OUTCRY AS CARR LETS FLY WITH A 4-LETTER TIRADE
http://bit.ly/26zxPDo we really need to be so worried though about the state of humour?
Much of the outcry alleged in this article centres on the accessibility of this stand up show online to children. Primarily this is incorrect as the show is NOT available online to anyone at the Channel 4 On Demand website (see http://www.channel4.com/programmes/jimmy-carr-in-concert/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1). Secondarily it supposes that Channel 4 is, in some way, responsible for its availability elsewhere on the internet, when few would doubt that such censorship is impossible, not to mention the fact that the show was released on DVD all the way back in November 2008. The DVD itself is clearly labelled with an 18 certificate. The watershed exists so that adults can enjoy adult humour without worrying about the overt influence. If there were campaign to change the watershed, then this argument might be put in a different context.
The article itself quotes 'a spokesman for the watchdog group Mediawatch-UK' as denouncing this particular show as “a disgrace. It is typical of Channel 4 not to take any notice of guidance surrounding bad language.” This quote is actually attributed by Mediawatch-UK's website as belonging to - now former - director John Beyer. Yet, though the extract (http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=396&Itemid=92) implies him to be the current director, he did in fact resign in July 2009. The broadcast date for '...In Concert' was the 22nd August 2009.
According to Mediawatch-UK's website:
'Many people recognise that television has a global impact on moral, ethical, social and political issues as well as the power to influence our society for good or ill. Gone are the days when broadcasters can realistically say that they simply reflect society as it is. More and more society reflects the false attitudes and behaviour portrayed by some parts of the media.' Is this chicken or egg? (Does reflection + affectation = refraction?)
-----------------------------------------
I tried calling Ofcom to make sure that it was the Channel 4 showing that was complained about, and not the 8 out of 10 Cats reference to Diana that attracted 114 complaints. The Ofcom offices, I was told by a recorded voice, were closed. I wasn't angry, but curious about the complaints procedure, since persoanlly I've yet to make any attempt to complain about anything. Surely, one would suppose, much of the immediate anger at being insulted would ebb away by the time it comes to Tuesday morning (supposing offices remain shut on the bank holiday), in which case it begs the question whether, if Ofcom's offices were open 24/7, they might recieve more complaints?
-------------------------------
On a separate note about the article, it mentions that there was a 14 year old in attendence, ostensibly blaming Carr for allowing his humour to reach such young and impressionable people. After reviewing the insulting stand up act on DVD, it is made clear that his mother is responsible for bringing him. If the Express is to then suggest that this merits criticism, then surely this leads the conclusion towards a nanny-state conclusion?
---------------
And finally: Who but the Express to find some way for swearing to insult Diana?
0 comments:
Post a Comment