of entertainment on us and that some sort of silent majority would much rather watch something else is simply the fantasy of an angry, unhappy, self-obsessed minority.

"He's also still on Radio 2"

Meaning Johnny Walker, of course.

*TPNAEF*

Interesting what Ian Hislop said on 'Have I Got News For You' that after Brand appeared on it he said he hadn't got the respect he deserved or wasn't shown the respect...something along those lines.

He as in Ian Hislop, or he as in Russell Brand? I couldn't work it out from the rest of the sentence.

My MIL attended some sort of dinner just after that show and the guest speaker was Anne Widdecombe who had been guest host. She complained that it took all day to film the half hour that could go out because of RB just being rude or swearing or wandering off. I tend to think that if he upset AW he must be ok

Hmmm could there be a conspiracy here? On a sort of road trip yesterday I turned on Radio 2. Normally it would be Ross with that other Brand - Jo - and amusing wittering it is. This week it was Richard Allinson (Allison?)

Oh. Dear. God.

He started with that road sign in Wales where the Welsh translation was the automated "I am out of the office" message. Only he spent about 10 minutes having to explain it, as if he was talking to a senile 90 year old who had no idea what an "e mail" was.

I switched over.

After a while, I switched back. And he had started a segment where listeners could send in their most amusing road signs. But each time he told us a new one, he'd go back to the original one, and go over the detailed explanation of what had happened and why it was so funny.

I reckoned this was either Radio 2 punishing us for being a baying mob, or they were showing us just how dishwater-dull such "safe" and non-edgy broadcasting really is.

we need Alex Lester to fill in for both of them

SCOF

best time of the day show 3am-6am weekdays

radio2

knockedupkelli

Ah right, sorry!

Brand said that Brand himself did not get the respect he(Brand) deserved on the show.

Hope that's clear enough.

Richard Allison - yes...I actually thought I had tuned into a local radio station not radio 2.

I do sonder whether tyhe BBC are going to put poor shows and presenters in place of Ross on radio and TV in an attempt to make us wish we had Ross back.

im not sad to see the back of brand and ross should go
the proverbila band wagon of hate has moved to jeremy clasrkson for making the "lorry divers kill prostitutes" joke twice!

This post has been removed.

I don't think the BBC is getting more popular, I think more and more people are questioning the political bias in its reporting, the poor quality of its news storeis, the dumbing down of its science output, and its lack of anything discernable as comedy.

McKay The Disorganised, I agree with you there but that's a different subject to whats being discussed here (not that you can't discuss it here - thread drift and all).

I think the BBC is generally as popular as it was but it's almost frustration on my part that the BBC are doing what you have said they are. The intellectual satisfaction and the enjoyment of comedy on the BBC for me has dwindled. I can't enjoy watching 'dumbed down' science programme or documentary (or docu-drama as they seem to be) without feeling as though there is something missing or just leaving the programme thinking that they spent more time thinking baout the flashy visuals than the actual content and purpose of the programme.

Also, in this age of PC-ness and not wanting to offend anyone, comedy will have its teeth pulled for many years to come. Also, comedy programmes cost money. They can take sometime to bed in and the suits at the BBC want an instant success rather than letting a comedy show mature over a few series. Obviously, this never worked with 'My Hero' and I will mever know why it was on for so long.

I suppose that's why the BBC like Ross and Brand as they had 'edgy' humour on tap without the need to set-up a vehicle for it like a comedy series.

"I don't think the BBC is getting more popular, I think more and more people are questioning the political bias in its reporting, the poor quality of its news storeis, the dumbing down of its science output, and its lack of anything discernable as comedy."

No, that's just wishful thinking.