The Mail's witch-hunt against the BBC shouts and stamps embarrassingly on, with the paper yelling stupidly 'After Sachs, the BBC promised to clean up its act. So why was Dr Who star John Barrowman encouraged to expose himself live on air?'*.
Oh my god! Someone got his willy out live on air at the BBC? That's outrageous! And before the watershed too:
Doctor Who actor John Barrowman exposed himself during a live broadcast at 8.15pm on Sunday.Children might have been shocked to see a grown man exposing himself on the telly in their very front room!
Although the programme was on Radio 1It was on the radio. Not so shocking then. But:
pictures were also relayed to online listeners via a webcam.People on the internet might have seen someone's willy? Who would ever have thought that was possible?
And while Barrowman's genitalia were not actually shown, the crude comments which accompanied the incident made it clear what had happened.Nobody saw anyone's winkle then. So why the outrage? Purely because the Mail doesn't like the BBC.
Before this shocking story broke, Charlie Brooker said this, which definitely applies:
And besides, if TV broadcast the kind of material you see in the press - if it paid women in lingerie to recount graphic celebrity fuck'n'tell stories, or shoved its cameras up the skirts of girls exiting taxis so viewers could wank to the sight of their knickers, or routinely broadcast grossly misleading and openly one-sided news reports designed to perpetuate fear and bigotry - if the box in the corner smeared that shit on its screen for 10 seconds a night, it'd generate a pile of complaints high enough to scrape the crust from the underside of Mars.Except it's worse than that. We're talking about the fucking radio. Nobody saw anything. How would the Mail react if someone read out a description of the first photo in this story? Or this one? And before the watershed?
"And while nobody could actually see Alesha Dixon's breasts, the crude comments that accompanied the description made it clear that you nearly can in the photo taken without Ms Dixon's consent as she got into a taxi after a night out, and gave a full account of how they strain against her low cut top, with the nipples tantalisingly close to being visible.We're talking about the paper that mocked up a picture of Jeremy Paxman in his Y-fronts and published it on its website above a link to enlarge it here. Not the bloody Parish newsletter.
In another shocking incident, explicit descriptions were given of Geri Halliwell's buttocks while pictures were held up in the studio and relayed via the internet. Although the pictures were not visible, a clear description was given of the 36 year old's firm buttocks in enough detail for some people to possibly want to masturbate".
Such petty ridiculousness should be embarrassing for the Mail. The BBC should be allowed to respond to the paper's complaints by sending a photocopy of the Director General's cock and balls above the caption, 'Urlurrrr! Is that the best you can do? Fuck off!' he should be allowed to use one of those window cleaners' cradles to get outside Paul Dacre's office and squash his naked bum cheeks against the window while making wanker signs. Seriously. This should be enshrined in the law of the land. Instead, the BBC have to pretend there's a serious problem.
Imagine if that's how you were forced to respond to criticism. Any time anyone made any sort of negative comment about you, you had to issue a formal apology about how you regretted your mistake and it would never happen again. And then someone started taking advantage by complaining about any old nonsense. Like the width of your eyebrows or the colour of your spleen. Imagine not being allowed to punch them in the belly and wrestle them into a clumsy headlock. Okay, legally you're not allowed to to that, but morally you'd be duty bound. Just as the BBC should be duty bound to send Paxman around to Northcliffe House on the back of a truck, and broadcast live footage of him shouting an imagined description of Paul Dacre's knackers through a loudhailer.
More at Rhetorically Speaking, which is thankfully back after a hiatus. Hurrah!
*The article's headline has changed since I first typed this up.