How the media works
Thursday, January 22, 2009 The Daily Mail doesn't like Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand. That much is clear. Ever since the Andrew Sachs "scandal" last year there has been a never-ending series of articles criticising both men.
Today the paper featured a stinging attack on Brand in which it was reported that the comedian's 'Scandalous' tour is "playing to disappointingly packed theatres".
The Mail is particularly miffed that Brand "does not appear to have a shred of shame or remorse about the outrage he caused". Worse, he "now spiels endlessly on about the unfortunate Sachs".
I don't condone the original incident but given the subsequent headlines, and the nature of his act (which no-one is forced to see), I don't see why Brand shouldn't mention it. Whatever happened to free speech?
Words tumble from the pen keyboard of the outraged hack. Brand, we are told, is "self-obsessed", "shallow", "sordid", "deluded", "one-dimensional", "talentless", "disgraceful". It's enough to make me want to see the show myself.
As it happens, a friend of mine used to work for the Mail. One day she was given the job of interviewing US comedienne Joan Rivers and it was made very clear that she was expected to do a hatchet job.
The problem was, she got on rather well with Joan and liked her - a lot. But if I remember correctly, she still had to put the boot in, which upset her at the time.
I find it hard to believe that a bright young cosmopolitan journalist could be as offended by Russell Brand as the report in the Mail suggests. Then I remembered Joan Rivers.
Simon Clark
The Times reports that "Jonathan Ross returns to TV with Bush jokes" (see HERE). How lame is that? Surely some Obama jokes would have been a bit more cutting edge? And courageous.
Reader Comments (5)
JR's never been "cutting-edge"! Vacuous light-entertainment with a juvenile swagger. Nowt wrong with that in itself, but not at such a high cost to the public purse.
Let BBC become a subscriber-channel; cut out the Crapita and drop the unfair burden of a flat-tax from those who never watch BBC.
I find it weird that you can make all the jokes you want about Bush, and pretty much say anything about him. But he can't make one joke that references Andrew Sachs, who portrayed one of the most racist characters I have ever seen! ( still love Faulty Towers though ). Anyway I am glad JR is back!
Another reason not to read the Daily Hysteria
I don't have a problem with Ross or Brand, personally.
I just object to being forced to pay for their puerile antics.
Let those who want to watch or listen to such stuff pay for it themselves.
otoh, if I AM to be forced to pay for it, then my opinion must be taken into account, no?
I don't think Brand or Ross are talented in any way. In my view they're just a couple of cheeky wide boys of the type you can meet any night in any pub across the land. So I'm glad that Brand resigned from the BBC. But I'm disappointed that Ross has been allowed back.
Although I wouldn't mind either of these guys at all if they were on ITV or SKY, where the market decides what's good and what's bad, I really resent being forced to pay loads for this sort of tripe through my licence fee.
And besides - the BEEB has always been bad at pandering to poor taste. They should leave that to the commercials, because they excel at it.