|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
So you get to call me a liar and storm off. OK.
Actually, I'm sure a host will be along any minute now to administer a good spanking, but I don't care. If I thought you'd actually reply to a Hell thread we'd continue this conversation there. But since I know you don't, there's no point in pursuing it, is there?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Cosmo
What gives you the right to shut me up anyway? Who's oppressing whom? I'll damn well say what I want thank you very much! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
blah, blah, blah, blah
Expect more of this after the broadcast. Much more.
blah, blah, blah, blah
I am sorry if that has raised anybody's blood pressure again here. Just HOW are you going to "shut (me) up" Cosmo?
I merely asked you (and your fellow prudes) and, I suspect, it will have just the same level of effectiveness as your funny threats towards the BBC ('expect more, much more and more and more and more.....') and your wish to have Jerry Springer banned because you don't like it.
Anyway, I hope the BBC reply by saying they will damn well broadcast what they want (providing - just like you Fr, that they stay within the law). Otherwise it would be terribly condesending to those adults who have a choice as to watch or not, wouldn't it?
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
I think the changes in TV acceptability over time are complicated, and it is not a simple downward trend into debauchery. Watch The Sweeney, or even The Professionals, and the general level of violence, the sheer brutishness, and the casual contempt for (and violence towards) women from main ('good') characters stands out like a sore thumb. Watch late night cable repeats of '70s comedians to hear racism and sexual violence towards women not satirised, but casually treated as acceptably humourous.
I recently looked forward to watching a repeat of 'On the Buses' a 1970s comedy - and I was shocked, shocked I tell you, by the attitudes expressed. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) And yet I'd thoroughly enjoyed this series as a child and not seen any problem with the highly questionable humour.
quote:
Nobody ever swears in the first half hour
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) well they've obviously never seen 'Four weddings and a Funeral' then!
A couple at our local cinema were so shocked by the opening five minutes that they left in a huff, through the fire exit, and set all the fire alarms off.......
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Erin
No, not really. If you had an argument to speak of we would have heard it here by now. As it is, it should be me calling you to Hell for calling me a liar when you had no good grounds. As it is I will desist. End of exchange.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Host hat on
Erin: As you are all too well aware, calling someone a liar is personal attack and as such is unacceptable in Purgatory. The tangent has been dangerously personal on both sides, but you have crossed the line.
RuthW
Purgatory host
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
UK TV station usually bleep the c-word even after the watershed but not the f-word, which seems a curious distinction but is apparantly on the basis that research showed that many viewers, especially female, found the c-word particularly objectionable. Given therefore that real people saying the c-word on air in documentaries etc. are bleeped out even after the watershed, why is the BBC deeming it OK for it to be used so gratutitiously in the Springer Opera? It seems a strange distinction to say that it can't be broadcast when used by real human beings but if its art, then anything goes!
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I think it's somewhat sexist unless they chop prick as well since that is also used as a term of abuse. Why is that any less objectionable to a male?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I think it's somewhat sexist unless they chop prick as well since that is also used as a term of abuse. Why is that any less objectionable to a male?
Nice use of the word 'chop,' but you surely don't think prick and cunt are equivalent insults? It's like comparing nigger and whitey.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
No Demas.... remove the heresies, not the heretics. Stop the hysteria please.
Father Gregory, you started this thread with the express purpose of proposing that the State interfere to support and protect the Christian faith.
A couple of pages later, you mention certain groups (which don't include the Evangelicals because, Thanks Be to God, they are not the same as Protestants) which, in your own words, "in many ways disable the whole process of coming together".
You obviously consider these groups or people to be standing in the way of the Church Triumphant and the winding back of the evil secular society.
By your logic, these views should also be suppressed. They harm the Church. They divide and weaken the Body of Christ, and in many ways disable the process of Christian Unity.
Do you understand why this makes me nervous?
Argue against the heresies. But do not call upon the power of the State to remove either heretic or heresy.
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
My lexicon knows the difference between heresy and profanity and blasphemy. Moreover everyone is free to be as heretical, profane and blasphemous as he or she wants ... and I would not seek to curtail that in any way. However, we are talking here about the BBC.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
"Misinformed about the content of the show." You seem to assume that the complainants have not seen the stage show. I wouldn't make that assumption if I were you. Many I have talked to HAVE seen the stage show or trust the fellow Christian witness of family members and friends who have.
Or, to paraphrase, "I confirm that not everyone has seen the show and is responding to heresay".
A very good method of getting your letter - and the bulk of the complaints - ignored, I suspect.
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Which is why Round 2 is after the show. Even bigger next time. Just the opening shot. We will certainly enhance viewing figures. The BBC should be grateful.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Which is why Round 2 is after the show. Even bigger next time. Just the opening shot. We will certainly enhance viewing figures. The BBC should be grateful.
So, Fr, you mean that you will be able to watch the programme and that your rock-like faith will be left unaffected by the profanity, heresy and blsphemy but everybody else's faith is weak and so shouldn't be allowed to make their own minds up about it in case they suddenly become Satanists?
Also, in your promise for 'Round 2' of your so far laughably ineffectual campaign, you suggest you have no concept that, upon watching the programme, you might actually find something that's worth watching or at least stimulating or thought-provoking? If you know that you will hate it and are not going to change your mind about it no matter what (even though you haven't even seen the stage play let alone the telly version) why bother in the first place? Why not just go to bed with a milky drink and a book by Patience Strong?
Sounds to me like someone is secretly going to enjoy it very much indeed. Don't forget to set the video so you can watch the most insulting bits over and over again.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
The Bishop of Manchester, who hasn't seen it, says it's wrong.
That would be the Bishop of Manchester who asked the BBC for a preview tape in order that his comments could based on personal experience and whose request was, unusually refused.
It's not that unusual for controversial programmes not to go out to critics (and bishops)early, especially when there are possible legal issues. Or dramatic, or whatever. Most programmes are fine, but then Springer is clearly not like most programmes.
On a technology magazine I worked for, we had very strict rules about this -- in our case, because a bad review might provoke an injunction with a view to an eventual libel case. We had no worries about libel in anything we were going to publish, but we knew just how aggrieved parties could abuse the law to hurt us. What could seem more reasonable than letting manufacturers read reviews before publication, just to catch any mistakes? Yet it would have been commercial suicide.
quote:
I understand that the reason the Controller of BBC2 made no reference to the Producer Guidelines when interviewed on Radio 4 yesterday because there had been a breach of the procedures so helpfully outlined by Louise above. No reference up the chain of command had taken place until yesterday and the Governors are pretty cheesed off. This information came from "sources close to" those in the know at the BBC and was given on unattributable "lobby terms".
If that's so (one hesitates to impugn such an inviolable system as reports of lobby basis briefings) then a bad decision was made, and I doubt you'll have anyone say otherwise.
How much that reflects on the programme is another matter altogether. One remembers Campbell versus the BBC with sexed-up WMDs: one wonders whether the worse decision was the broadcast in question or the subsequent reaction. Little has actually happened subsequent to the report to put it in much doubt, after all.
quote:
FrG, great letter. Unfortunately too stylised to be cut and pasted but I think the point is well made. The "organised group" remark by the Beeb is a cheap attempt at suggesting that they can ignore the largest body of pre-broadcast complaints they or OfCom have ever received on the grounds that it is some kind of sinister conspiracy.
But the 'sinister conspiracy' theory fits rather well with what has actually happened in the US over Nipplegate and other moral panics. Once people started to dig into the 'mountains of complaints' received by the FCC, they clearly *were* organised campaigns. The nice thing about outraged morality is that it's untestable, costs nothing to express and is easily deployed for ulterior motives.
I can't offhand find the breakdown for 2004, but according to the Washington Times (which I can only find reported by another site, alas) "according to a new FCC estimate, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003 -- 99.8 percent -- were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group created by conservative media critic L. Brent Bozell. The number of complaints soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in 2003, up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years, FCC Chairman Michael Powell told Congress in February."
It's not as if they're difficult to do, these days, and as the US shows they can work remarkably well - at least until their cover is blown. Remember the Today programme's Man/Woman Of The Year feature?
(Conspiracy theorists might enjoy the observation that the season of fiscally endorsed broadcast morality built nicely over the summer and tailed off just before the US election. But you'd have to ask that head of the independent broadcast regulator FCC, Michael 'son of Secretary of State Colin "I swear they've got weapons of mass destruction" Powell' Powell about that.)
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Cosmo
Well I wouldn't want to be accused of not having seen what I am talking about would I? I don't know. You just can't win with some of you folks!
Let's face it. You're angry with my reaction, not my plan as such, (for who would deny me my right of protest?). I can live with that.
[ 06. January 2005, 22:17: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
The Bishop of Manchester, who hasn't seen it, says it's wrong.
That would be the Bishop of Manchester who asked the BBC for a preview tape in order that his comments could based on personal experience and whose request was, unusually refused.
It's not that unusual for controversial programmes not to go out to critics (and bishops)early, especially when there are possible legal issues. Or dramatic, or whatever. Most programmes are fine, but then Springer is clearly not like most programmes.
On a technology magazine I worked for, we had very strict rules about this -- in our case, because a bad review might provoke an injunction with a view to an eventual libel case. We had no worries about libel in anything we were going to publish, but we knew just how aggrieved parties could abuse the law to hurt us. What could seem more reasonable than letting manufacturers read reviews before publication, just to catch any mistakes? Yet it would have been commercial suicide.
R
I don't know how they could have been hurt, legally or artistically, by the Bishop's response if he had been allowed to pre-view it. If he had thought it blasphemy - great, tonnes of fantastic publicity because the Church hates it. If he had thought it mildly amusing - great, tonnes of fantastic publicity because the Church liked it.
The worst response he could have given was 'borinnnggg!' Now that would have been hurtful!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
No Demas.... remove the heresies, not the heretics. Stop the hysteria please.
Father Gregory, you started this thread with the express purpose of proposing that the State interfere to support and protect the Christian faith.
A couple of pages later, you mention certain groups (which don't include the Evangelicals because, Thanks Be to God, they are not the same as Protestants) which, in your own words, "in many ways disable the whole process of coming together".
You obviously consider these groups or people to be standing in the way of the Church Triumphant and the winding back of the evil secular society.
By your logic, these views should also be suppressed. They harm the Church. They divide and weaken the Body of Christ, and in many ways disable the process of Christian Unity.
Do you understand why this makes me nervous?
Argue against the heresies. But do not call upon the power of the State to remove either heretic or heresy.
Why not?
Remember God isn't damaged by it and the Beatitudes tell you that you should just rejoice and be glad.
Furthermore, you're sounding to me like the complaining kind of person hatless was talking about with all that "self-affirming feeling of righteous outrage".
Dear Fr. Cosmo,
The heir apparent to the throne of England has said he would rather prefer "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of the Faith".
Shouldn't you tell him that any laughably ineffectual campaign of defense really isn't necessary because it's not as if everybody else's faith is so weak that they shouldn't be allowed to make their own minds up about it in case they suddenly become Satanists. You could show him, for example, some of the more defenseless members of the clergy of the Church of England.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I recently looked forward to watching a repeat of 'On the Buses' a 1970s comedy - and I was shocked, shocked I tell you, by the attitudes expressed. And yet I'd thoroughly enjoyed this series as a child and not seen any problem with the highly questionable humour.
Quite! Or Love Thy Neighbour. And I saw a clip recently of Ronnie Barker doing a 70s skit on the Two Ronnies about Patrick Moore, which was incredibly crude, sexist and downright embarrassing.
Yet despite this early indoctrination in the dark miasma of illiberal thought and repressive social constructs, I turned into a damnable Guardian reading chap who finds this sort of casual prejudice more than merely tasteless, thinks freedom is nothing to be scared of, and considers respect for others to include not taking their decisions for them. How did that happen?
Perhaps people - even very young people - are more robust than some might think.
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
You know, although I am not blameless myself ... I don't want to live in a coarse, aggressive, in your face, f*** you culture. I know. I'm weak and out of touch. Pity me.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Remember God isn't damaged by it and the Beatitudes tell you that you should just rejoice and be glad.
Furthermore, you're sounding to me like the complaining kind of person hatless was talking about with all that "self-affirming feeling of righteous outrage".
You keep repeating these comments, Ley Druid. Are you starting to find them convincing?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Let's face it. You're angry with my reaction, not my plan as such, (for who would deny me my right of protest?). I can live with that.
If you're planning your objections before seeing it then that devalues anything you say afterwards.
I have no problem with you protesting personally. Or in asking people not to watch the programme (which is not the same as telling the BBC that they are wrong to broadcast). But isn't it a bit late to say "Ok I'll watch it and be offended then complain further". If I can be allowed to pre-empt my response it will probably be "So why did you watch it then?"
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But "blasphemy" isn't offensive to society - only to those members of it that are Christian. ETA: and not even to all of those, either!
Indeed. It's generally accepted in modern democracies that majority does not rule absolute, that is, the opinions of minorities are accomodated in order to maintain peace and well-being for everyone. Of course, there are times when a decision has to be made, and whatever way it goes, somebody will be offended. This is however not such a case, I reckon. Again (for the third time?) I ask: Does anybody believe this show is such a great leap forward for the cultural majority that it justifies pissing off the minority of (traditional) Christians? Is this really an important cultural statement which has to be pushed through against an oppressive church? Is this truly the battle cry of freedom? Or is it just a blatant attempt to get good ratings out of ridiculing the beliefs of a minority?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I sincerely doubt anyone would think Jerry Springer is "sophisticated culture" or "good". Have you ever seen the series? It's a freak show designed to make the audience feel better because they aren't like the people in it!
While clearly Jerry Springer is nothing but cultural dreck, it is quite conceivable that a parody of the show is considered "sophisticated". Certainly some comments seem to indicate just that ("it won awards", etc.). You also conveniently ignored the "funny" keyword. Even if this was just a "Benny Hill" type of parody, it could still convince people that being blasphemous is outrageously funny.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You weren't asking for respect and courtesy, you were asking for blasphemy to be censored even if it's said and viewed only by non-Christians.
Why would you think it is only viewed by non-Christians? Are you invoking the "you can always turn it off" argument? I already dealt with that above. Anyway, I'm indeed asking for "censorship" in a public broadcast out of respect and courtesy towards (traditional) Christians. What's your idea of respect and courtesy, that it can only ever be applied where it means and limits absolutely nothing?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the religion isn't strong enough to appeal even to people who have seen and heard a bit of blasphemy then it's got more problems than Jerry Springer's guests!
In a public climate of negativity and ridicule towards Christianity, it's indeed not so easy to find faith. You are seriously underestimating the power of media and peer pressure. Politicians count every second of air time in a campaign to make sure that they get a fair go.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, I'm indeed asking for "censorship" in a public broadcast out of respect and courtesy towards (traditional) Christians. What's your idea of respect and courtesy, that it can only ever be applied where it means and limits absolutely nothing?
And here we have the difference. The media should not ever be expected, nor should it take it upon itself, to act with "respect and courtesy". That is so exactly what the media is not -- in fact, respect and courtesy are the very opposites of the media's responsibility to the public. Any media which kowtows to "respect and courtesy" has whored itself permanently.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
And you know a lot about whoring?
(Remember what you explained to Fr. Gregory about the virtues of the question mark.)
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I know about the media and its responsibility to society. Being respectful and courteous is not part of its mandate. It is, alas, a point that is completely lost to those who wish the government to enforce their morality and religious sensibilities. It is too bad. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are what people in other countries die for, and from this thread it seems that many people who are granted those freedoms by an accident of birth can't give them away fast enough.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
and from this thread it seems that many people who are granted those freedoms by an accident of birth can't give them away fast enough.
This is one of the great ironies of certain Western democracies.
[ 07. January 2005, 08:27: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I know about the media and its responsibility to society. Being respectful and courteous is not part of its mandate. [snip] Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are what people in other countries die for, and from this thread it seems that many people who are granted those freedoms by an accident of birth can't give them away fast enough.
It's very telling that you believe that freedom is inherently incompatible with respect and courtesy. It betrays a concept of freedom, due to William of Ockham, which is slowly destroying the world. But that's a discussion for a different thread at another time. For now, I'm delighted with the succinct and clear summaries of your last two posts. Indeed, the woes of modernity in a nutshell.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Telling of what, I do not know, because that's not what I said. I said that the media is not there to promote or even practice respect and courtesy. That is not the media's job. The media doesn't exist to make us all feel warm and fuzzy; it's there to shine a light where people would rather have the darkness.
Now, you can say that this particular presentation is a cultural crapfest, and I'd probably agree, if for no other reason than I recoil in horror when I happen across a Springer episode. But argue that it's not worth it, not that it's not nice. I like "not nice". It works well for me. It works well for the boards you're hanging out at, too.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Argue against the heresies. But do not call upon the power of the State to remove either heretic or heresy.
Why not?
Remember God isn't damaged by it and the Beatitudes tell you that you should just rejoice and be glad.
I can't connect your second sentence with your first.
Serious question: Father Gregory and I have different flavours of Christian belief - which one of these should the State favour?
quote:
Furthermore, you're sounding to me like the complaining kind of person hatless was talking about with all that "self-affirming feeling of righteous outrage".
Whatever.
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Serious question: Father Gregory and I have different flavours of Christian belief - which one of these should the State favour?
Serious answer: This is a bulletin board, any allowable combinations of characters are possible.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Serious question: Father Gregory and I have different flavours of Christian belief - which one of these should the State favour?
Serious answer: This is a bulletin board, any allowable combinations of characters are possible.
I am a bear of very little brain, and smart replies bother me.
Are you saying that it doesn't matter what the BBC does because we can always express unsanctioned thoughts on alternate media like this one?
If that is the case, why are we having this discussion?
Or am I misinterpreting you?
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Serious question: Father Gregory and I have different flavours of Christian belief - which one of these should the State favour?
Serious answer: This is a bulletin board, any allowable combinations of characters are possible.
I am a bear of very little brain, and smart replies bother me.
It could be my fault. Or maybe some things are just difficult to communicate.
quote:
Are you saying that it doesn't matter what the BBC does because we can always express unsanctioned thoughts on alternate media like this one?
You can express here whatever unsanctioned thoughts that are allowed. The same is true at the BBC.
quote:
If that is the case, why are we having this discussion?
I suspect that we all have our reasons for being here.
quote:
Or am I misinterpreting you?
You are making perfect sense to me.
Thank you.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Erin
quote:
The media doesn't exist to make us all feel warm and fuzzy; it's there to shine a light where people would rather have the darkness.
... or in this case shining darkness where people would rather have the light ... or is light darkness now and darkness light?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
You can express here whatever unsanctioned thoughts that are allowed.
Allowed by whom?
quote:
The same is true at the BBC.
To borrow Erin's argot, that is so not the case. If it were, many of us would have taken a considerably different approach. It is the simple failure to behave in anything like an even-handed manner of issues such as this one that has blown the lid for me.
[ 07. January 2005, 07:32: Message edited by: Trisagion ]
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
The BBC is describing the Springer Opera as a "boundary-breaking show will appeal to all - except the faint-hearted!"-see here. That demonstrates the exact problem with with their attitude. They don't see anyone who objects to the show as having a legitimate difference of view. Rather, they see anyone who objects to their approach as limp and faint-hearted. How can anyone defend that as balance?
[long URLs cause some people problems re: horizontal page width]
[ 07. January 2005, 08:09: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
It's very telling that you believe that freedom is inherently incompatible with respect and courtesy. It betrays a concept of freedom, due to William of Ockham, which is slowly destroying the world. But that's a discussion for a different thread at another time. For now, I'm delighted with the succinct and clear summaries of your last two posts. Indeed, the woes of modernity in a nutshell.
Surely freedom entails both the freedom to say what people applaud and the freedom to say what people find objectionable. The idea that one can be free only to say what others find acceptable is not freedom in any meaningful sense at all. One might even call it one of the woes of pre-modernity.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Well, having listened to Capital Radio this morning, I hope everyone who has posted on this thread saying this is a terrible thing is are planning to go to Broadcasting House this weekend to burn your TV licences in protest.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wesleyswig
Shipmate
# 5436
|
Posted
I have stepped back on purpose from all this for a while to concentrate on my exams...
What I would though say is that we are time and again going off into near (very) personal attacks which takes away from the (healthy) argument.
This has been particularily shown by the OVER use of the near letter postings starting "dear so and so" ....
I know I am altering how I post..
Therefore just a flag up to watch out...
Many Regards
John
Posts: 878 | From: Chained to my desk.... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Erin
quote:
The media doesn't exist to make us all feel warm and fuzzy; it's there to shine a light where people would rather have the darkness.
... or in this case shining darkness where people would rather have the light ... or is light darkness now and darkness light?
No. But anyone who expects the media to exhibit respect and courtesy is woefully uninformed about the role of media in a free society. It's not their role.
[ 07. January 2005, 11:28: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I've now read through this thread (it's a slow day!) and would like to offer a few comments, and perhaps one or two illuminations.
First, on the Bishop of Manchester: I believe that when the Bishop commented on this, he was not doing so merely as himself, but as the CofE's spokesman on broadcasting. I therefore find it surprising - and something of a snub from the BBC - that he was not afforded a preview tape.
Secondly, I haven't seen the stage production, but I'd caution against overestimating its success. One of the reviews linked to (In the OP, I think) commented on the number of empty seats in the theatre. Nor should we pay too much attention to its capacity for winning awards: arts awards in the UK tend to go to the most offensive productions, because many of those who actually award them have never been reconciled to their inner-naughty-schoolchild - the one who likes to shout "fart!" in a silent library.
Thirdly, what worried me most in reading the thread was my complicity in this. In the UK, everyone who owns a television must pay the "licence fee", which then goes to fund the BBC. One cannot opt out of the licence fee, not even if one swears on a stack of Bibles never to watch a BBC programme again. So all UK television owners helped fund this, and that makes me uneasy. (I wasn't aware of this "opera" before this, so I didn't know that it had already received public funding for its stage run - if indeed it had.)
I think the key test question here - and for all similar cases (we've seen plenty over the last few months) - is, "What would our reaction be - and what would we expect the reaction of others to be - if the work were changed to portray Muhammad (peace be upon him), Guru Nanak, or Krishna in the same way?" In other words, I don't think we should argue from a point of view that expects special treatment for Christianity. I do think we can expect equal treatment, and in the UK media at the moment, I don't think we're getting it.
I was deeply moved by dyfrig's post a couple of pages back, and I must say that I too am far more angered and offended by the blasphemies of my fellow-Christians, than by anything that comes from the ignorant, the agnostic, or the atheist.
Finally, I don't think I'll watch this show. I know what to expect from most contemporary "opera", and I don't think I could cope with the double whammy of the offence to my faith and to my aesthetic sensibilities.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I've seen a lot of Jerry Springer shows and find them quite funny, even though I'm not probably not supposed to. What I find ironic about this opera, is that it is full of obscenities.
The Jerry Springer shows I have seen, bleep out any obscenities. You don't hear 'f***' on a Jerry Springer show, you hear, 'bleep'. Mind you, they keep in the hate language, which I find much more offensive.
So, some British people are complaining about all these obscenities to be shown in a BBC programme based on Jerry Springer. They are being accused or rather dismissed as conspirators, by the BBC. Yet, the Jerry Springer show itself, does not allow obscenities to be aired, they are bleeped out.
Now, that is ironic.
I'm going to watch the show and see for myself.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
The thread is longer than it is interesting. Most passion seems to be spent attacking FG on a personal front - how ironic from those who espouse personal freedom. Some should be more free than others, hm?
I don't think I shall watch the programme. I will then be denied credible comment on it, but so what? The reasons put forward by the BBC for broadcasting it have been - it won awards (yes, but that has never been a mark of art-worthiness), it is funny (yes, but the BBC think endless repeats for the last twenty years of Fools And Horses and Dad's Army are funny), it is sophisticated satire (the BBC think that Eastenders is gritty realism and that Neighbours offers cultural relevance), it is musical (don't even go there!). There have been other theatre productions I'm sure which have been art-worthy in all these respects but never made it to TV. So, pretty weak and no cover-up at all for the real reason that it is sensationalist and part of the insatiable addiction to viewing figures.
Reasons for me not watching - I know I would be offended by gratuitous bad language; I know I would be saddened by the devaluation of Chritianity; I know I would be disappointed in being entertained by witty writing and interesting subject matter; I would not want to be party to acknowledging the 'Jerry Springer/Trisha/etc' dehumanising of people.
Beyond my personal preferences, however, I have read enough about the show and heard David Soul speak to be persuaded that the BBC should not broadcast it. There are many voices crying 'unfair censorship' etc and 'prude' but these cannot apply to may personal life experience.
I'm with FG on this one.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Glimmer: quote:
I would not want to be party to acknowledging the 'Jerry Springer/Trisha/etc' dehumanising of people.
You make an excellent point, Glimmer. I once saw part of a Jerry Springer Show, and I was so disgusted I've never watched again. What disgusted me was that the presenter and the producers seemed to think it acceptable to make the poor and the uneducated into objects of ridicule. That same attitude seems not entirely absent from those who have commented on this "opera". See, for instance, the many references to "trailer trash" - sorry, but within earshot of me you don't get to call any human being "trash".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
I would not want to be party to acknowledging the 'Jerry Springer/Trisha/etc' dehumanising of people.
Neither do the people who write the show. Which is why it is a parody of a Jerry Springer show. Which is one of the reasons why its full of swearing, when the TV program isn't. And one of the reasons its full of KKK types, who the real Jerry Springer (a rather sensible lefty type person who was born in London) woudl be unlikely to have behaving on the TV program in quite the way they are portrayed on stage. (You didn't think the TV show was unscripted, spontaneous, or uncontrolled I hope)
I've not seen the stage show. All of the few people I have met who have seen it and talked about it thought it was really good. They were mostly people who are wouldn't want to be seen dead watching Springer on TV & looked on the show as an ironic criticism of Springer. (I'm not sure whether the writers did or not)
The stage show is at least partly about Brits who want to be sophisticated having a laugh at Americans who they think are stupid. That may be a good reason for not watching it, but its not a good reason for banning it.
Actually, the only reason I've not posted on this thread so far is that I can't think of a single reason for banning it & I'm slightly surprised that anyone can. As far as I can tell the two and a half Shipmates who have got their knickers in a twist over this have simply lost the plot. Maybe they didn't get enough brandy on their Christmas pudding.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Miffy
Ship's elephant
# 1438
|
Posted
Going back to one of Adeodatus' posts re the empty theatre seats; our daughter saw the production last Summer - not through choice strictly speaking - they were on a standby ticket and Jerry was the only show offered to them. I'm sure she mentioned it wasn't that well supported. I'd check with her if it wasn't that she's on hols atm and out of phone contact. I'd be interested to know what she thought of it.
I'm disinclined to watch the programme myself. However, as always with so called 'forbidden fruit' I suspect our 14 year old son and cronies will want to tune in. So I may just join him in order to add the voice of sanity to the proceedings. (And who knows; he'll likely then decide he doesn't want to watch after all!)
Whichever way, looks as if the media will win out. (Memories of numerous 'banned' items...'Je T'aime,' 'My ding a ling,' etc).
Posts: 4739 | From: The Kitchen | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Miffy:
Whichever way, looks as if the media will win out.
What is "the media" in this context?
You make it sound like a vast conspiracy to make us all listen to Naughty Things.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Miffy
Ship's elephant
# 1438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Miffy:
Whichever way, looks as if the media will win out.
What is "the media" in this context?
You make it sound like a vast conspiracy to make us all listen to Naughty Things.
Ok, the BBC then. And it is a conspiracy in a way. Schedule something 'controversial.' Publicise it...no, let its critics publicise it, and hey presto! They'll be laughing all the way to the bank!
--------------------
"I don't feel like smiling." "You're English dear; fake it!" (Colin Firth "Easy Virtue")
Growing Greenpatches
Posts: 4739 | From: The Kitchen | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Or we could look on it the other way round. Something that is not at all mainstream or commercial (they started it in the Battersea Arts Centre of all places) gets to play on the West End stage & then gets to be broadcast on national TV. Thumbing a nose at the big US networks.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Give some of the reviews, I'm more mystified than ever as to why the BBC are showing this. Here are a few snippets.
The Guardian: quote:
The libretto relies on the innate propensity of the mob to regress to prepubescence the moment body parts, homosexuality or swearwords are mentioned....
But two hours of chicks with dicks ... [etc.] ... inevitably feels tiresome.
The Times: quote:
Act II hasn’t improved with its transfer [to the Cambridge Theatre] and still seems a silly, somewhat blasphemous muddle.
The Telegraph: quote:
But though the show's first half strikes me as the most startling and enjoyable piece of musical theatre I have seen in years ... the second half is far less impressive. Jerry is shot and is dragged down to hell, where he has to try to reconcile the Devil with God and Jesus. This Shavian notion generates far less humour and often seems downright blasphemous.
And the Times and the Telegraph are supposed to have liked it!
I assume that whatever BBC executive has decided to show the "opera" has read these reviews. So why put it on? I'm led irresistibly to the conclusion that this BBC executive also liked to shout "fart!" in silent libraries when a child. Or perhaps was too scared to, and is making up for it now. Using my money to do so.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
