Jonathon Ross, Russell Brand, Andrew Sachs and an Obscene Phone Call from the BBC
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
There’s been a lot of comment on the Russell Brand / Jonathon Ross Obscene / Prank phone call to Andrew Sachs farrago, such that I’m reluctant to add to the pile.
However … I have one or two things that may be useful, such as a spliced audio recording and some information about the growth of the resulting fuss.
Audio Recordings
This is original item as a single audio file, which I snagged in case it was all taken down. It has a glitch in the middle as it was spliced from the audio tracks from the two Youtube posts.
There is a full transcript here.
This is the immediate reaction that morning from John Whittingdale MP, the Chairman of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
The Huge Fuss - a Timeline
The timescale (as I have it) was:
18 October: (Pre recorded) Programme Broadcast.
<near silence with 2 complaints>
26 October. Daily Mail Front Page splash of story (right).
26 October early morning. Recording of Programme posted to Youtube.
I did my papers roundup at about 8.15am on the 26th and 1500 people had listened. Perhaps I should have covered the story then, for the benefit of traffic.
These numbers were ~10,000 24 hours later, and is ~350,000 as I write this on the 29th.
The Broadcast
There’s a series of offences here, linked to both the conduct of the presenters and of the editorial staff:
- A judgement by the presenters themselves that it was OK to go through with this.
- The invasion of the privacy of a 78 year-old man, Andew Sachs.
- The deliberate humiliation of Andrew Sachs, and a series of jokes including whether he would kill himself.
- The judgement - after reflection - that it was OK for the item to proceed, on behalf of both the presenters and the editorial superviser who made the decision. It is possible that the piece was waved through.
A number of commentators have been talking about “schoolboy jokes”, asking “what do you expect” and saying “rudeness is what these comedians do”. To me these are all irrelevant; this is about invasion of privacy followed by humiliation of an individual, and dreadful editorial judgement.
The Apologies
Both Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand have apologised personally:
Mr Sachs said that his granddaughter, a model who performs with a dance troupe “feels very upset at having put her family through this and she feels very guilty”.
He added: “Jonathan Ross has personally delivered a letter of apology and some flowers. He made no excuses and was very frank and open.
“I have had a letter from Russell Brand and also some flowers. It was very nice and just deeply apologetic. They are in a lot of trouble and I don’t want to pile any more on him. My granddaughter hasn’t heard from either Ross or Brand and I do think they owe her an apology.”
But Russell Brand is coming out with self-serving nonsense, which misses the point by pretending that it is about “swearing on a answering machine” and then introducing red-herrings:
“I would like to take this opportunity to issue a personal Russell Brand apology to Andrew Sachs, the great comic actor who played Manuel, for a message Jonathan and I left on his answerphone, but it was quite funny,” the Radio 2 presenter told listeners.
“But sometimes you mustn’t swear on someone’s answerphone and that is why I would like to apologise personally.”
He continued: “I would like to remind the Daily Mail [sic] that while it is a bit bad to leave a swearword on Andrew Sachs’ answerphone, what’s worse - leaving a swearword on Andrew Sachs’ answerphone or tacitly supporting Adolf Hitler when he took charge of the Third Reich?
The Consequences
My initial take on this is that it should be career-ending for both of them, and gross misconduct/final written warning territory for the editorial staff - but I think there’s quite a lot more information to come out.
The Independent this morning is reporting that the show’s producer was denied authorisation to make the phone calls to Andrew Sachs, but did it anyway:
“Producer of Russell Brand’s show: Nic Philps
Role: Knew Brand and Ross had been refused permission to make the calls but told them to do it anyway.â€
(Note: He is 25.)
Jonathon Ross has 25 years of experience, and should know where the lines are after 25 years, and be able to manage himself. Neither is Russell Brand an inexperienced broadcaster.
Sidenotes
I’m not impressed by all the politicians piling in, and especially those using it as a stick with which to beat the BBC - the Beeb remains in need of reform but is still massively a better option than a privatised system.
What next?
At this point, heaven only knows. Developments are happening so quickly, that I’ll leave this alone now until the dust settles.
[tags]Andrew Sachs, daily maily, Jonathon Ross, Russell Brand[/tags]
Categories: All WW, Arts / Culture, Audio, Cartoon, Comment, Internet / Technical, News - Current Affairs
I think it’s a really massive overreaction. How many of the people mwho were “offended” by it, actually listened to the programme?
At least 2, but I don’t think that is the issue. That in itself is pretty worrying imho.
It’s not about who found it funny, it’s about invading privacy and humiliating a 78 year old man - without having the sense of judgement to know just how far beyond the pale that is.
I’d say it’s like the difference between your Scouts having a wrestle among themselves and knocking the Scout Master (whatever you are called) out with a big stick, then laughing and joking about it afterwards.
I’ll certainly agree that the Daily Mail campaign is not what I like to see, but I don’t think that detracts from the seriousness of the original offence.
How exactly was Sachs “humiliated”? Not in the slightest. And neither was his granddaughter, who has hardly shown herself to be a mature young woman with her reaction.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..12 MPs and 8 days until 1984
Perhaps only two people intially complained because only morons isten to morons. They of course would probably find it funny. The greater majority would not have become aware of what happened until the Daily Mail publicised it.
Isn’t that one of the things the newspapers are supposed to do? Inform us, the people who fund the BBC, of how they spend our money?
I am sorry Thunder Dragon, but if you find this an over-reaction you completely misread the public’s opinion of the BBC. I judge people’s personal standards by what they accept and don’t complain about. Yours included
Frances, if the Daily Mail hadn’t publicised it, no-one would have known or cared. It’s not like it was something that was racist or homophobic, it was just a bit rude.
If you don’t like a presenter or show, then just don’t listen to or watch it. The BBC have more than enough TV channels and radio stations to satisfy everyone. A lot of people, who you charmingly refer to as “morons”, chose to listen to that show and didn’t find it offensive.
I find some things offensive, so I don’t have anything to do with them when I have the choice - such as reading the Daily Hatemail. Complaining about Brand’s show is like reading the Daily Mail and then complaining that Richard Littlejohn or Melanie Phillips wrote something offensive. You know they’re going to, so you make your choice when you buy or read that paper.
Newspapers are supposed to inform us of NEWS, not about stuff that doesn’t matter. If you hadn’t noticed, we’re kinda in the middle of a recession - there’s more important things than some less-than-polite things said on a radio show.
I’m sorry Frances, but you’ve completely misunderstood the point of having more than one channel/station - so that people with different tastes can (*gasp*) watch/listen to different things! I also judge people on what they complain about, and you’ve shown yourself to be of a low standard as you’re complaining about this.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..12 MPs and 8 days until 1984
>Frances, if the Daily Mail hadn’t publicised it, no-one would have known or cared. It’s not like it was something that was racist or homophobic, it was just a bit rude.
I fundamentally disagree with that. Invasion of privacy + humiliation in the way that was done is just as offensive as racist insults: the difference is that racism/homophobia are have become the archetypes.
>I’m sorry Frances, but you’ve completely misunderstood the point of having more than one channel/station - so that people with different tastes can (*gasp*) watch/listen to different things!
You have half a point there about different audiences. Radio 1 audiences are generally being supportive, but they (and you) are missing the main issue. This was far more than a schoolboy prank.
Of course, an insult is an insult whether heard or not. Anti-x, y or z comments would not be necessarily acceptable just because they weren’t heard. That’s why Libel Law operates on the basis of publication to Third Parties. You can’t make a racist insult just because there aren’t any black people around: it is about values, and also self-respect.
If Jonathon Ross had done the same thing on his chat show (or Graham Norton was humiliating random members of the public over the phone rather than his consenting studio audience), that would be no better than Ross/Brand. Sachs did not consent.
>I also judge people on what they complain about, and you’ve shown yourself to be of a low standard as you’re complaining about this.
Um. Will leave that one alone I think
Note: this was caught up in moderation (sorry).
TD >How exactly was Sachs “humiliated� Not in the slightest.
That seems to me to be an incredible question to ask.
Humiliation: “to cause (a person) a painful loss of pride, self-respect, or dignity; mortify.”
How does having this stuff broadcast to an audience of 2 million (?) people (never mind that it’s on his answer phone in his own home as well) without your consent not constitute humiliation?
2 million = 1 in 30 of the population. He can more or less never stand in the street again without people who heard this being close by. Never mind the crude jokes, faux apologies, remarks about him committing suicide, treating an individual’s personal feelings with contempt and all the rest.
Ross and Brand were lacking in common decency.
For example:
“Like it’s really bothered us though, he’s the poor man sitting at home sobbing over his answer machine…
“If he’s like most people of a certain age he’s probably got a picture of his grandchildren when they’re young right by the phone.
“So while he’s listening to the messages he’s looking at a picture of her about nine on a swing.â€
and
JR: “Let’s phone him again. Let’s leave a nice message.â€
RB: “Listen, we’ve got to make it better. We’ll phone Andrew Sachs back. We’ve got to stop upsetting Manuel. This time Jonathan I’m convinced we can make it better.â€
JR: (as the message plays): “She was bent over the couch…â€
RB (singing): “I’d like to apologise for these terrible attacks - Andrew Sachs.
“I’d like to show contrition to the max, Andrew Sachs.
“I’d like to create world peace, between the yellow, whites and blacks Andrew Sachs, Andrew Sachs.
“I said some things I didn’t of oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter.
“But it was consensual and she wasn’t menstrual it was consensual lovely sex.
“It’s full of respect. I sent her a text. I’ve asked her to marry me…
“Oh Andrew Sachs, will you marry Jonathan, it sounds like he wants to now.â€
RB: “And even after the show’s finished Jonathan we can find out where Andrew Sachs lives, kick his front door in and scream apologies into his bottom… We can just keep on troubling Andrew Sachs… let’s do it, right, ok.
There are also jokes about Sachs committing suicide, and more.
How does this not constitute humiliation? Sorry to personalise, but think about your girlfriend and her grandfather. How would they feel? Why is it acceptable to treat anyone like that unless it is part of a pre-agreed stunt?
Brand’s statement when he resigned accepted that he had caused humiliation. I still don’t think he’s really understood what he’s done:
“I got a bit caught up in the moment and forgot that, at the core of the rude comments and silly songs, were the real feelings of a beloved and brilliant comic actor and a very sweet and big-hearted young woman.”
Not having understood it, I think he’ll do it again eventually.
Matt
The number of people who complained is immaterial. If questions of morality and ethics become a matter of public vote then we’re done for already.
I agree with Matt, a) the messages were offensive and b) to discover that they’ve been broadcast to 2m people, I just can’t imagine how distressing that would be.
What I’d like to know is: who gave them the phone number?
David Keen´s last blog post..Faith and Depression
>What I’d like to know is: who gave them the phone number?
I think that it was prearranged and Andrew Sachs was not available, so they did a piece anyway. I’m not listing the total timeline - I’ll wait for the enquiry report for that.
Note that I put a questionmark on the 2 million - it could be in the 100s of thousands, but for me that does not change the key issue.
SepticIsle has a good piece about the media frenzy.
Note that I think this is separate from supporting the BBC.
Recently there was a case (given wide publicity) where someone urinated on a dying woman in the street with the intention of posting a clip on YouTube. Is ThunderDragon suggesting that only those who actually witnessed it were entitled to be offended?
As for the BBC, their conduct in this affair has been utterly shameful, not even offering an apology when the row first blew up although one was so patently necessary. In general I count myself among their supporters but their hesitation in accepting that they should not have broadcast this piece was offensive in a way that their role in the David Kelly affair never was.
Stephen´s last blog post..Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and Jack Straw
Matt:
> “I fundamentally disagree with that. Invasion of privacy + humiliation in the way that was done is just as offensive as racist insults: the difference is that racism/homophobia are have become the archetypes.”
It’s not. As they are *both* public figures, that sort of thing is par for the course and should be expected. Otherwise all political satirists should be fired, because they’re humiliating politicians.
> “2 million = 1 in 30 of the population. He can more or less never stand in the street again without people who heard this being close by. Never mind the crude jokes, faux apologies, remarks about him committing suicide, treating an individual’s personal feelings with contempt and all the rest.”
Far fewer would have heard of it had not the Daily Mail publicised it. So in your logic, their journalists/editors should be fired since they caused humiliation.
> “Ross and Brand were lacking in common decency.”
I’m not denying that.
But the simple fact is that any humiliation has been made far far worse by the publicity it has achieved.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..12 MPs and 8 days until 1984
Stephen, there is a huge difference between saying a few not-very-nice things and urinating on a dying woman. How can you even contemplate comparing them?
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..12 MPs and 8 days until 1984
Matt:
>It’s not. As they are *both* public figures, that sort of thing is par for the course and should be expected.
a) What makes Andrew Sachs a “public figure” when he is in his own home? Unless you are arguing that “public figures” are not entitled to *any* private life *ever* *anywhere*.
(I’m leaving aside the stuff about his statement that he asked them not to broadcast it, since that may be in argued about and I want to keep this straightforward).
>Otherwise all political satirists should be fired, because they’re humiliating politicians.
Not comparable imho. I don’t think we should be phoning up politicians and subjecting them to this sort of personalised abuse “off-duty”. Satire and criticism should be fact and policy-based.
Me > “2 million = 1 in 30 of the population. He can more or less never stand in the street again without people who heard this being close by. Never mind the crude jokes, faux apologies, remarks about him committing suicide, treating an individual’s personal feelings with contempt and all the rest.â€
TD >Far fewer would have heard of it had not the Daily Mail publicised it. So in your logic, their journalists/editors should be fired since they caused humiliation.
>But the simple fact is that any humiliation has been made far far worse by the publicity it has achieved.
No. Once the issue is out it has to be debated. I think that an insult shown to be wrong, admitted, apologised for and punished has had its teeth drawn.
Me >> “Ross and Brand were lacking in common decency.â€
TD> I’m not denying that.
Thought not !
Out for the evening.
Matt
[...] Note: I commented more substantively previously. [...]
“Stephen, there is a huge difference between saying a few not-very-nice things and urinating on a dying woman. How can you even contemplate comparing them?”
Because setting aside all notions of common decency and inflicting humiliation on someone elderly who wasn’t in a position to respond was common to both, as was the motive - that broadcasting them would be considered funny by a few morons.
Stephen´s last blog post..The buck stops here
Can anyone explain two things: one, why did it take a week for this story to come out; and two, why did Andrew Sachs hear the offending words of Ross and Brand at his agent’s office and not on his answerphone?
I cannot believe the upset over this. I listened to that show and was thoroughly amused. It is a great loss to the BBC that the show will no longer air. As an ex-pat now living in the US, I think it is funny when the UK makes the US look liberal.
James
Thanks for the comment.
It’s fair to say that I’m in a minority among UK political blogs on this, in that I see the key issue here as being respect for an individual who did not consent to that type of humour,and then Brand in particular attempting to continue subliminal ridicule when he said he was “apologising” (e.g., photo of Stalin hanging behind him on the wall in the video).
In a studio with an audience I have no problem with it at all, but this was not the situation.
Another question is starting to come to the top, where the management of the radio station seems to have been ineffective or even simply unprofessional - in that Brand seemed to be getting away with conduct which would be instant dismissal anywhere else. Persumably you’ve read about him urinating into a teacup in the middle of the office and not being pulled up short, and the producers not being able to make the editorial decisions since the Celebs would just escalate to the next level.
That is now coming from out Left Wing (Independent) as well as Right Wing (Mail) media. For example:
In January this year, Brand stood in the middle of a recording studio and urinated into a cup – to the disgust of a technician, who complained that he was doing so near banks of electrical equipment. A Radio 2 spokeswoman admitted Brand had thrown nuts at a window in a subsequent outburst but laughed off the incident, saying: “Russell did urinate in a cup and someone has shown him where the toilet is.â€
I’m beginning to think that the BBC has had a very lucky escape indeed.
Thanks for the visit. You wouldn’t believe the interest in the US election over here. A number of people are Live Blogging it - e.g., Iain Dale, Political Betting,Liberal Conspiracy.
By the way - how did you find the site?
Rgds
Matt