Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just thinking about the Brand/Ross incident, and also Jeremy Clarkson's gaffe, I was wondering whether you think the BBC should have its own objective 'moral' standards, or whether these standards should be dictated by the public. The BBC seems to be going with the latter - they became concerned with Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross only after receiving several thousand complaints, and suspended Ross; Clarkson's aside (about lorry drivers being habitual prostitute killers) received only about 500 complaints, and he's still knocking around (despite having made the papers with it).

    So, is it good that the BBC is doing the democratic thing and basing its standpoint on public opinion, or do you reckon it should be adhering to some code, regardless?

    (I'm sure it does have some sort of 'moral' code, but it's certainly not apparent in these examples.)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think a television channel should have to water down its content in order to appear whiter than white. The BBC covers a variety of tastes and therefore must touch upon certain subjects that others may find offensive. However, in a few cases they have been downright irresponsible and not utilised common sense. The Brand/Ross incident being a prime example. The Clarkson incident, I feel, is vastly different from that one as it's more of a light-hearted jibe and only annoys you if you let it. It's the sort of thing I'd expect when tuning in to Top Gear, basically. Whereas the Brand/Ross incident was a brutal attack on one man and was completely unnecessary.

    I don't think it's about moral standards. Television has to be reflective of society and to some extent certain principles have to be done away with. I think it's about giving too much lee-way to certain employees and not having enough power to deal with them if they then misuse that power. Probably some of the BBC's presenters have more power than the corporate bosses to dictate the direction in which it moves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LukeatForest)
    Television has to be reflective of society and to some extent certain principles have to be done away with.
    I suppose there's a question over what the function of something like the BBC is. Is it just a voicebox for society (being funded entirely by public money, for one thing), or could it be argued that it has an obligation to take on some 'higher' role, as some sort of 'educating' institution? For example, if society was statistically rife with racism, should the BBC reflect this mood on TV/radio? After all, the BBC has a PC agenda (I read just today about some great fuss arising over a retired General saying "******" on the Today programme), but this isn't necessarily a reflection of society. I think this agenda comes from "above" rather than "below". It undoubtedly sees itself as on a 'moral' high ground (which is why the Ross/Brand debacle is maybe an anomaly), but is this a dubious thing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It would be easier to stomach this whole debate if the BBC actually made decent programmes. Pre 1997 BBC documentaries were second to none. Now even its newsreaders have become tarted up imbeciles. They certainly dont worry about offending the intelligent viewer thats for certain.

    Incidentally they have just announced that BBC R2's Ken Bruce will be replaced with Simon Mayo. Based on his 5 Live Show a good move I say.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Since everyone in the country is forced to pay for the BBC it has a responsibility to ensure that everyone in the country is happy with it. Sound impossible? Yet another good reason why the BBC should be privatised.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Since everyone in the country is forced to pay for the BBC it has a responsibility to ensure that everyone in the country is happy with it. Sound impossible? Yet another good reason why the BBC should be privatised.
    not everybody is happy with the police, army, investment in culture/ sport/ etc

    not everybody would be happy if we took away that funding

    you are never going to be in a position where everybody is happy. I don't see why that should mean such things have to be privatised. I'm not a fan of the bbc fees either, but if you're going to take it down you'll need a better reason than that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Since everyone in the country is forced to pay for the BBC it has a responsibility to ensure that everyone in the country is happy with it. Sound impossible? Yet another good reason why the BBC should be privatised.
    And have another set of TV channels with rubbish adverts? No thanks.

    I think people should lighten up, people are so attracted to hysteria and being part of a 'scandal' it's quite frankly ridiculous.
    Do any of these moaners who complain about absolutely anything think about the license payers who can actually see the funny side of the likes of Clarkson etc... or like to see something a bit more controvertial and pushes the boundaries a bit? Some of the dramas/soaps that get a bad press sometimes just baffles me.

    To be honest, the majority don't complain, theres always going to be minority to spoil it for the rest of us!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The Brand/Ross thing was disgusting (I blame Jonathan Ross entirely) but I find it ridiculous there was all that furore about that, yet nothing about the filthy Stephen Fry devoting nearly a quarter of his America 'documentary' last week to being in a brothel and asking one of the women all sorts of disgusting filthy sexual questions and getting way too much information.

    Or the disgustingness on Mock The Week earlier that week. It would appear if nobody at the Daily Mail watches a programme, it won't get complained about.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.