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

<>
The whole issue is where the broadcaster is a publicly funded one. If the majority object to something, or even if while it's only a minority who stick their necks out (inviting lopping off, especially in a conformist place like NZ) but whatever the objectionable thing is, it's something the majority are entitled to fear - i.e., it ridicules a sizeable lump of the population - such as the proposed 'cartoon' about the Pope * the Beeb wisely decided against - then the minority who want it, can see it on a cable or satellite channel! (On the aforementioned thread, everyone was at pains to tell me that pay TV was so cheap - £60, if you call that cheap - so, if that's the case, the minority, who in this case, appear to be the middle classes, and the wealthier segment thereof, can pay for their pleasure.)
(I know my syntax may be a bit mangled there, but I can't be bothered writing this in Lotus and copy-and-pasting, to sort it out..
<>
Ideally, I'd say accept the consensus view.
As I say, a case can be made for censorship, provided the process is transparent.
Blatant hell-raising against a particular race or culture, flat out lies against a particular historical figure (I'm thinking of an historical drama shown here in the 1970s, which was a good example of why libel laws *should* protect the dead - "snuff" movies (I know there's debate as to whether they are a real phenomenon, but still,) fillums that depict stupidly dangerous behaviour, and I'm doing some neck-sticking-out here, blasphemous depictions of religious figures. They could be a sub-set of libel laws, perhaps.

* Footnote - The fact that the Pope programme was ever mooted shows that the Beeb's bias is not *pro-Christian* as HS asserts, but rather the opposite...

<>

Important distinction to be made here. I would not object to a drama that *contained* racism or homophobia - there are people like that and the subject can't be completely avoided. I *would* object to a drama that *advocated* racism or homophobia, and I would also expect there to be other dramas (or parts of the same drama) that contained examples of racial and sexual tolerance. In terms of these criteria did JS the Opera *advocate* something offensive, or is there are an absence of balance in BBC programming?

Just as an afterthought, the main target of the opera was programmes like "The Jerry Springer Show" itself - but there were no objections to it on the part of JS himself.

Noggin

<>

On the contrary, nobody objected to the objectors objecting , just their heavy-handed tactics and the attitude that only *their* opinion mattered. And also that they objected to this programme *before* it was broadcast, the majority saying that they would not watch it to see if their complaints were actually justified.

<>

If? You read the article, didn't you? Are you suggesting that the Guardian made all that up?

<>

Are you saying that the BBC *doesn't* provide a well-rounded selection of programmes? Meanwhile, I think it's unrealistic to expect that any broadcaster can provide programmes that *everyone* will like or approve of.


az

<>

Not necessarily, it all just seemed pretty subjective to me. Were there police complaints? Here in NZ, right-wing politicians are always claiming to have received 'death threats' as are euthanasia advocates, daddy's rights groups, etc, and so, I wondered...

<>
I wouldn't know.. I live outside the UK. The ones I hear about, or hear on the WS seem pretty balanced to me.
<< Meanwhile, I think it's unrealistic to expect that any broadcaster can provide programmes that *everyone* will like or approve of.>>>>

I never said they should provide programmes *everyone* will like or approve of. But it's not too much to ask, that they refrain from showing programmes that a segment of the population are bound to not like or approve of.
What about watching what some one described as "creative blaspemy" on cable? After all, in the Grauniad article, the last paragraph showed the great delight the makers of the JSO were taking, in the lovely dosh they expected to get from the controversy - I'd have thought pay-per-view would be right up their alley!

<>



Isn't that the same thing? Again, why couldn't these objectors simply have watched something else? Meanwhile, a 'warning' was shown before both acts of the programme, for those who might have found either the language or subject matter offensive. Though I quite preferred the 'warning' (which was a part of the show) that came up just before the Jerry Springer in Hell act began: 'The Jerry Springer Show in Hell may contain epic themes and mock-heroic language. It may not be suitable for viewers without a strong grasp of Judeo-Christian mythology'.


az

"I think about it as helping the world, when I write Guide entries."

that's not the legal position, as laid out on "Contributing to the Guide":

Remember, by contributing to the Guide, you are granting the BBC a non-exclusive, sublicenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, create derivative works from and exercise all rights in your contribution on the BBC's website and all media.

Or in the terms and conditions:

by submitting your contribution, [you] grant the BBC a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, make available to the public, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to your contribution worldwide and/or to incorporate your contribution in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in your contribution

"You must really love your gods, or the sight of pretty flames."

it's much more fun, doing that.
The normal offering is much more boring - just fill the glass with the god's chosen alcohol (Loki's going through a spell, with me, of preferring Citron Absolut, which is fine by me as it means I can drink the single malt in peace ) and leave it to evaporate, or else pour it over the sacred stones (stones chosen for that purpose) in the gardne after a few days. Or else just pour it straight over the stones without waiting.

Fire's much more fun!

"Yet, it's okay for YOU to tell objectors that they can forget about TV and go do something ekse, so you can watch the kind of thing that seriously upsets a segment of the population who pay a licence fee along with all the atheists... who, you seem to be saying, should be able to dictate what's shown... "

so are you suggesting the solution is that the BBC must only ever screen programmes which :
(a) appeal to all watchers, and/or
(b) will never offend anyone?

"I am sorry, but you sound both arrogant and patronising there, HS. (Also, with the phrase "fundie-speak"..."

I was trying to offer an explanation. the alternative is that they did understand the discourse but choose not to engage in it, preferring to use a different discourse. In other words, they chose not to discuss what purpose the parts of the play they objected to served, and criticise from within that discourse.

I have to say there was no eivdence of that from the interviews I heard, and I'm a news junkie.

"Mnay Christians, including the "fundies" I used to mix with, are very highly educated, even about "represtentational discourses"."

Then why did they not raise their voices with the media? Or did they and the media preferred the ones who sounded ignorant and rabid?

"I think that's a serious misinterpretation, HS. For someone who is a believer in spirituality, your view of life seems as "of the earth, earthly' as any materialist. Physical gratification isn't all there is to life"

I never said it was.

", and condemning Paul for saying just that, is rather strange."

On what grounds?

" You don't take amiss the anti-bodily notions of the Gnostics, do you? (Many pagans don't.)"

Yes, I do.

"I still have not seen any indication anywhere, that the Beeb are biased towards Christianity! The very idea is laughable."

TV and radio schedules over Easter.

Specifically relgious broadcasting such as "Beyond Belief" "Heaven and Earth show" etc explores themes from a Christian POV and often only has Christians present (at least in the former).

Moral discourses, when they become news, take place - even on a complete news programme shuch as "Today" - within the Chrisitian frameworkkd so that e.g. it seems impossible to discuss abortion without interviewing a Christian and treating their opinion is the defining one for the discourse i.e. expecting the other intervieweees to respond to the problems within Christianity about abortion, rather than the purely social issues.

Radio 3 has an intolerably high percentage of church music. Radio 4 gives over 5 minutes each morning before 6am to a Christian sermon, and the 'god slot' around 7.45 also includes a high proportion of Christians. Then there's the morning service every day.

The same sort of discourses and relgious broadcasting are either not offered to other religions, or are offered very much less.

"Which is neither what I said, nor what I meant! I simply said that no programme should deliberately set out to offend"

It seemed to me that, if anything, the opera was seeking to offend the sort of people who seek to go on or be part of the audience of the Jerry Springer show. But I have no problem with anyone seeking to send something up, even in the knowledge that that may offend the objects of the satire.

", or be indifferent as to whether it did offend a sizeable chunk of the fee paying public."

I really don't think we can call a small but vocal and highly organised percetage of licence payers a 'sizeable chunk', now, can we? There are around 25 million licences, and there were 47,000 complaints, which represents 0.001% of the fee paying public.

The stupid thing is that I have ended up having to defend the point of view of people I don't even really agree with all that much! However, I can see their point, whereas many hootooers seem reluctant to admit they even have one!

Sorry, please explain to me why someone else has the right to prevent me from seeing something broadcast? I seem to have missed that one.

Oh, is it because they feel their religion is being attacked? Well, perhaps it will teach them to be a little more tolerant when I complain of the same thing, or even make them think twice before telling me I shall burn in hell for eternity for believing what I do. So if they feel offended by one programme, at least let them take comfort from the fact that no one is telling them, from time to time, that they will burn in hell for it.

"I am assuming, because people tend to mix with those they find most congenial, that you have known very few "fundies" in your life."

He might not have, but I have. I was a fundie Christian, and my goddaughter's parents are fundie Christians. I don't deny the existance of intelligence, but that doesn't mean that that intelligence is applied in certain ways, such as the acquiring of an appreciation of modern dramatic arts.

"Oddly enough, the third lecturer, and head of the department is a fundamentalist ... Muslim!"

Well, yes, there are fundamentalists in every religion. It's a mindset.

"The same people *on here* who say that they are against cenbsorship would change their minds in a heartbeat if someone proposed a drama that contained what they considered to be racism or homophobia! "

Are you talking about a drama whose intent was to stir up racist or homophobic feelings (which might be against the law), or one which represents racism or homophobia?

I have to say I welcome the recent screening of "Mississippi burning" and have problems with Joe Orton's plays because they simply aren't to my taste. Nut that's nothing personal about his sexuality.

"especially in a conformist place like NZ)"

In case this did not give the game away, folks, I vistied 'Lian Jing's' homepage, and, following a discussion on it entitled "Death Threat Della" found "Lian" saying:

"Nooooo! I am not Della anymore, because of a bizarre chain of circumstances, and a silly alliterative nickname that was wished on me."

Actually, I have fundies in the fmily too, and I've met a fair number of fundies over the years - enough to form an opinion about what other "fundies" may be like, but not enough to make unqualified sweeping generalisations. One thing the mindset seems to require is marked inability to see shades of grey.

Noggin

What the Christians who objected to the Jerry Springer Opera being shown on BBC have missed - by not watching it - was the fact that it wasn't a send-up of their religion, but was a criticism of the type of show that Jerry represents.

They also missed - because they didn't watch it - that the entire second act was meant to be 'Jerry in Hell' and what happens to him there. Again the p*ss take (showing Mary, God and Jesus as 'guests') was about Jerry-type shows, not the Christian religion per se.

And if they had watched it until the end - which they didn't - they would have seen that the 'message' of the Opera was one that all Christians would agree on.

Here is Jerry's final speech - at the end of the Opera - as he lays dying . . .

'It's been a hell of a day. I've learned that there are no absolutes of good and evil and that we all live in a glorious state of flux. What can I say? You're not looking at a dying man here, you're looking at yourselves. In a matter of months or years or whatever. And for better or for worse, history defines us by what we do and what we choose not to do. Hopefully what will survive of us is love. So until the next time, take care of yourselves. And each other.'

Any personal objections to that final speech, Della? Or would a bit of 'bad' language and some light humour about the Christian religion cloud your judgement to the point so that you could not see the real message of this play?


az

Censorship is a real slippery slope with some horrible depths over the edge. Witch burning, Nazism, Inquisition to name but three, whereas very little real harm has ever come from open communications.

Self censorship (the OFF button) is fine. Parental censorship has to be accepted, but dangerous.

Very, very, occassionally, with a lot of care, it may be necessary to step very gingerly on to the top of the slope. But everyone should know why and how far, and we should get off again as soon as possible.

TT

Hi Lian Jing

We live in interesting times indeed. Once again the followers of the established religion are up on their high horses claiming blasphemy.

How very sad that they seem to have forgotten everything that the life of their saviour was meant to show them. How about 'Love thy neighbour as thyself', and 'Turn the other cheek'.

Instead they are trying to stone the producers of a program that they have not seen but believe may be blasphemous. Hmmm...let's look at this a little closer shall we?

Blasphemy: profane talk about God or sacred things.
Profane: secular rather than religious > not initiated into religious rites.

Thus: secular rather than religious talk about God or sacred things. Possibly with an irreverent tone.

It sounds less like blasphemy than a declining religious power group desperately trying to maintain its fading social control over the populace.

"But it's not too much to ask, that they refrain from showing programmes that a segment of the population are bound to not like or approve of."

This is so utterly naieve that I cannot understand how you can say it. Have you actually met some of these descendants of Cromwell? If what you propose were to come to pass there wouldn't be any television programmes at all, except sombre readings from the KJ Bible!

Another example - say I, as a radical pagan, do not like all the Christian programming on TV and radio. Does this mean that it should cease immediately?

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

thank you for knowing we sould tell the rest of us, i belive they can handle it, what do you think?

opps looks like i fell into a blue hole and found myself some where other then i am, have a good ........