It’s not the content, it’s the medium that’s offensive

December 2nd, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink


My thoughts on Clarkson’s comments are simple: make them on TV and you can expect to get lots of complaints and outrage; make them in a newspaper and you’d be handsomely rewarded as a ‘star’ columnist. If anything, Clarkson has just provided a perfect example of the kind of jokey hyperbole he gets away with in print without a whisper of outrage being deemed as the work of Satan just because he said it on TV.

There is a very interesting double standard in this country when it comes to what is acceptable on TV compared to what is acceptable in print. Just imagine – for example – a TV news broadcast flicking from a serious news story to an upskirt shot of some female celeb getting out of a taxi or a video report about what Suri Cruise has worn during the week or how ‘she looks all grown up’. It, of course, would probably crash the phone network as outraged masses call in their disgust and complaints.

Yet this is what we get in the tabloids. It seems to me that British Society finds the medium of TV inherently more offensive than the medium of print.

Dorries on the BBC

October 19th, 2010 § 5 comments § permalink

Cue nashing of teeth and much shaking of fists

So, thousands of soldiers lose their jobs. The very people who have risked their lives every day in order that the BBC can function and fail, over and over, to support the sacrifice they make .

The BBC will only receive the equivalent of a 16% cut over five years. That just isn’t good enough.

Just what the fuck does that second sentence mean? It makes some sense up to the comma, where you start to feel the rage stoked by the army cutting the numbers of soldiers turns Dorries’ limited ability to construct a coherent sentence to goo.

5 years? 16%? Is that it? Oooh, those bloody lefties have gotten away far too lightly. Again.

The BBC has done a very good job over the last thirteen years to support the Labour Government. They have facilitated the very process which has resulted in the cuts every family in the nation has to bear. The blood which will flow from the cuts is all over BBC hands too.

And the BBC will undoubtedly be a little more bias towards the Tories, because although there is the independent board of what-ever-they’re-called running the BBC, it is still the government of the day that pulls the strings and can completely fuck the BBC if they wanted.

Although the BBC might have been a bit soft on the Labour government, I think Nadine will find that it was the Labour government and it’s love of the ‘wealth creators’ of the city that facilitated the slide down the u-bend in to the cess-pit we currently find ourselves. You can hardly say the BBC were willing facilitators. You’ll probably find the current demand to fuck over the BBC is just a continuation of the shit started in 2004 by, yes the Labour government. Bullied into submission that it is still trying to recover from.

Having displayed such bias, the Corporation should take more of the pain.

Oh? How, Nadine? Please, do tell.

We should demand to know what each presenter is paid. Because we pay. Students who have to buy a TV licence for each room in a student halls. Each person who is ill, elderly or infirm – we all pay from our taxed income.

We? who the fuck is this ‘we’? Some people might want to know what the presenters and ‘stars’ are paid. Some people couldn’t give a shit.

We know what teachers, nurses and MPs are paid. Why is the BBC allowed to function under this veil of secrecy?

We know what MPs’ are paid because they proved themselves to be extremely untrustworthy when it came down to spending and justifying the spending of other peoples money. And until recently MPs’ set their own pay. Who the fuck else got to pay themselves what they wanted from other peoples money?

We know the pay of some of the top paid headteachers, but not because of any dishonesty or lax rules, but because the information got leaked or the head disclosed it themselves. And nurses? Where can I find out how much a specific nurse gets paid? Go on, where?

The ‘veil of secrecy’ that the BBC is supposedly operating under is probably less secret than Nadines recruitment process for her constituency helper. *cough**daughter**cough*.

We need to know the exact cost of every production. How much each person on the production team receives. Every expense receipt going back over five years should be produced for everyone to see. Because we paid.

We need to know, do we? Does it really matter what the runner got paid, or the second soundman? It’s the total cost of the production that should be monitored, if you wanna go that way. It probably is already. Programmes rejected or not commissioned because of cost.

And where is the money going to come from to gather and collate and show this information in a meaningful way? From the BBC itself, so that there is less for actually producing shows or is this another job for the Big fucking Society?

That just sounds like petty vengeful snarking. ‘I’ve got to so you have to, too’ kind of thing. Oh fuck off you stupid fucking bint*.

The argument to justify the BBC licence fee used to go that the BBC made outstanding period dramas.

…and documentaries. Don’t forget documentaries, because everything else the BBC is utter shite.

I have a two word answer to that. Downton Abbey.

Man, that’s one killer argument. What’s Downton Abbey? I’m guessing it’s a period drama, but is it a shit BBC drama that proves the BBC don’t make outstanding period dramas anymore or is it an ITV one that shows that the BBC must be a shit waste of money because someone else can do good drama too?

Should Sky be hosting an election debate?

March 2nd, 2010 § 8 comments § permalink

Should Sky be hosting a debate of the three main party leaders?

Sky may be a big name, but they’re not exactly a national broadcaster, are they? They have what? Ten million subscribers (and expected to lose about 17% of them) and the whole of the Sky owned channels have about 7% of the nations viewers. They are not open to everyone like the terrestrial channels are.
For example, if you hardly ever watch the BBC, you could still switch over for and watch the debate about domestic issues, but if you want to watch the debate based on international affairs, which is the one Sky will be hosting, you can’t unless you subscribe to Sky for 12 months. Big important football games are shown on terrestrial and not just satellite channels, so why is this debate restricted to such a small audience?

Many people not only do not want Sky, but cannot justify the expense. In these days of everyone having to tighten their belts and the nature of these debates, being part of the general election campaign, should such a massive amount of people not be able to see it?

The Scots may be moaning about the way that there will be no representative from their major parties (aren’t they having their own debates now?) but with Sky showing one of the debates, it is like one of the terrestrially broadcast events being shown only on STV.

back to reality

September 2nd, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

Erm. Just a quick post.

Can all these people making and watching these fucking reality TV programmes just stop it. Just fucking stop it.

Enough if enough. I don’t give two shits about someone trying to move house or renovate a house. It’s been done to death.

That bloody dinner party programme on channel four or wife swap. Fuck off. you were interesting for about two programmes and then you ran out of different types of people to put together that would annoy the crap out of each other.

Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum. Never mind programme makers, or the kids that are featured on the bloody thing, it’s the parents! “Oh, yes dear. Lets go on a programme that takes the piss out of you and shows what a useless spoilt turd you are.” It’s you, parents, that is showing that you should’ve been sterilised with a fence post! You made the little cunts like they are. Stop it!

If you’re married or are a partner to someone who makes these programmes or wants to appear on one of these freak shows, have a word. If that doesn’t work I’ve got a shiney sword you can borrow to push in brain via their ear. That should stop them.

And another thing. Just because you start running out of ordinary attention seeking fuckwits doesn’t mean that putting the word ‘celebrity’ in the title doesn’t make the programme ‘fresh again. Someone who was in a paper once because she snogged someone that was in a soap opera for ten minutes or an old cunt that was on the telly all the time in the seventies for an unfathamable reason and the overvoice needs to remind us how they are famous every time their name is mentioned and don’t know when to give it up are not famous. Their wankers.

And those cretins that are only known for being on other reality shows are not celebrities. They’re, they’re… they’re lucky no cunt’s punched them in the face with a Scania.

Then there’s the police ones. They wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t any moralising in them. We know it’s wrong to steal cars. We know that riding a scooter without a helmet while of your box on extasy with your prostitute mother hanging on the back trying to jack up is going to end in a big heap with blood everywhere.
Shut the fuck up and show the fucking car chases. And not the shitty one of a drunk bloke riding a bloody pedal bike at 2 miles an hour, either.


Death by Duncan

April 27th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

Alan Duncan went on the offensive on Have I Got News For You on Friday (apparently. I haven’t seen it yet).

Miss California had made a remarked somewhere that marraige should be between a man and a woman and on HIGNFY…

Mr Duncan, 51, described blonde Miss Prejean as a “silly bitch”, then added: “I don’t agree with her at all.”

After a pause, he went on: “If you read that Miss California has been murdered, you will know it was me won’t you?”

This comment has given rise to some complaints. One of which…

Metropolitan Police received a complaint from George Hargreaves, the leader of evangelical political party The Christian Party whose members believe that homosexuality is a sin.

“Mr Duncan has crossed the line,” Mr Hargreaves said. “A senior politician suggesting, even as a joke, that it is OK that Miss Prejean should be murdered for her evangelical Christian views is totally unacceptable.

“How can we stop gun and knife crime when the man thinks he will be the next Home Secretary makes death threats?”

Nice to see you standing up for law and order, but where’s the crime?
Did he say the fragrant beauty queen should be murdered to death? Was there a call to restrict her rights and discriminate against her because of who or what she is? No. Alan Duncan joked about himself killing her, because I presume, her beliefs would impede on how he lives his life, which has no effect on how she lives hers.

Is the joking about killing her any different than preaching that homosexuals are going TO HELL!! FOREVER!!?

Hell is a pretty scary place, so I’m told. And a little less easily avoided than an irate Alan Duncan, too (if you believe those stories).


Please love me

February 8th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

“Winning this competition would validate me as a person” – Carrie, on Paris Hiltons’ British Best Friend.

What. The. Fuck?

Seriously, that girl needs help.

ITV Phone Scandal Report

October 18th, 2007 § 0 comments § permalink

They took about £7.8 million fraudulently.
No one has been fired.

“In some instances there has been disciplinary action, but I don’t intend to take a couple of token scalps in expiation. That would not solve the problem.”

Well. OK, then. But wouldn’t obtaining money by deception be a crime? And seeing as it is a crime that has involved the company be considered gross misconduct?
In all companies I have worked for, gross misconduct is a sackable offence.
Not exactly ‘token’ scalps then.

The broadcaster may face further Ofcom fines once the regulator has digested the Deloitte report.

Ofcom? Ofcom? Of-fucking-com? If I’d defrauded people out £7.8 million Dixon of Dock Green would soon be feeling my collar!

Mr Grade lambasted the company he joined earlier this year, saying: “My overall conclusion from the review is that there was a serious cultural failure within ITV.”


As part of a package of measures to tighten procedures among staff, Mr Grade added that all production employees will receive “broad compliance training” and will be required to attend “refresher” training on a regular basis.

Well, Mr Grade. If you’re staff need training in the right and wrongs of closing a competition or phone vote, but not telling the viewers, then you must have some stupid fucking monkeys working for you.

“It was not understood that when the audience is invited to make choices within programmes, the producer is effectively ceding part of his/her sovereignty over editorial decisions,” Mr Grade said.


I just lurve this quote:

However, he added that that the failings unearthed by Deloitte were not “venal”. “In all cases individuals were motivated by their professional instinct to produce the best show, but they failed to understand that this could come at the expense of keeping faith with participating viewers,” he said.

What Grade is saying there is that his staff wanted to produce the best shows, and but had to defraud the audience to do it.

Says a lot for the shows, doesn’t it.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with television at Sim-O.