The banality of Jonathan Ross

30 comments from readers

pleaseleaveamassage
30 October 2008 at 10:41

Lets pull this story back into all proportion shall we? Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand were stupid to indulge themselves in this prank call and overwhelming public distaste for their actions especially in the press has shown that we aren't debasing our culture because its not been tolerated by the public has it? Every man, woman and child shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on it because if parents bring their children up right (which is where it all starts), they won't allow their kids to watch his shows? To say he's debasing our culture is ridiculous! The X Factor is debasing our culture, the Xtra factor, Big Brother, I'm a celebrity kill me now - THEY'RE KILLING OUR CULTURE! Everyone wants to be friggin' famous. I'm a teacher, you ask a kid what they wanna be when they're older? Famous! Like its a career choice! Admittedly, what he's in truble for is broadcasting in the day when yes, anyone can hear it - But let's re-assess Ross' appeal usually: late 20 to 30 somethings - a minority- I'm 27, I enjoy JR's Friday night chats because he listens to his guests, keeps the interviews lively and manages to extract interesting viewpoints moreoften than not. His unique style is what the working people of this world at 10.35 on a friday night need to relax to and laugh along with - its fantastically misguided, generric and an easy, stubborn assumption from a journalist that JR debases 'OUR' culture (see above for what does) - what is OUR culture anyway? Are you speaking for every man woman and child?? Jonathon Ross appeals to the small community of viewers who, like me, probably do not accept his actions BUT - lets start looking at the more important aspects of this supposed 'culture' you're talking about before we start scapegoating JR.

Rob
30 October 2008 at 10:41

Are we living in a Big Brother culture where we are

punished if we speak our mind? Ross and Brand were

having a joke regarding a person who calls herself

Volumtua Satanic S*** for goodness sake and Sach is

a fellow comedic actor who has accepted all

apologies.

Unless we want to live in a stifled and restrictive

society where we are punished for the most trivial of

jokes then I suggest the BBC should reinstate Ross

and Brand and come back to reality.

mentalbill
30 October 2008 at 11:03

Everyone effected by what is happening in the world at

the moment is cutting back. We ask ourselves do we

really need this?... Is this a waste of space?

A hitherto well respected BBC should ask themselves the

same questions,

Cybertiger
30 October 2008 at 12:06

Why is Jonathan Ross worth £6 million a year? Has the world and the BBC gone mad? Well, we know they

have.

taghioff.info
30 October 2008 at 17:16

Why are we comparing Russel Brand to Hitler?

This is a serious political magazine, get some perspective people.

ikotubo
30 October 2008 at 18:37

It wouldn't bother me in the least what the BBC (or any other broadcaster for that matter) does, if I were not compelled by law to pay for it. But the worst part of this is that even as this phoney "debate" rages, no one is even daring to question why this should be happening in a so-called "democracy." For the benefit of non-UK readers, every owner of any electronic device capable of receiving information of some sort is liable to pay about £130 every year, on pain of imprisonment. Everything from a TV to a laptop is included - whether you are interested in the BBC's over-sanitized "news" or not. This is why its managers feel entitled to waste as much of it as they wish including on Mr Ross's £6million fee!

Daniel OConnor
30 October 2008 at 19:43

I came to see an educated article about how ridiculous media coverage (started by the Daily Mail) has been of this situation. A show that initially drew 2 complaints ended up with 27,000 (and probably 26998 of them never listened to the programme). Why not discuss the fact that Gordon brown and David Cameron added to this debacle so it stayed on the front page ahead of an impending recession. Now the most downloaded radio show has been taken off the air. The question is not "Who is Russell Brand?!", it is "who are you?"

explodingbadger
31 October 2008 at 03:41

Oh come on... it was funny... whats all this media BS?

Surely there ARE more important things happening in the world. I suspect this is all distracting us from something much much more important.

Fiona
31 October 2008 at 12:53

Russell Brand has made a lucrative career from 'self destructive / pushing the boundaries' type of humour which is why him having a show on Radio 2 in the first place suprised me - what did they expect? If media reports are to be believed, Mr Ross has caused immense irritation with that smug, sneery humour and appears to be the first to cry 'lawyer' and 'privacy' if any of his 'rights' are intruded or breached. Coupled with his pomposity over that salary its no wonder Fleet Street have rubbed their hands with glee over this ever so public indiscretion and will milk this for all its worth. What I find offensive is that such juvenile behaviour (like two teenage boys in their bedroom) gets so obscenely financially rewarded - and there's no getting away from it, his wages are obscene.

And as for Gordon's stance - does he honestly think we're stupid that his 'concern' over this story and the decline in standards isn't just a God given spin opportunity to detract the heat away from himself for a few days? If you truly cared about society Gordon then for example and I look at myself, please acknowledge or at least have a cursory glance over to see that certain parts of the Criminal Justice System are currently dying from genuine 'lack of resources' which has and will continue to have more of an effect on society than that idiot Ross - its a shame that never gets reported, the Daily Mail would have a field day. And as for my wages well I'm still waiting for my 1% annual pay increase offered by the Treasury for a job in the CJS to be agreed. You can find billions to bail out greedy capitalist bankers and time to make comment on second rate comedians but won't accept or even acknowledge the dire straits certain areas of the public sector are in. And for the record, I earn per annum what Mr Ross's is estimated to lose per day for his idiotic indiscretion - £16,000 after Alistairs had his tax of course....

Bob Roberts
31 October 2008 at 13:27

My 30 something sons couldn't see what all the fuss was about until I posed the question what would they have done if Ross/Brand had phoned their much loved grandmother. Both then decided they would have gone round and sorted him out. The real issue here isn't the media hype - its the obcenity of calling a 78 year old man with a disgusting tirade of childish abuse. I couldn't care less about the media - just some civility and care in our society - a society which has been degraded by the likes of Ross and Brand.

thetangerinepanda
31 October 2008 at 13:36

I would dearly like to know about the conversations Mark Thompson had with Jonathan Ross before the announcement of the suspension. Ross kept a low profile throughout (unusually for a man with so much to say for himself!) and during last nights tv interviews Thompson kept referring to how he had talked to "Jonathan" about the situation. Seems to me the conversation probably went along the lines "keep your head down Jonathan and I'll tell everybody how annoyed I was and the we'll suspend you for a few months until all this blows over" How many bosses would refer to a member of staff/contracted staff by their firts name if they had caused the boss this much trouble!

Den75
31 October 2008 at 13:43

My God, you are going completely over the top!!!!

Two men who are paid to entertain us (And do it very well I might add) pushed a joke a little too far. So what!!

This article is purely your single minded view and does not represent the millions of people who enjoy watching Ross's friday night show and in no way think its "Vulgar".

Its also pathetic the way you are trying to disgrace Brands name by linking him with a phrase about Hitler!!

Yes, they are overpaid, as are most people in the entertainment world, but that is completely different argument.

Why dont you concentrate on writing about real news!

beergut100
31 October 2008 at 13:43

I have just watched a very dignified interview with Sachs, who fully accepts the pair's contrition. He sees it for what it was - a prank that went badly wrong. What is interesting, is that it is actually his granddaughter who appears to be keeping the "furore" going. The "Satanic Slut" is trotting out interviews to anyone who'll pay, claiming that the prank has harmed her reputation - she calls herself a Satanic Slut for God's sake! The hypocrisy of the gutter press is staggering - would they have considered Sachs' feelings if they'd have run a story about Brand fucking the granddaughter? I think not!

DarylS
31 October 2008 at 14:19

Who wrote this article. It is absolute crap!!! It belongs in the Daily Mail. Seems the BBC isn't the only media institution with slipping standards!

Emanuel
31 October 2008 at 16:49

Reading the New Statemen's view on this subject of banality leaves me thinking nothing has occurred. For comedians it is tragedy yet for a journalist it is simply a spectacular failure to jump on the bandwagon with nothing more to add except a comparison to Hitler! If this is the best the New Statemen can do-- God help us! You are an insult to the profession of journalistic standards! I think someone should make a complaint like the Queen in Alice in wonderland: Off with your head! Pardon me, you haven't got one!

Bob Roberts
31 October 2008 at 18:10

Den75 - so the real news would be what? That too many of our kids are growing up with no sense of pride in themselves, or concern for others - and that they're falling about drunk, abusing anybody within earshot - that they're fighting for no reason whatsoever and even killing each other - just because self control seems to have disappeared from our society. Kids are using mobiles to bully each other because its a laugh to hurt other people - it doesn't hurt a bit - if you're not on the receiving end. All learned no doubt from the likes of Ross, Brand, Norton etc. Yea, these "edgy" comedians are really funny. Let's hope Ross and Brand see the funny side of the joke i.e. that 40,000 people are just having a laugh when they're complaining. Have a nice day now! Lets hope some perv phones them up in 30/40 years time to make jokes about the pre teen grandaughters sex lives - cos to keep an edge - you have to push the boundaries don't you.

nigromancer
31 October 2008 at 19:30

The deepening recession is acting as a kind of cultural laxative, flushing out foetid, ego-centric and banal pop-media celebs who would be tolerated and even applauded in times when people are more stupefied by consumerism. The recent slow-clapping of Steve Coogan, the heckling of Sarah Silverman, the open schadenfraude which greeted Madonna's marital troubles. Poor-quality 'comedy' in particular has been a kind of 'opiate for the people' lately but finally as houses are repossessed and credit cards cancelled the patience wears thin. These sorry excuses for humanity with their pathetic self-adulation and narcissism are ideal as sacrifices upon the altar of the credit crunch. Hard times are the forcing house of re-evaluation. It just goes to show that every cloud has a silver lining and good can come out of adversity.

Gerry Myer
01 November 2008 at 10:16

I don’t know who Russell Brand is. I have only seen Jonathon Ross on TV for little more time than it takes to change channel/switch off but those fleeting moments are sufficient to show that he is one of the latest in the long line of brash talentless chancers that included Kenny Everett, Chris Evans, Noel Edmunds and Graham Norton. These garrulous so-called celebrities have no obvious skills or characteristics that can be admired. Banal babbling is their stock in trade; their disease is verbal diarrhoea. “Presenters” they might be; comedians they are not. Yet the BBC can and does call upon a plethora of extremely funny comics.

So the recent incident is merely symptomatic of a deep, long-established sickness in the BBC and indeed more generally in Britain; eulogising the mediocre. The loveable Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter are incidental. It is as hard to believe that the BBC would pay buffoons astronomical sums as it is to accept that a third rate strummer posing for 10 years as Prime Minister would hand them gongs.

As we all slide into the morass of slime it is heartening to retain a vision of, say, the competitors in BBC Young Musician of the Year; a vestige of purity still survives.

Nilsey105
01 November 2008 at 16:44

Hot Sauce is the production company, owned by Johnathan Ross, that makes his Friday night show on the BBC. Does the BBC pay Hot Sauce or Johnathan Ross or does payment go to both partys?

Is there some little dodgy scheme going on here related to the avoidance of taxation?

IsThatcherDeadYet
01 November 2008 at 18:58

How appropriate that this should all blow up on the week of Halloween. Saddest most pathetic week since Diana.

no arms
01 November 2008 at 23:55

The out of proportion media coverage and outrage is valid and in line with the out of proportion 'celebrity' status and wages assigned to these two idiots. Who needs six million poounds a year when most of us will never have that in a life time, and for what 'outstanding' service or extreme lengths can they justify such reward?

scottb
03 November 2008 at 12:31

What a pompous, lazy editorial.

nationalbankuganda
03 November 2008 at 13:49

Oops, must be something up with the search engine - I've appeared to have landed on the Spectator website, not the NS. May sound like a lazy generalisation, but one thing I thought I could never accuse the left of was a sense of humour failure - then I read this editorial. The Brand-Ross affair was not even an issue until the Mail On Sunday dug it up, eight days after the R2 show's initial airing. Everyone nows how much the Mail and the right's own narrow world view lies at the root of their hysterical hatred of the BBC's diverse and pluralist output. Besides, comedy by its nature is risky because it challenges the status quo - whether it be TWTWTW in the 60s, Python in the 70s, Comic Strip in the 80s, or Brass Eye in the 90s. Save us from censorship, and save our bold yet world-famous sense of humour. And they say us on the left don't value Britain's institutions enough!

Scurra
03 November 2008 at 13:53

I assume this "editorial" was meant to be a carefully constructed parody of the media overreaction to what was a ludicrously trivial incident.

And I'd like to offer my congratulations on a brilliant piece which initially provoked the right reaction in this reader - outrage that the NS, of all places, seemed willing to go along with the ill-researched and tendentious arguments of some parts of the media (many of them reheated in the comments on here.)

Of course, if I'm wrong and you really did mean it.... well, words fail me.

grahamfrost
03 November 2008 at 17:08

I have never felt moved to comment on a New Statesman editorial before, despite not agreeing with the occasional comment. I was surprised and dismayed by the tone of the comment on the Ross/Brand story. In my opinion, there is room for all of us in this world, apart from people who cause deliberate harm to others. I'm sure that neither Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand fit into this category.

I listen to Ross' Radio 2 show regularly. There is always some great music (courtesy, admittedly, of Ross' sidekick) and often interesting and provocative conversation. My only gripe with Ross is that he is paid too much, but then so are thousands of people within and without the BBC.

I have listened to and watched Russell Brand, and found him entertaining in some small measure. I wouldn't expect to be a big fan of his, I'm 52 and my favourite comedians have been as diverse as Richard Pryor, Billy Connolly and The Two Ronnies.

Just like the debate about Amy Winehouse/Duffy/ Adele, there is room for all - different people will like different music, art and comedy.

I wonder if that editorial comment would have been published during John Kampfner's tenure as editor of the NS?

joetheplumber
03 November 2008 at 18:03

Ross is the archetypal cynic. He simply knows how to bleed a society in terminal decline. Rather like Blair, I suppose.

Edward Devon
04 November 2008 at 13:40

Far from the ross, brand, sachs story being a storm in a tea cup as i heard one pundit put it, i believe it is one of the biggest questions facing us here in the UK; ie the question of how much of our freedom are we prepared to lose.

One contributor to an on line debate wanted to know why we bother to pay the tv license fee if we don't like it. Answer: i would love to withdraw from contributing to the BBC but, by law, i am not allowed to - I am forced to by threat of imprisonment, my only other choice being to refrain from watching tv at all;

surely an insane situation.

Another contributor claimed they believed that the quality of the BBC programmes made it 'well worth the fee'; but such contributors should be free to contribute to the BBC and I should be free not to, It's easy in this digital age: if someone wants to buy BBC output let them do so; if not, then one can pay for Sky or Virgin or National Geographic. not only that but then the BBC can be free to pay their favourite presenters whatever they like and the organisation can sink or swim depending upon those finacial decisions.

Meanwhile no one should have the right to force another person to contribute to any programme provider they don't wish to. and by the way don't give me any of that nonsense about the BBC not taking money for advertising for (one) they were promoting jonathan Ross's new book free of charge when he appeared on the russell brand show; and(two) they sell the programmes we pay for to the likes of UK TV GOLD who then take money for advertising and pass it back to the BBC. It's a disgrace that cannot continue.

trask
05 November 2008 at 16:53

The sad thing is that a senior BBC executive tried to justify the Ross/Brand type of "humour" because it appealed to the younger audience. What sort of justification is that? Smut and lewd innuendo is smut and lewd innuendo whoever it is directed at and I and thousands others do not pay our licence fee to watch and listen to such filfth. Michael Trask

honestdora
06 November 2008 at 22:30

I listened to the Brand/Ross programme on youtube and it doesnt come across the way it reads. Sure they're paid too much, they're debasing the culture and what they did deserves censure but if you actually LISTEN to the broadcast the intention isnt malicious. Two idiotic and overpaid presenters get off on each other, do something a bit offensive, get a bit hysterical,and the whole world goes mad. I,personally, dont like Ross. My particular beef is that he has been given the film programme and whereas I used to look forward to hearing an educated , sensitive appraisal of a movie - well I just don't bother to listen to Ross. I think he should be paid £50-£100 per radio programme and leave him off the box thus attaching an appropriate value to his output. But please "outraged of Tunbridge Wells" LISTEN to the programme. There's some harm in it but mostly it's two idiotic, overgrownschoolboys trying to raise a laugh. I have to admit that even though I dislike Ross I couldnt help smiling at the broadcast. Test yourself.

Honestdora

tonir
18 November 2008 at 14:54

Well, its all died down now hasn't it? Its a shame the New Statesmen jumped on the bandwagon as well.

The celebrity culture has finally got a grip on everyone. I have heard the BBC is not prepared to bring back Film 2008 with a different presenter, they are going to wait for Mr. Ross to do his time. In the meantime a number of eminently watchable film critics/presenters are overlooked and the public don't get a film review show. What a shambles.