The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
On Friday night, I watched some of the Brasseye special on C4. It was absolutely disgusting, in my opinion. It was meant to be a comedy, and the only time I laughed was once, just as I turned on, when it had, "Here is a peadophile disguised as a house."
Then I began to see what it was all about. They showed footage of 2 people having sex, the woman meant to be a 10-year-old girl. They also brought a boy in, and then asked a 'peadophile,' if he fancied him!
After clocking up over a 1000 complaints, one from MP David Blunkett, they STILL showed the repeat!
And what's this I hear? They're getting rid of WWF because of it's 'extreme nature.' Supposedly, it's 'too hard to edit,' although it's shown at past midnight, and their have been a few complaints about the crazy stunts and the way they portray women.
John Bayer, Director of Media Watch UK, slammed the move. He said, "On one hand they transmit disgraceful programmmes such as Brass Eye and on the other hand they have a dislike of wrestling, which is just acting and healthy messing around. Their double standards are incomprehensable."
I completely agree. Brasseye wasn't funny, it was disgusting, and I expect it offended many people. How'd you think people who had actually been affected by the subject felt??
I was also shocked to see (not sure about her name,) but that women who starred in great comedies such as Beast and Smack The Pony, playing a large role in the program!
So Channel 4 think that Sports-Entertainment is wrong, and Brasseye is right. Wrestling is very popular in the UK, and the 4 PPV's that they show over the whole year, as well as the weekly edition of Sunday Night Heat, must get them a lot of viewers. Their have been hardly any complaints, and it's now been changed from an afternoon showing to a late night showing. Brasseye, which was shown at around 10pm I think, has now had over 2000 complaints, they show it twice and have still done nothing about it.
I am very annoyed at the actions of Channel 4. It's probably one of my favourite channels as it shows class programs such as Friends, Frasier, South Park and has good coverage of the Cricket. And of course, it did have WWF.
I would like to hear your views, and if you actually liked Brasseye, please tell me why as I am shocked that anyone could actually enjoy a programme with such dirty, offensive material.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
Then I began to see what it was all about. They showed footage of 2 people having sex, the woman meant to be a 10-year-old girl. They also brought a boy in, and then asked a 'peadophile,' if he fancied him!
After clocking up over a 1000 complaints, one from MP David Blunkett, they STILL showed the repeat!
And what's this I hear? They're getting rid of WWF because of it's 'extreme nature.' Supposedly, it's 'too hard to edit,' although it's shown at past midnight, and their have been a few complaints about the crazy stunts and the way they portray women.
John Bayer, Director of Media Watch UK, slammed the move. He said, "On one hand they transmit disgraceful programmmes such as Brass Eye and on the other hand they have a dislike of wrestling, which is just acting and healthy messing around. Their double standards are incomprehensable."
I completely agree. Brasseye wasn't funny, it was disgusting, and I expect it offended many people. How'd you think people who had actually been affected by the subject felt??
I was also shocked to see (not sure about her name,) but that women who starred in great comedies such as Beast and Smack The Pony, playing a large role in the program!
So Channel 4 think that Sports-Entertainment is wrong, and Brasseye is right. Wrestling is very popular in the UK, and the 4 PPV's that they show over the whole year, as well as the weekly edition of Sunday Night Heat, must get them a lot of viewers. Their have been hardly any complaints, and it's now been changed from an afternoon showing to a late night showing. Brasseye, which was shown at around 10pm I think, has now had over 2000 complaints, they show it twice and have still done nothing about it.
I am very annoyed at the actions of Channel 4. It's probably one of my favourite channels as it shows class programs such as Friends, Frasier, South Park and has good coverage of the Cricket. And of course, it did have WWF.
I would like to hear your views, and if you actually liked Brasseye, please tell me why as I am shocked that anyone could actually enjoy a programme with such dirty, offensive material.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
Page:
Around the time of Princess Diana's funeral someone (I can't remember who) said that the public's over the top reaction showed how soft our nation had become.
How right they were.
We live in a time where entertainment in the media is often scared to make moves that previously wouldn't have caused any hesitation due to things like political correctness. Can you imagine if something like 'Are You Being Served?' was first shown now? It would have caused an outrage over stereotypical 'camp' characters and repeated double-entendres about someone's cat.
The reaction to the Brass Eye special has left me feeling sick though anger. The programme has done things like this before and will probably do them again. At least I hope they do.
If he keeps this up Chris Morris deserves a Knighthood for services to the media.
A former school teacher of mine was recently revealed to be a paedophile after the discovery of masses of pictures on his computer. How do you think this made me feel? The thought that there was a chance of ME being on some of those pictures. With my mum doing voluntary work for the school I was an obvious first choice for people to ask questions about his conduct and it didn't provoke any pleasant images. When you're young the thought never crosses your mind that the teacher may be thinking such things as they're in the classroom or even as you're getting changed for PE. I think that, of the people here, this gives me a slightly different angle on the subject.
As an aspiring comedy writer myself it isn't always enough for something to make me laugh - I like to know why it makes me laugh as well. In the case of Brass Eye, past and present, I can open my mind so that I realise that it spoofs the OTT sensationalism of the media on sensitive subjects. Newspapers want to sell as many copies as they can. Television stations want the largest share of the audience. If, between them, they stir up public anger by playing up a sensitive subject in this way then people are going to buy more copies to find out more about these events.
How many good things are reported on the news? With the exception of 'And finally' stories there are very few. The media plays on our anger and empathy to boost their audiences knowing that it works more now than it ever did.
That's what's REALLY sick about all of this.
Is anyone here one of the two and a half thousand people who have complained to Channel 4? How about anyone of the THREE and a half thousand people who have contacted them to congratulate them on the show.
Chris Morris, I for one applaud you.
How right they were.
We live in a time where entertainment in the media is often scared to make moves that previously wouldn't have caused any hesitation due to things like political correctness. Can you imagine if something like 'Are You Being Served?' was first shown now? It would have caused an outrage over stereotypical 'camp' characters and repeated double-entendres about someone's cat.
The reaction to the Brass Eye special has left me feeling sick though anger. The programme has done things like this before and will probably do them again. At least I hope they do.
If he keeps this up Chris Morris deserves a Knighthood for services to the media.
A former school teacher of mine was recently revealed to be a paedophile after the discovery of masses of pictures on his computer. How do you think this made me feel? The thought that there was a chance of ME being on some of those pictures. With my mum doing voluntary work for the school I was an obvious first choice for people to ask questions about his conduct and it didn't provoke any pleasant images. When you're young the thought never crosses your mind that the teacher may be thinking such things as they're in the classroom or even as you're getting changed for PE. I think that, of the people here, this gives me a slightly different angle on the subject.
As an aspiring comedy writer myself it isn't always enough for something to make me laugh - I like to know why it makes me laugh as well. In the case of Brass Eye, past and present, I can open my mind so that I realise that it spoofs the OTT sensationalism of the media on sensitive subjects. Newspapers want to sell as many copies as they can. Television stations want the largest share of the audience. If, between them, they stir up public anger by playing up a sensitive subject in this way then people are going to buy more copies to find out more about these events.
How many good things are reported on the news? With the exception of 'And finally' stories there are very few. The media plays on our anger and empathy to boost their audiences knowing that it works more now than it ever did.
That's what's REALLY sick about all of this.
Is anyone here one of the two and a half thousand people who have complained to Channel 4? How about anyone of the THREE and a half thousand people who have contacted them to congratulate them on the show.
Chris Morris, I for one applaud you.
sandman wrote:
The scene that I beleive did show paedophilia in some
> context was the reconstruction of an act of abuse using an older
> girl. Telling the viewer that the girl represented a child and then
> showing the act in the way it did was extremely disturbing. This
> was the only part of the show which came closest to justifying the
> 'Sick' allegations levelled at it. Your thoughts?
Yes, this was extremely close to the mark.
However, the narration that went with this scene was:
"This man is having sex with a 10year old girl in Victorian Times. For the purposes of this reconstruction, she is played by a 25yr old girl. Her breasts are different, they are larger and have extended nipples, whereas the genuine girl would resemble a young boy...this girl is a prostitute"
And it's true.
In Victorian England, it was not unusual for young children to become prostitutes, and this was not thought unusual, neither were small children used in "workhouses", where the owner/operator would frequently run a side line of brothels utilising small children.
Brasseye did not condone this act, merely mentioned, at the end, that "this girl is a prostitute". Shocking? Yes, but not during the era that this scene was depicting.
It highlighted how far our morals and what we find acceptable have changed.
Nobody is saying that this was a nice thing to show, but neither is it fiction. You watched an attractive 25yr old lady, topless, simulating sex. Who then sat up and spoke with a(dubbed) child's voice.
Repellant? Most definately, but the point made with this sketch is that, whilst now it is illegal (rightly so), back in that time, this was not the case.
The scene that I beleive did show paedophilia in some
> context was the reconstruction of an act of abuse using an older
> girl. Telling the viewer that the girl represented a child and then
> showing the act in the way it did was extremely disturbing. This
> was the only part of the show which came closest to justifying the
> 'Sick' allegations levelled at it. Your thoughts?
Yes, this was extremely close to the mark.
However, the narration that went with this scene was:
"This man is having sex with a 10year old girl in Victorian Times. For the purposes of this reconstruction, she is played by a 25yr old girl. Her breasts are different, they are larger and have extended nipples, whereas the genuine girl would resemble a young boy...this girl is a prostitute"
And it's true.
In Victorian England, it was not unusual for young children to become prostitutes, and this was not thought unusual, neither were small children used in "workhouses", where the owner/operator would frequently run a side line of brothels utilising small children.
Brasseye did not condone this act, merely mentioned, at the end, that "this girl is a prostitute". Shocking? Yes, but not during the era that this scene was depicting.
It highlighted how far our morals and what we find acceptable have changed.
Nobody is saying that this was a nice thing to show, but neither is it fiction. You watched an attractive 25yr old lady, topless, simulating sex. Who then sat up and spoke with a(dubbed) child's voice.
Repellant? Most definately, but the point made with this sketch is that, whilst now it is illegal (rightly so), back in that time, this was not the case.
Goatboy wrote:
I am saying that to associate those emotions with just one
> programme that was not explicit in anyway nor inferred sexual acts
> with children (it was discussed, never shown in any context at all)
> is to add flames to the fire.
I have to say that in your response to my earlier post you made a number of worthy points. I would tend to disagree with you to a certain extent over the freedom of expression as I feel that although I would switch off the BNP, some may not and it could str up feelings that hurt people in the community. To be honest, maybe we are not ready for full freedom of expression. But, I would not argue with your basic sentiments as they seemed perfectly reasonable.
I would like to ask you about one scene in Brass Eye however which I did find deeply unpleasant. Bear in mind that as a fan I was not really persoanlly offended by the show, much of it was quite funny. I just feel uneasy about it. Apart from this one scene:
The scene that I beleive did show paedophilia in some context was the reconstruction of an act of abuse using an older girl. Telling the viewer that the girl represented a child and then showing the act in the way it did was extremely disturbing. This was the only part of the show which came closest to justifying the 'Sick' allegations levelled at it. Your thoughts?
I am saying that to associate those emotions with just one
> programme that was not explicit in anyway nor inferred sexual acts
> with children (it was discussed, never shown in any context at all)
> is to add flames to the fire.
I have to say that in your response to my earlier post you made a number of worthy points. I would tend to disagree with you to a certain extent over the freedom of expression as I feel that although I would switch off the BNP, some may not and it could str up feelings that hurt people in the community. To be honest, maybe we are not ready for full freedom of expression. But, I would not argue with your basic sentiments as they seemed perfectly reasonable.
I would like to ask you about one scene in Brass Eye however which I did find deeply unpleasant. Bear in mind that as a fan I was not really persoanlly offended by the show, much of it was quite funny. I just feel uneasy about it. Apart from this one scene:
The scene that I beleive did show paedophilia in some context was the reconstruction of an act of abuse using an older girl. Telling the viewer that the girl represented a child and then showing the act in the way it did was extremely disturbing. This was the only part of the show which came closest to justifying the 'Sick' allegations levelled at it. Your thoughts?
I wish I'd seen this program. The first time it was shown I was interested and the 2nd time I had to get up early in the morning so couldn't see it. So I can't really agree or disagree with its content.. :/
Ant wrote:
"Brasseye's programme on
> paedophiles was disgusting, not funny and utterly utterly sick. Do
> they have no considertion? I know someone who was raped and she was
> in tears the next day after seeing that programme. It really was
> horrible."
Whilst I am in no way making any kind of light or discarding this post, what does this have to do with Brasseye? It was not about rape.
And, if this person was in tears (I do not doubt that), then I pray that she doesnt watch eastenders, Brookside, Coronation Street, Neighbours or any other programme that is on a major channel before 8pm 4 nights of the week.
Please do not think I am sneering or laughing at this message for one single second.
I am saying that to associate those emotions with just one programme that was not explicit in anyway nor inferred sexual acts with children (it was discussed, never shown in any context at all) is to add flames to the fire.
Brookside over the past two years has had:
Murder, rape, incest, abortion, lesbian affairs, extra-marital affairs.
All on prime-time television before the watershed, all in the name of "entertainment".
I find this more sickening and disgusting than one show, at 10:30pm at night, issued with a warning and full media coverage for 2 days leading up to broadcast.
And, for the sake of the knee-jerk reactionaries here,I am not mocking or in any way making light of this girl's experiences.
"Brasseye's programme on
> paedophiles was disgusting, not funny and utterly utterly sick. Do
> they have no considertion? I know someone who was raped and she was
> in tears the next day after seeing that programme. It really was
> horrible."
Whilst I am in no way making any kind of light or discarding this post, what does this have to do with Brasseye? It was not about rape.
And, if this person was in tears (I do not doubt that), then I pray that she doesnt watch eastenders, Brookside, Coronation Street, Neighbours or any other programme that is on a major channel before 8pm 4 nights of the week.
Please do not think I am sneering or laughing at this message for one single second.
I am saying that to associate those emotions with just one programme that was not explicit in anyway nor inferred sexual acts with children (it was discussed, never shown in any context at all) is to add flames to the fire.
Brookside over the past two years has had:
Murder, rape, incest, abortion, lesbian affairs, extra-marital affairs.
All on prime-time television before the watershed, all in the name of "entertainment".
I find this more sickening and disgusting than one show, at 10:30pm at night, issued with a warning and full media coverage for 2 days leading up to broadcast.
And, for the sake of the knee-jerk reactionaries here,I am not mocking or in any way making light of this girl's experiences.
I personally think that if the papers hadn't had front page spreads about it claiming it was the work of the devil or whatever, then the majority of people who watched it would have done because they were Morris fans and would be used to his kind of thing.
People only watched it because the papers made it widespread knowledge. If they hadn't then people wouldn't have seen it and they wouldn't have complained about it.
The papers did C4 a huge favour. No doubt Morris has got many more fans from watching this programme and continue to do it.
While the press are trying to make him out like the devil, they have actually turnd him into a hero to some people for getting stuff like this on telly, when perhaps it wouldn't have done?
People only watched it because the papers made it widespread knowledge. If they hadn't then people wouldn't have seen it and they wouldn't have complained about it.
The papers did C4 a huge favour. No doubt Morris has got many more fans from watching this programme and continue to do it.
While the press are trying to make him out like the devil, they have actually turnd him into a hero to some people for getting stuff like this on telly, when perhaps it wouldn't have done?
sandman wrote:
The argument that if you don't like it don't watch it is also
> rather dubious. What if you were abused as a child? You would have
> an interest in the programme because it relates to your experience
> and people's perception of your experiences. Therefore you feel
> compelled to watch it and may be upset by the images, jokes and tone
> of the show.
But this programme carried a warning beforehand saying that is was a comedy programme and contained scenes and language that some people may find disturbing.
The same could be said to justify broadcasting far
> right (e.g. BNP) propaganda. OK, I don't like it, I don't have to
> watch it. However, I do believe that as it could upset people and
> have a detrimental effect on our society I would rather not have it
> aired in the first place.
But this comes back to the whole issue of "Freedom of expresssion covers everyone".
Whilst I do not wish to hear the publicity of the BNP, I do not agree that they should not be allowed their voice, otherwise we are living in a morally-dubious society, "Freedom of speech and artistic expression, oh except for those guys, we don't like what they say so they don't count."
You either allow every group their 5 minutes, or nobody.
Now, before anyone starts screaming at me, I am not advocation the BNP, I am saying that if you let someone from the Anti-Nazi League airtime to express their views, then you have to allow an opposing voice the same courtesy.
Otherwise what is the point?
And, like I said earlier, I can make the choice of turning it off.
To dictate what is and isn't allowed on television borders on facist tendencies. We have the ITC to investigate any complaints a viewer may have.
But is really is as simple as turning it off.
Why protect me from myself for the good of myself, when I can flick a button and not partake in what is being offered to me.
I am an adult, I resent a group of strangers dictating and ordering me to not watch something that they consider offensive.
I am just
> pointing out that TV does have social repurcusions which means that
> the 'just switch over' aproach may not be the easy answer for all
> subject matters.
But it is. Nobody forces a gun to your head and makes you watch anything. If it upsets you, turn it off.
There is an old joke saying "What I find sexy is erotic, what you find sexy is porn".
Basically meaning you may not like something, but that doesn't mean you're right. Nor does it mean that I am right for liking something.
It is a question of personal values and taste.
Some of you (I'm not addressing this at you
> Goatboy) seem not only to delight in Morris making fantastic
> television, but seem genuinely excited by the prospect of him simply
> upsetting people (whatever point he may be making). In my opinion
> that's not big or clever.
I agree, but this isn't the retarded antics of "entertainers" like Dennis Pennis or Ali G that make people look foolish for fun.
Morris has been doing this for years, it what he considers his purpose in life to be.
He doesnt do it for ratings or for hype, he does it because he can.
I appreciate that your post wasn't aimed specifically at myself, and I do thank you for being able to put a viewpoint across without insult or taunts, honestly I do.
But I disagree with what you've written.
But that doesn't mean you're wrong, nor does it mean I'm right.
The argument that if you don't like it don't watch it is also
> rather dubious. What if you were abused as a child? You would have
> an interest in the programme because it relates to your experience
> and people's perception of your experiences. Therefore you feel
> compelled to watch it and may be upset by the images, jokes and tone
> of the show.
But this programme carried a warning beforehand saying that is was a comedy programme and contained scenes and language that some people may find disturbing.
The same could be said to justify broadcasting far
> right (e.g. BNP) propaganda. OK, I don't like it, I don't have to
> watch it. However, I do believe that as it could upset people and
> have a detrimental effect on our society I would rather not have it
> aired in the first place.
But this comes back to the whole issue of "Freedom of expresssion covers everyone".
Whilst I do not wish to hear the publicity of the BNP, I do not agree that they should not be allowed their voice, otherwise we are living in a morally-dubious society, "Freedom of speech and artistic expression, oh except for those guys, we don't like what they say so they don't count."
You either allow every group their 5 minutes, or nobody.
Now, before anyone starts screaming at me, I am not advocation the BNP, I am saying that if you let someone from the Anti-Nazi League airtime to express their views, then you have to allow an opposing voice the same courtesy.
Otherwise what is the point?
And, like I said earlier, I can make the choice of turning it off.
To dictate what is and isn't allowed on television borders on facist tendencies. We have the ITC to investigate any complaints a viewer may have.
But is really is as simple as turning it off.
Why protect me from myself for the good of myself, when I can flick a button and not partake in what is being offered to me.
I am an adult, I resent a group of strangers dictating and ordering me to not watch something that they consider offensive.
I am just
> pointing out that TV does have social repurcusions which means that
> the 'just switch over' aproach may not be the easy answer for all
> subject matters.
But it is. Nobody forces a gun to your head and makes you watch anything. If it upsets you, turn it off.
There is an old joke saying "What I find sexy is erotic, what you find sexy is porn".
Basically meaning you may not like something, but that doesn't mean you're right. Nor does it mean that I am right for liking something.
It is a question of personal values and taste.
Some of you (I'm not addressing this at you
> Goatboy) seem not only to delight in Morris making fantastic
> television, but seem genuinely excited by the prospect of him simply
> upsetting people (whatever point he may be making). In my opinion
> that's not big or clever.
I agree, but this isn't the retarded antics of "entertainers" like Dennis Pennis or Ali G that make people look foolish for fun.
Morris has been doing this for years, it what he considers his purpose in life to be.
He doesnt do it for ratings or for hype, he does it because he can.
I appreciate that your post wasn't aimed specifically at myself, and I do thank you for being able to put a viewpoint across without insult or taunts, honestly I do.
But I disagree with what you've written.
But that doesn't mean you're wrong, nor does it mean I'm right.
Ant wrote:
> Just a quick note. Here is a quote from RastaBillySkank (I'm sure he
> won't mind) about Brasseye:
"Brasseye's programme on
> paedophiles was disgusting, not funny and utterly utterly sick. Do
> they have no considertion? I know someone who was raped and she was
> in tears the next day after seeing that programme. It really was
> horrible."
That's why I didn't like it. That's what I meant
> by 'offensive.'
I actually posted my last message before reading this post, but this horrific account illustrates the point I was trying to make far more powerfully than I could have. Sometimes maybe its best to bite your tongue, or make your point another way, rather than upsetting people who don't deserve to be upset.
> Just a quick note. Here is a quote from RastaBillySkank (I'm sure he
> won't mind) about Brasseye:
"Brasseye's programme on
> paedophiles was disgusting, not funny and utterly utterly sick. Do
> they have no considertion? I know someone who was raped and she was
> in tears the next day after seeing that programme. It really was
> horrible."
That's why I didn't like it. That's what I meant
> by 'offensive.'
I actually posted my last message before reading this post, but this horrific account illustrates the point I was trying to make far more powerfully than I could have. Sometimes maybe its best to bite your tongue, or make your point another way, rather than upsetting people who don't deserve to be upset.
Goatboy wrote:
Examples of Morris work? A focus group with members of
> the public when he held a picture of a little girl up and
> said
"Would you have sex with this 3 year old girl now that
> she's 21?"
Everyone recoiled and spat invectives at the
> idea.
But read what he said again.
Go on, I'll wait...see? He
> didnt ask them if they wanted to have sex with a little kid, but
> they assumed and heard the worst.
People need to watch this
> again, and think about what is actually said and what is perceived.
All that proves is that you can confuse members of the British public. Being a Morris fan you will know that he has done this to great effect over the years on a wide range of subjects, asking trick or just plain silly questions on a huge range of subjects.
Does this make any point about paedophilia or our reaction to it? No, all it proved is that it is easy to fool members of the public for laughs and that lots of people don't like paedophiles. Hardly radical, incisive comedy is it. Tell us something we don't know.
The points he raised on public hysteria could have been done on any of a wide range of subjects. It seemed like an excuse to shock for the sake of it.
The argument that if you don't like it don't watch it is also rather dubious. What if you were abused as a child? You would have an interest in the programme because it relates to your experience and people's perception of your experiences. Therefore you feel compelled to watch it and may be upset by the images, jokes and tone of the show.
The same could be said to justify broadcasting far right (e.g. BNP) propaganda. OK, I don't like it, I don't have to watch it. However, I do believe that as it could upset people and have a detrimental effect on our society I would rather not have it aired in the first place.
Please bear in mind that I am a Chris Morris fan and I am not comparing Brass Eye to the BNP. I am just pointing out that TV does have social repurcusions which means that the 'just switch over' aproach may not be the easy answer for all subject matters. Some of you (I'm not addressing this at you Goatboy) seem not only to delight in Morris making fantastic television, but seem genuinely excited by the prospect of him simply upsetting people (whatever point he may be making). In my opinion that's not big or clever.
Examples of Morris work? A focus group with members of
> the public when he held a picture of a little girl up and
> said
"Would you have sex with this 3 year old girl now that
> she's 21?"
Everyone recoiled and spat invectives at the
> idea.
But read what he said again.
Go on, I'll wait...see? He
> didnt ask them if they wanted to have sex with a little kid, but
> they assumed and heard the worst.
People need to watch this
> again, and think about what is actually said and what is perceived.
All that proves is that you can confuse members of the British public. Being a Morris fan you will know that he has done this to great effect over the years on a wide range of subjects, asking trick or just plain silly questions on a huge range of subjects.
Does this make any point about paedophilia or our reaction to it? No, all it proved is that it is easy to fool members of the public for laughs and that lots of people don't like paedophiles. Hardly radical, incisive comedy is it. Tell us something we don't know.
The points he raised on public hysteria could have been done on any of a wide range of subjects. It seemed like an excuse to shock for the sake of it.
The argument that if you don't like it don't watch it is also rather dubious. What if you were abused as a child? You would have an interest in the programme because it relates to your experience and people's perception of your experiences. Therefore you feel compelled to watch it and may be upset by the images, jokes and tone of the show.
The same could be said to justify broadcasting far right (e.g. BNP) propaganda. OK, I don't like it, I don't have to watch it. However, I do believe that as it could upset people and have a detrimental effect on our society I would rather not have it aired in the first place.
Please bear in mind that I am a Chris Morris fan and I am not comparing Brass Eye to the BNP. I am just pointing out that TV does have social repurcusions which means that the 'just switch over' aproach may not be the easy answer for all subject matters. Some of you (I'm not addressing this at you Goatboy) seem not only to delight in Morris making fantastic television, but seem genuinely excited by the prospect of him simply upsetting people (whatever point he may be making). In my opinion that's not big or clever.
That was a really crap title Ant.
Channel 4 Annoy Me because they show cricket when its on :)
Channel 4 Annoy Me because they show cricket when its on :)
Page: