Brass Eye Special: what's the problem?

DadaKopf · 28-07-2001 8:02am #1

Last Thursday night's Brass Eye officially became the most controversial programme ever to be aired on British television. Of course, it was only a matter of hours before it was smeared all over the national newspapers in Britain http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,528558,00.html .

I don't see what the fuss is about at all. Have people lost their ability to allow themselves to be shocked?

For those who haven't seen it, you can get it at www.cookdandbombd.co.uk and for those who have, wotchyis think about the whole thing?

WhiteWashMan · 28-07-2001 9:34am

i thnk it was very inappropriate thing to show on television.
the subject matter was completely distasteful.
yeah there were some humourous parts in it, but the whole subject is one of the very few that i personally feel should not be made into a laughing matter

Have people lost their ability to allow themselves to be shocked?

im not too sure what you mean here? this means that people are unshockable yes? in which case its probably against what your points are?? confused. i thnk a lot people were shocked and outraged.
do you think maybe the next brass eye special should be on rape? hehehehe, maybe we could get a few giggles out of watching someone get raped? funny, i think not.
pretty sick i reckon

Panda · 28-07-2001 10:18pm

The fuss is that its sick. End of story.

Aka: Sexual Harassment Panda

Dont be at yourself · 28-07-2001 10:36pm

I watched it. I laughed. So did countless others. It didn't promote peadophilia, make it seem cool, or paint it in a good light. If they did, then there would be cause for complaint.

It was harmless. When you honestly think about it, how would it have a bad effect?

Remember the scene where the dummy was thrown into the lynch-mob outside the prison? The reaction of the press and certain members of the public was akin to that. They needed something to complain about, they needed a cause.

Even though I was their captive, the Indians allowed me quite a bit of freedom. I could walk freely, make my own meals, and even hurl large rocks at their heads. It was only later that I discovered that they were not Indians at all but only dirty-clothes hampers.

TwoShedsJackson · 28-07-2001 11:17pm

It's satire. Chris Morris is not trying to get laughs out of paedophilia, but out of people's blind reactions.

I felt disgusted at the sheer ignorance of the various minor celebs who read out anything put in front of them to get their mugs on tv. 'penis-shaped soundwaves molesting kids over the internet', I mean come on what sort of cretin would you have to be to believe that.

I thought it was hilarious and thought-provoking - the Sun and their ilk who are trying to come down on it are only doing so because they think that's what the moronic herd will do, and that's what sells papers.

TwoShedsJackson · 29-07-2001 12:34am

Originally posted by Kento-Shiro:
The fuss is that its sick. End of story.

How is it sick?

Clintons Cat · 29-07-2001 9:11am

I missed it,i knew it was on,but i forgot to watch it.
I Demand Channel 4 Repeat It So I Can Watch It And Be Outraged And Call For The Broadcasters Never To Repeat This Sick Filth...Ever

DadaKopf · 29-07-2001 12:31pm

It's a bit dumb trying to analyse comedy but here's a few things I'm sure has already been said:

1] Chris Morris is a satirist; Peter Cook, the last great British satirist named Morris as the only comedian in Britain who seems to have carried his mantle. Cook, was good, Cook was great and so is Morris.

2] Morris chose a sensitive issue because it's worth addressing - it's not actually the act of paedophilia he was addressing but the way that Britain's media has orchestrated a 'crisis' in British society through its various tools at hand - including top celebrities

3] Morris really is just bringing the media's own tools to logical extremes. It's the gap between reality and exaggeration where comedy resides

4] People should be more worried about the clebrities who will say anything on television to either connect themselves with some "worthy cause" or to get their faces shown on television. Would anyone in their right mind believe that there are "penis shaped sound waves molesting kids on the internet"? Or things like sodomised particles and heavy electricity flattening villages throughout the world with "invisible lead soup"? They're so desprate to get on television and to seem all-worldly that they'll say anything!

5] Satire hasn't always been received well and if it was, it just wouldn't be successful. We're all going to be looking back on it in a few years, with the tables turned, praising Morris' and Channel 4's bravery and the press' stupidity and insensitive opportunism.

by WhiteWashMan who quoted this from me:
Have people lost their ability to allow themselves to be shocked?

What I mean is people don't seem open to new ideas anymore; people want security and inoffensive television just so they can come home from work and switch off and be entertained. Nobody wants to be challenged and certainly not shocked. It's a choice - people could choose to be interested but they're too apathetic and when you ask them why, it's always down to some half-assed choice.

DadaKopf · 29-07-2001 12:34pm

Oh, and Brass Eye is funny because it's in extreme bad taste. You laugh and ask yourself: 'why am I laughing at this?' That's a great achievement.

Oh no! They're on to me, I think I smell like hammers.

Stephen · 29-07-2001 7:33pm

People just can't take such a big taboo being so openly used for comedy. Small mindedness.

- Munch

smoke.me.a.kipper · 29-07-2001 8:38pm

i see nothing wrong with it. infact i actually thought it was pretty funny. actually.

Lucy_la_morte · 29-07-2001 8:47pm

If people don't like it, or don't find it funny, they don't have to watch it. There's like OTHER channels. Channel 4 provide a free service for the public, they're allowed to be more slack with what they show, all the people who complained, well... They should really of been complaining in vain.

Senretsukyaku
Kikosho!
SPINNING BIRD KICK

Chun-Li la morte.

Panda · 29-07-2001 9:09pm

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
How is it sick?

Crikey m8 if you dont se whats wrong with it then ur not playing with a full pack.

They portrayed men that get their jollies from watching little children, in a humerous manner.

Thats just not cricket.

Thats what i think anyway, but u think what u want to think.

Aka: Sexual Harassment Panda

DadaKopf · 29-07-2001 9:25pm

And then you gots a name like Sexual Harassment Panda.

What's not cricket? Heh, men getting dressed up, playing with balls and wickets. And that's not cricket!?

Everyone will thank Morris when this is all over.

Anyway, it's one thing to hold an opinion and another to try and force it on someone. Lucy la Morte said something sensible, you don't have to watch it and I agree, people have choice but obviously the press and politicians consider themselves the moral guardians of a country when they forget they're just people as well. Everyone has the choice to tell them to shut up. Well, maybe not the press - but they're *****s.

If it wasn't for the press, we wouldn't be so rediculously over-sensitive about paedophilia and the more and more this argument goes on, the clearer it becomes that the problem has been inflated by the press and all Morris has done is used their tricks and has sat back and watched the real show. But people just aren't going to get worried about the press because that's just boring. Readers want pictures and graphic accounts of what happened the children and photos of innocent little children before they were savagely violated by a 62 year old man's bone wand. Maybe, just maybe, we're a little scared that we (most people) like to read about this stuff, which makes us unabashed, shameful voyeurs of other people's trauma. Or maybe it's because us internet kids smell like hammers.

Either way, it's a good thing, a very good thing this show was aired.

"I collect spores, moulds and fungus."

Clintons Cat · 29-07-2001 11:52pm

Kind of makes me wonder what the Brass Eye team would make of the Bradford Riots,or the holocaust deniers,or teen age suicide,or goths or Princess Di.Are there any taboos that couldnt or shouldnt be tackled?

I dont know any victims of paedophilia or incest to ask what they thought of the program (or the name and shame campaign that inspired it)so my thoughts on the matter are perhaps not worth the paper they are printed on (more so because i didnt even see the show or use paper to print them on.}
However did the programers feel that the feelings of victims of such crimes would not be hurt by airing a spoof documentary about paedophilia?Did they feel all victims of such crimes are media savvy enough to know that it is the hysteria concerning peadophilia Brass eye is mocking and not trivialising what was and must be a traumatising personal event in their own lives.
Given that a number of high profile paedophile rings brought to justice targetted educationally backward and emotionally withdrawn young children as victims as these were percieved by the abusers to be more compliant and less likely to reveal their abuse.Did the brass eye team give the victims potential trauma a seconds consideration?Was it considerered worth it, just to prove how much outrage they could provoke in their targets

root of the problem, the media. The red-top tabloids in particular.

.
The backlash was hardly suprising was it?
There does seem to be something perverse about criticising public ignorance by fuelling such ignorance with ever more outrageous claims,its a bit like trying to tackle the serious issue of anti semitism by makeing a Spoof TV doccumentary alleging Jews drink the blood of children,and getting Mr Motivator to read an Autocue saying "Children are killed before their warm blood is drunk from their still beating hearts".
Sorry if i wanted to see celebrities proving how thick they are i would watch Blankety Blank.

...........
Trauma suffered in childhood,however deeply supressed has a nasty way of catching up unexpectedly with you in adult life.Not all victims of paedophillia will have received adequate coping support to deal with the complicated emotions raised by this program and the ensuing backlash.

<comments welcome>
..............

Totally unrelated .......ok its another rant

What do i know,i'm only a portuguese refugee,until a couple of weeks ago i didn't even know there was such a thing,after all Portugal being a signatory of the EU bill of human rights is commited to the welfare of its citizens and furthermore the rights of free passage within the EU would not require refugee status as a prequisite to stay in the UK.Maybe i should have pointed it out at the time to the loverly lady<complete with tight pink t shirt,bleach blonde perm and stetson hat> instead of gawping with amazement at the total ignorance of some people after all i might of been born here and have feelings.
Still i hope it made her feel happier about her night out cause it sure as hell spoiled mine
Welcome to the Crazy World Of Clintons Cat
Can i get off now?

[This message has been edited by Clintons Cat (edited 29-07-2001).]

Greenbean · 30-07-2001 12:55am

I have to admit, I was watching a show tonight, about the holocaust and even though I wanted to watch a show on BBC1 (Space) I wouldn't turn over until I heard the victims tell me first hand what they saw and heard in the gas chambers. It was a sort of digusting voyeurism - I wanted to hate Nazi Germans for having the mindset to let this happen and I wanted to see the horror in its entirity to justify my hate and to dwell in it. That was my conclusion afterwards when I challenged my anger.

The whole problem with satire is the layer of fake honesty that it uses to work. To listen to it you've got to assume everything is an intended joke. What goes wrong is people forget the layer of deceit and take it literaly. They are also worried that someone impressionable may miss the deceit and take it to mean society is condoning the warped lies; which may agree to what they've thought.

Eg, you ever end up in conversation with a racist person, but you didn't realise they were racist, and you satirically mention "those bloody refugees should hand in their legally obtained passports and go work somewhere where there's less jobs". The person then unexpectedly agree's because
a) they're just dumb or half listening and reacting with common stupid outrage (when the outrageous thing is to agree)
b) They actually believe someone prepared to work and with legal passport shouldn't be allowed to be in Ireland because of their race
c) They're trying to out "joke" you (which is a huge problem with satire - or sarcasim; there are too many layers).

Laughter is the language of acceptance and association (unless you are the subject). When you watch the Brasseye show you don't really laugh, you grunt "ha, thats ironic", "oh god yeah, thats soooo ITN", "Christ I don't believe he said that". The obvious jokes, the shock jokes, the attempt at shocking people isn't really funny - its a message; but you get worried that with the Brass Eye Special the extremes were tested not for satire but just to push things too far. Its not a funny topic, there are some funny ironies and jokes you can play - as you can with any topic, if you are prepared to not really care about the people hurt; thats the problem - it desensitises people.

If Chris Morris was sitting back and smiling at all the jokes, and acknowledging how funny they were - then I'd know he did this for the wrong reason. But if Chris Morris was watching the progress of news reports - analysing how people reacted to some jokes and not others etc and figuring out what it was about people that still needed attacking to make them media aware then its a good thing.

Clintons Cat · 30-07-2001 1:16am

from the veiwing figures of 1.4 million,it looks like most people excersised their right not to veiw this show.
I find it a little bit distasteful for Channel four to lecture us over standards of public decency and standards of public broadcasting right after they brought us big brother 2,lowest common denominator tv at its mind numbing worst.
Lets not forget channel four have maintained a steady flow of "leaks"/pre publicity about the content of Brass Eye to the supposed "target" of the show the "Red top Tabloids".was this to prove how gulible the red tops are? or and this is of course supposition was it to provide the largest audience share possible for the benefit of the advertisers?
I for one will be boycotting all the products advertised just as soon as i find out what they are,(sic)
Do you think the Sun will be brave enough to follow its "roll of shame" posting of the production crews names with a list of companies that sponsored it?
will they risk upsetting and losing the patronage of big buisness revenues the murdoch empire needs to fuel its campaigns?
I hold my breath.
Both sides are playing a game with clearly defined rules {RULE ONE lets keep the advertisers out of it)Somehow it rings as false as the WWF Ringside rants,"bums on seats laddie bums on seats."
..........
This is not to say Morris doesnt feel real vitriol about the whole name/shame/campaign,
or Carol Vorderman warning on the Dangers of Kids Chatrooms "your child is just two clicks away from a peadophile" ,I beleive we had a discussion on the technophobic aspects of this type of scaremongering a while back.
I fully understand what Morris was trying to do,i just think he missed the target.It has allowed the emphasis to be shifted away from the very dangerous mob mentality stirred up by the News Of the Worlds name and shame campaign and onto standards of public decency.I cant see a single person changing their knee jerk/voyeristic/lets get those paedotrichian b@stards attitude as a result.
.........
You cant fight ignorance with ignorance.
..........
PS whats a hammer?

WhiteWashMan · 30-07-2001 7:47am

well, i typically like the brass eye. i get the humour. im not saying i didnt find parts of the show genuinely amusing. i did. and i can understand where the show was coming from, what it was doing, and where it was leading too.
however, i still think the whole topic is incredibly distasteful. satire is good fun when it comes to unearthing ministry scandels, inequalities between races and military funding, but the subject of peadophilia/rape is not something that satire can make palitable. if you want to bring the subject to the fore in a humourous and easy to swallow tablet, then some other medium is needed.
satire is too real.
just think of your brother/sister/niece/nephew/son/daughter being analy or vaginaly raped by some person, inall probability ripping them open in the act, blood, stitches etc, and then come back to me and tell me you can find some form of humour there.
you may say thats over the top, but im sure that anyone who has suffered like this will tell you its not.
like i said, i understood the program, and i even laughed at some peoples stupididty, but i found it very uncomfortable, and i found it in very poor taste.
and the case that people dont have to watch it is not really valid. people dont have to watch eastenders but the do. people shouldnt have to turn on the tv and have this in their face. a bit more respect for victims.

Chief · 30-07-2001 8:03am

Spot on in my opinion WWman m8, my exact thoughts, you psychic person u

"LOSE me.. Hate me.. SMASH me..
ERASE me.. KILL me.."

nine inch nails - eraser

|Chief|...

Shinji · 31-07-2001 1:02pm

Mmm, I can see both sides of this. However, I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that while Morris walked a fine line, he did not actually satirise paedophilia - his attack was on the media coverage of paedophilia, which is an entirely legitimate target.

We're talking here about a country where a pediatrician's house got bricks thrown at it after the News of the World's mob-rousing coverage of the Sarah Payne affair; a nation where the tabloids get away with openly encouraging the murder of suspected child killers or sex offenders.

There have been countless well-considered news articles and radio discussions about this issue, but NOBODY CARED. If what it takes to bring this into the open is Chris Morris' brand of scandal, then that can only be a good thing.

(Of course, the tabloids are only too quick to attack Morris - hardly a shock given how many times he's taken them in in the past. Wasn't it the Sun that ran a story about "Sutcliffe The Musical" without actually checking any facts out and had to make a horribly embarrassing apology to the families of the victims who they'd hassled over it before even making sure it existed?)

C B · 31-07-2001 1:40pm

Originally posted by Shinji:
his attack was on the media coverage of paedophilia, which is an entirely legitimate target.

One of the first post that tried to get at the nub of the matter, however I have to disagree with you.

The media attempted to cause hyteria (as this term is jaundiced I will use over caution instead) in the aftermath of the Sarah Paine case. Is this such an awful thing? Most people who are currently parents grew up in a society which was unaware of issues such as paedophilia and many parents are woefully undereducated. Paedophiles currently received sentences which are too light given the crimes the have commited. they also receive little or no rehabilition and as such have one of the highest reoffence rates. There are many cases of child abuse in the courts each week and it is fair to assume many which never reach court. There is therefore in all probability a dangerously high amount of active paedophiles living "at large" in the community. As with all unquantifable dangers (e.g. global warming, incineration) I think it is better to be overcautious rather than complacent. Media coverage of this issue may force people to be more aware of potential dangers and is therefore not a valid target for satire.

J.C. O'Nazareth · 31-07-2001 1:48pm

First up, anyone who supports this program should go to http://www.itc.org.uk and register support (presumably, if you disliked it, you should register your complaint as well).

Secondly, there's an interesting letter in the Guardian today:

"I was sexually abused by my father between the ages of seven and 11. I reported him to my family doctor and my school, but I had no physical proof, so it was never followed up by them or the police. I thought Brass Eye (TV spoof to bring tougher regulation, July 30) was great, and if anything, the programme didn't go far enough. I have emailed Tessa Jowell urging her to drop her complaints, and also the NSPCC and the ITC in support of the programme.

"It is significant that in all the years of media interest in the subject, I have never been moved to get involved before. What has made a difference is that for the first time there is someone saying what I would want to say - and for exposing this unpalatable truth, they are being pilloried. The programme did bring up the issue for me, when I try not to think of it too much, but, for once, I felt "empowered" by the treatment of it. "

Shinji · 31-07-2001 1:59pm

Media coverage of this issue may force people to be more aware of potential dangers and is therefore not a valid target for satire.

There is a difference between keeping people informed and aware of potential dangers, and attempting to scare-monger and rouse dangerous mobs in order to sell newspapers.

Do you think the News of the World decided to "name and shame" sex offenders because they were worried about potential victims? Do you think they carefully weighed up the difference between the potential suffering of new victims and the rights to due process and fair-handed justice and rehabilitiation of the offenders? Of course not. It sold newspapers.

Do you think that kind of balanced reasoning applied to the coverage of the release of Jamie Bulgers killers? Or indeed to any of the many, many mob-rousing headlines published by the tabloids (primarily the News of the World, although the Sun are also a despicable rag when it suits them) over the past years?

Paedophiles are motivated to commit "evil" acts by mental illness. Newspaper editors, it seems, are motivated to commit "evil" acts by the desire to sell more papers.

WhiteWashMan · 31-07-2001 1:59pm

i take your point rob. my problem is not with the actual program, or its method of tackling issues. as ive said before i like the show, and the show the other nite was equally good as any others.
i still say that though that i dont think satire is such a good medium to make an attack the media on with in regards to this subject.
why do you have to attack the media with subject like this?
at the end of the day, you cant exactly say, youre wrong for being outraged at this piece of work. remember, lots of people dont get satire, irony or sarcasm. becuase people get heated up over something that you find inoffensive does not mean its right, no matter how hard you try to give youre reasons and justifications. as ive said, i understood the show, i just thought it was extremely distasteful.
i watched a real documentry on peadophilea on bbc2 about 5 months ago about some huge ring that had been uncovered with many arrests around the world. i thik it was called wonderman, and while it was still real, it was still pretty sickening listening to actual peadophiles talk about the things the did and how much kudos you got if they put up the pictures of them with children in 'the act'.
however, the other night was lot worse, because it was aimed at the media and not at the real problem. im sure anyone out there who has been unfortunate enough to experience it really enjoyed it. maybe it was the 3 people who phonesd up and said it was a great show.
a subject not for satire.....

WhiteWashMan · 31-07-2001 2:04pm

Originally posted by Shinji:
There is a difference between keeping people informed and aware of potential dangers, and attempting to scare-monger and rouse dangerous mobs in order to sell newspapers.

Do you think the News of the World decided to "name and shame" sex offenders because they were worried about potential victims? Do you think they carefully weighed up the difference between the potential suffering of new victims and the rights to due process and fair-handed justice and rehabilitiation of the offenders? Of course not. It sold newspapers.

Do you think that kind of balanced reasoning applied to the coverage of the release of Jamie Bulgers killers? Or indeed to any of the many, many mob-rousing headlines published by the tabloids (primarily the News of the World, although the Sun are also a despicable rag when it suits them) over the past years?

Paedophiles are motivated to commit "evil" acts by mental illness. Newspaper editors, it seems, are motivated to commit "evil" acts by the desire to sell more papers.

bugger it! ou all posted while i was writting that last post and having my lunch!
anyway, i feel this is slightly of topic. slightly.
the show may have been aimed at this sort of thing, but i feel its more the content than the aims that matter....

TwoShedsJackson · 31-07-2001 2:05pm

There's a thread on this subject in Films/TV too, check Canaboid's link to a scan of a page of Saturday's Daily Star.

On one side they have an article lambasting Channel 4 again, whilst on the facing page is a story and photograph discussing how Charlotte Church's breasts are developing. She's 15.

If you check www.cookdandbombd.co.uk they have another page up which is a picture of Fergie and her two daughters at the beach, all three are wearing bikinis. Her daughters are 13 & 11.

They can take their outrage, moralising, and pandering to to the inflamed middle classes and stick it up their ar$es as far as I'm concerned.

Clintons Cat · 01-08-2001 4:33am

So can anyone tell me how it is any different for channel four to sell advertising space off the back of public hysteria over paedophillia than it is for the news of the world?
Lets not forget C4 maximised by an "unscheduled" repeat showing the next night [which i also missed].
Hypocracy or was that part of the "satire".

.........
Nice to see C4 reinforcing one of the most commonly held stereotypes about gay men

He<gary linekar> was also duped into believing nonsense text messages were actually paedophile code, earnestly revealing that P2PBSH means "pipe to pipe bushman, code for two paedophiles having sex with each other while watching children in the shrubs".

Progressive or just plain dangerous?
..........
Its been a bad week for c4 "mr shake hands man" has quit the "satirical" show Banzai TV because it makes him look stupid...Pardon me but wasnt that the point of the crude japanese tourist stereotype?"Ha ha look at the stupid jap shaking the stupid celebities hand like its gonna fall off..ha ha ha"
If only the black and white minstrel show had thought to call itself satire,rather than "just having a laugh a those black fellas" things could have been so much different.

........
what do i know i'm just a portuguese refugee?
where can i claim my free TV?

Clintons Cat · 01-08-2001 5:25am

Do you think that kind of balanced reasoning applied to the coverage of the release of Jamie Bulgers killers?

When the bradford riot blew up i was going to post well at least it got bulger and venebles off the front pagebut i thought it was in poor taste.
I dont know what can be done about it though
is tighter regulation necessarily the answer?
Shouldnt we be able to expect those with the power of the press to use that freedom responsibly?
C4 cannot justify whipping up hysteria in this manner without making any attempts to educate the public at large,believe it or not there are many people out there who dont know how to use a computer let alone the internet works.poking fun at their ignorance seems to be counter productive.
yeah i know people hate learning stuff,even if its in their own interests.

Most people who are currently parents grew up in a society which was unaware of issues such as paedophilia and many parents are woefully undereducated. Paedophiles currently received sentences which are too light given the crimes the have commited. they also receive little or no rehabilition and as such have one of the highest reoffence rates.

Paedophillia,dirty old men,dont talk to strangers,moors murderers are not modern inventions society was certainly aware of paedophillia before the sara payne case.
As i am sure you are aware the circumstances of What happened to Sara Payne are atypical of most paedophile assaults.In most instances children are not snatched off the street by strangers or lured into meetings by men pretending to be children.in most cases the assaulter is known to one or both of the parents and in many instances is considered a close family friend if not even a family member.Even the case of the wonderland club which traded pictures over the internet most of the pictures were of men abusing their own daughters.
Sex offenders actually recieve more rehabillitation than any other type of prisoner and are statistically less likely to reoffend than any other type of prisoner after believe it or not murderers.(home office figures for reoffending rates).
if this is dispute i will try to find the relevent sources <<<mmnn browsing goverment websites now thats fun>>>

...........
I have so many thoughts its no wonder none of them make any sense.

TwoShedsJackson · 01-08-2001 8:59am

Channel 4 are not whipping up hysteria - the mornic tabloids and Government ministers denouncing the programme without even having seen it (as you are doing) are whipping up the hysteria.

C B · 01-08-2001 9:10am

Originally posted by Clintons Cat:

Sex offenders actually recieve more rehabillitation than any other type of prisoner and are statistically less likely to reoffend than any other type of prisoner after believe it or not murderers.(home office figures for reoffending rates).
if this is dispute i will try to find the relevent sources <<<mmnn browsing goverment websites now thats fun>>>

Please find me the relevant sources as I have heard differently but I may also be wrong. However afaik home office reoffence rates are calculated with regard to convictions (and rightly so). But in cases of sexual abuse it is fair to assume that a great many cases if not the majority go unreported and a great many reported cases never result in a conviction.

WhiteWashMan · 01-08-2001 9:18am

indeed, all reports (none of which i have to hand) indicates that sex offenders are more likly to reoffend than any other.
and true, id say a very high percentage of offences are never reported, so its very hard to gauge any sort of report.

JustHalf · 01-08-2001 9:35am

http://mudhole.spodnet.uk.com/~frogger/star-1.jpg
Ridiculous and highly disturbing... although perhaps they're too stupid to know what a "minor" is?

Things like this make me sick to my stomach.

Puck · 01-08-2001 9:47am

The papers are always doing this kind of thing. The most disgusting thing I heard of is when one paper (I won't name it because I might be wrong) discovered a 15 year old wannabe glamour model and showed her in a bikini in the paper counting down the days to her 16th birthday when the bikini could come off!

PS: I'm not making this up and if I do manage to find proof of the story for ye I will post it up.

John (yes THE John!)
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

[This message has been edited by Puck (edited 01-08-2001).]

WhiteWashMan · 01-08-2001 9:49am

there is a flip side to the argument in that celebrities, famous people, movie stars etc get publicity.
they are in the paper all the time.
they look well when they go out.
people like to read about it and see pictures.
it is in public, its with the consent of the star (unless your a paparazzi muppet) it is not deemed as sexual, because thats how the person wish to be seen.
i understand the point you are making about the media being hypocrtical, and you are right. perticularly in this case.
but remember there is a great distance between the subject matter on the two facing pages.

Your Imps Demand Cable...

JustHalf · 01-08-2001 4:51pm

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan:
there is a flip side to the argument in that celebrities, famous people, movie stars etc get publicity.
they are in the paper all the time.
they look well when they go out.
people like to read about it and see pictures.
it is in public, its with the consent of the star (unless your a paparazzi muppet) it is not deemed as sexual, because thats how the person wish to be seen.

As a minor, her decisions on this matter are irrelevant to the issue. On the basis of that argument, then if a fifteen-year old girl wanted to star in a porn film, surely it's *her* choice to appear that way?

I cannot agree with this stance. Every adult should act maturely, and them oggling a minor's chest (and making bad puns about it) really is disturbing.

Making the matter even worse is the fact that they then have an article on the other page which delves into the Brass Eye issue, but at least on this issue they show *some* impartiality (though still hinting at having a problem with it). I find it amusing that they know that this John Bayer will be writing to complain.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan:
but remember there is a great distance between the subject matter on the two facing pages.

Not really. Frankly, an adult displaying physical interest in a minor is disturbing. If anything, Brass Eye was less directly involved in paedophilia than this.

TwoShedsJackson · 01-08-2001 5:02pm

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan:

it is in public, its with the consent of the star (unless your a paparazzi muppet) it is not deemed as sexual, because thats how the person wish to be seen.
i understand the point you are making about the media being hypocrtical, and you are right. perticularly in this case.
but remember there is a great distance between the subject matter on the two facing pages.

Sorry Eamo but you're talking $hite there. On one page they have an article slamming C4 for Brass Eye - on the facing page a photograph and story concentrating on the growth of a 15 year old girl's breasts.

Hobbes · 01-08-2001 11:21pm

I didn't see the show, but the website describing it has me in stitches.

Certainly funnier then the British tabloids printing some guys name as a pedophile and another person with a similar name in the same town getting the crap kicked out of him by an angry mob.

C B · 01-08-2001 11:37pm

The next target for this satirical genius should be the medias over hyping of computer viruses such as the lovebug, mellisa and code red. This hype is clearly pandering to techophobia and peoples ignorance of new technologies.

Or perhaps given that large numbers of small businesses are underinformed with regard to the systems they use it is worth being over cautious! If the risk of viruses is overplayed then the threat is lessened due to overvigilance. the same is true of all unquantifiable risks.

This does not mean that the media is altruistic. Shock headlines sell more papers or get more viewers they can also have positive social impacts.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages."
A. Smith "The Wealth of Nations"

The sameis true of celebrities who read out stupid things when asked to. In the Sara Paine case "Steps" went on Sky News in an appeal for her to return home. Did they do this cause they are nice people, or did they do it cause they want people to think that they are nice? Who cares they did it. This is how civilised society operates. We do nice things partly because it makes other people like us., to abuse that is not satirical it is cynical. It reminds me of a trigger happy tv scetch where a guy pretends to be an old lady crossing the street and people stop to help him. When he gets to the other side he runs away. So funny isn't it?

Ha ha I tricked you into looking helpful.

WhiteWashMan · 02-08-2001 10:11am

no, my point is that there is a world of difference between showing someone in public, (i agree with you about the ogling of a 15 year olds breasts) and the sexual abuse of minors.
and ive already made the point that i agree that is hypocritical of the star to post these things on facing pages.

JustHalf · 02-08-2001 12:13pm

FYI, Natalie Portman isn't a minor anymore.

Secondly, I'll reply to your point about "why haven't you posted about this issue before?"; as this applies to me as well.

I don't read the tabloids. They suck.

WhiteWashMan · 02-08-2001 12:19pm

well, im talking about comments amde about miss portman when she was in leon (12 or 13?)

i also dont read the tabloids.
they do indeed suck.
except for the daily sport for its fine sports coverage....

Puck · 02-08-2001 2:18pm

Well I'm not too bothered by the tabloids' reaction to Brass Eye but I was just saying that they have no right to pretend that they have some kind of moral high-ground on this when they are posting things like "She's a big girl now" about a fifteen year old.

The tabloids don't really bother me that much because I just don't take them seriously. I have come to expect that sort of rubbish from them. In answer to your question about me not posting here before, give me a break I'm only new here!

What do you want me to do just come straight on to Humanities and say "Don't ya hate child abuse?". It's been discussed plenty of times before and I would need a particular incident to inspire me to start a topic about it.

Also Brass Eye was not a satirical program about peadophilia, it was a satirical program on the media's handling of the subject.

Sorry if you were offended by my last post because that was certainly not my intention.

John (yes THE John!)
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

WhiteWashMan · 02-08-2001 3:04pm

Originally posted by Puck:
Well I'm not too bothered by the tabloids' reaction to Brass Eye

well, your among the minority of outraged people here

Originally posted by Puck:
but I was just saying that they have no right to pretend that they have some kind of moral high-ground on this when they are posting things like "She's a big girl now" about a fifteen year old.

and we all know that the tabloids have been on a high moral ground since day one....er, not! again though, is it only now that people are worried about it. my point is just the hypocracy of someone making this point after the tabloids made statements about the brass eye in the first place. does that make sense?

Originally posted by Puck:

The tabloids don't really bother me that much because I just don't take them seriously. I have come to expect that sort of rubbish from them

and who does..
and who doesnt...

Originally posted by Puck:
In answer to your question about me not posting here before, give me a break I'm only new here! What do you want me to do just come straight on to Humanities and say "Don't ya hate child abuse?". It's been discussed plenty of times before and I would need a particular incident to inspire me to start a topic about it.

no, it was really a rhetorical question.
i was just saying that poeple never bothered posting before over stuff like this. perfect example is britney spears appearing in hot pants on the cover of rolling stone. she was a minor. i'll be honest and say ive ahad a few impure thoughts that way

weve had an inceident. brass eye. and now we are discussing media hype and a photo. the orginal topic was what was the problem with it? my point was that using a subject such as child abuse is a distasteful way of attacking the media. hmm, thats that cleared up!

Originally posted by Puck:

Also Brass Eye was not a satirical program about peadophilia, it was a satirical program on the media's handling of the subject.

again. bad subject in my opinion for satire.
its not a laughing matter, no matter what context its put into, and i certinaly dont think its a subject that should used to launch an underhanded attack on the media. of course it would be taken out of context. the brass eye does not have a *hugh* following. mainly because satire is pretty much a misunderstood form of comedy. not a lot of people are going to *understand* it.
anyone who tuned in after big brother will of course misconstrue (sp?) the aim of attack, believing the program to be real. as ive said in an earlier post, you cant damn someone just because they dont understand it.
the nature of satire is to be misunderstood by those who dont know anyway, and by that of course there is going to be poeple who didnt understand the brass eye. grrr, i feel as if im not getting this point across, but i cant explin it any clearer.
brass eye - satire.
satire - not understood by majority of populous
big brother - high percentage of viewers, some of who stayed on channel.
viewers - not understand brass eye or satire. think its real
populous - complain.
media - ahh forget them....
this is my line of thinking anyway.......

Originally posted by Puck:

Sorry if you were offended by my last post because that was certainly not my intention.

no, not at all, if i took offence at every reply to every post put up id top myself!
to be honest, a lot of what i write here is just argument for debate sake. you will see me change stance subtely (i hope

) throughout threads.
i just enjoy a good debate and i think this has been one of the best ones weve had in ages. theres been no flamiong, just good, well thought out points and i like that.
mind you, my opinion on the matter still stands. i thought the show was distasteful

hope i havent offended any one myself

Your Imps Demand Cable...

WhiteWashMan · 02-08-2001 3:09pm

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Sorry Eamo but you're talking $hite there. On one page they have an article slamming C4 for Brass Eye - on the facing page a photograph and story concentrating on the growth of a 15 year old girl's breasts.

ahhhh, no one listens to anything you say anyway!

Clintons Cat · 02-08-2001 11:18pm

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Channel 4 are not whipping up hysteria - the mornic tabloids and Government ministers denouncing the programme without even having seen it (as you are doing) are whipping up the hysteria.

I might not have seen the program but i heard enough about the content of the program before hand to make an informed choice as wether or not i wanted to watch it.
I have since read the transcripts of the program,browsed d and b and have a enough of a familiarity with the brass eye concept to be able to post a few comments impartially.
I fully understand that the target of the satire was press coverage of paedophillia,not paedophillia or more importantly victims of paedophiles.However i consider that the distinctions between these issues to have been sufficiently blurred to cause a responsible broadcaster <note the distinction>to refrain from broadcasting the program.
I dont feel channel four paid enough consideration to the victims of paedophillia in its descision to broadcast,and having done so cynically exploited the marketing opportunities by scheduling a second broadcast 24 hours later.
I do not feel that playing on public prejudices and ignorances of the uses,abuses and limitations of technology serves any purpose other than to reinforce already established cultural stereotypes,which i consider to be harmful both to the veiwing individual and society in general.I reitterate most paedophiles point of contact with children is through the parents not through the internet.
I withdraw my statement on Reoffending rates until i learn how to navigate a government website <thats what they pay civil servants for btw> to substantiate my claim i appologise for any confusion caused.
Its a shame that channel four should devalue its serious doccumentary series <Cutting Edge,Dispatches> with this spoof,if people browsing the channels come across a dispatches program on a serious problem and think "oh its that c4 ******" and switch over it will have done itself a massive diservice.
Ignorance breeds ignorance
.............

By the way if you thought The Media whipping up Mob Hysteria over paedophiles was a modern phenomena...<Caution Advised>
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/giftpilz/scan9.jpg

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/giftpilz/scan10.jpg

.....
.....Now lets get out on the streets and sort those paedotrician b@stards once and for all.

Scans from http://www.holocaust-history.org/

Puck · 02-08-2001 11:24pm

I think your point would be more valid if Brass Eye was actually being accused by the papers of child abuse. Instead they are accused of making light of the fact that some sick people find children sexually attractive, while at the same time they comment on the size of a child's breasts.

John (yes THE John!)
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

WhiteWashMan · 02-08-2001 11:57pm

Originally posted by Puck:
I think your point would be more valid if Brass Eye was actually being accused by the papers of child abuse. Instead they are accused of making light of the fact that some sick people find children sexually attractive, while at the same time they comment on the size of a child's breasts.

is it not ironic that people are making an issue out of 2 facing pages in a newspaper.
is it not too dissimilar to say, the media having a feeding frenzy over a satirical program?

i dont think it has anything to do with the brass eye being 'accused' of child abuse.
the program subject was child abuse. people found it distasteful. people complained.
other people said that was nonsense, and that it was satire. each is entititled to their opinion. as usual, the media picked up on it, and as usual, the story is bent out of shape (oh, how unusual that must be for the tabloids).
then there are people, who do the exact same thing, take things out of proportion with a picture on the opposite page to the brass eye article.
once again i'll say, the subject of child abuse is a far cry from a publicity picture in a newspaper. if the picture was of some minor being sodomised then you might have a valid point, but it isnt. yeah, maybe the wording is inappropriate, but ive never seen anyone complain about this sort of thing before. and ive heard certain people who have posted to this thread say thingsa about natalie portman, who is a minor, that could get you locked away.....
at the end of the day, i think the show was distasteful, but ive explained all that.
now im just curious as to why this backlash.
is it because they said something bad about the show you enjoyed and you are just being petty? or are you truely outraged at this. if so, why havent you posted before? i mean pictures like this appear everyday in the paper. and if you found this disturbing, then i find it hard to believe that you would find a picture of someone in a newspaper more disturbing that a 'satirical' program on peadophilia?

Venom · 03-08-2001 2:55pm

So let get this straight Clintons Cat,you are complaining about a programme that was shown on TV on a subject that causes you offience but didnt actually see the programme?

Like WTF!

If you didnt SEE the programme you got no wright to comment on what you READ in a transscript of said programe.A picture paints a thosand words.

You made a choice not to watch Brass Eye or missed it for what ever reasion,thats your call or loss depending on choice you made.But FFS stop being a sheep and going along with what a bunch of hacks working for a rag tell you to think.The very same hacks who try and set up a public frienzy just to sell papers.

Sheep like to be led so go join the flock.

"I don't mind shooting myself in the foot as long as get the other guy in the @rse."

Clintons Cat · 05-08-2001 10:32am

Ah satire.

Only 1.4 million people watched the show many others only point of reference will be through other media outlets/press/news bulletins.The show does not exist within a vacumn.
I am just putting forward my concerns about the program,for discussion.Saying oh you didnt see the show so your veiw doesnt count seems a little clique to me.After all if a brief had said to the Jury "oh you didnt see the crime so how can you judge my client" you wouldnt expect the jury to aquit would you? I feel the reaction of to many "brass eye fans" was just as knee jerk reactionary as its condemers.I like WWM believe the material was inappropriate for Satire because paedophillia is not a victimless crime and C4 did not pay enough regard to the feelings of said victims.
I cant see what can be achieved by turning paedophiles into figures of fun on mainstream TV.It certainly hasnt made the press behave any better has it ( i even suspect the charlote church publicity shot caption and placing was a deliberate insiders joke intended to inflame the hysteria).
As for the Culture Ministers response,it sadly reflects what i always suspected about the effectiveness of spin doctor politics,its fine as long as the press goes along with the spin,but sooner or later the tail starts to wag the dog.
Will the govenment tackle the Murdoch Empire over its Name and shame campaign and Saras Law campaign which both encourage Vigilantism?
Will Tony Blair Or David Blunket tell the Press Venables and Thompson have done their time so leave them alone and stop hounding them or at the extreme trying to incite murder?Vis a Vie the reporting of Ruth Bulgers comments
Will they hell.They need the press to deliver favourable election coverage more than they need two dysfunctional kids.
The only way i can see to make the Murdoch Empire behave is to organise a boycot of advertisers products,ecconomic pressures are the only way to curtail the growing irresponsibility of the press.
Sorry if this post makes any sense.
Morris you are my Hero.

DadaKopf · 05-08-2001 12:24pm

But what about the media? They damage many people's lives day in, day out. I'm not talking genuine journalistic, factual reporting, I'm taking tabloid gutter journalism (television as well as print). The fact that the Sun and papers like is are constantly involved in defamation suits which they lose seems to prove the fact that the media spreads malicious rumours and accusations as a point of business - that kind of stuff sells.

If the newspapers are supposed to be providing a service which informs people of the truth and callously abuses that, then why should someone not attack them through clever, sideways tactics?

If you say that paedophilia is out of bounds, you might as well rule out murder, sex, sodomy and cancer jokes. It seems these days that everyone can make out that they're a victim.

Clintons Cat · 05-08-2001 5:47pm

http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/homeoffice/hopress.nsf/f4c4554af3ac1248802566b30067e77f/b197d8011d8044e18025695b0047e2ee?OpenDocument

http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/homeoffice/hopress.nsf/f4c4554af3ac1248802566b30067e77f/b2eafdd5b5b253c780256a39005179f9?OpenDocument
what do you know a useful government website?

Cant find any statistics governing rehabilitation rates it is either 100% effective or a complete waste of time depending on who is speaking and which part of hansard you are reading.

Brass Eye Special: what's the problem?

Comments