"For all that, on two key questions we side with Channel 4"

So how much of it did you read?

What's you're point?
They came out as anti-brass eye but also anti-government and pro-channel four on their rights to be independent. I'm sure like a lot of people on this site who thought that the BES was utter shit but would also side with Channel Four on those points - you wouldn't describe them as pro-Brass Eye. You seem to be reinforcing precisely the same simplistic dichotomy that has surrounded this programme. You either love it and think it's a brilliant satire or think it's evil.

The point of saying "Ahh you weren't expecting them to do that" was more a comment on the absurdity of a paper "coming out" with one opinion. Clearly people at the paper had different views - it's an emotive subject. Therefore the "view of the paper" always seems false and would appear to have an ulterior motive. In this case a desire to be surprising and unusual by comfounding expectations.

your even

Call that anti-BES? See today's Mail...

This is what we've been asking for, isn't it?

The first expression of the sentiment that BES may just not have been all that good? That, although it didn't deserve censorship or outrage, it might have been a little bit flip, cheap and nasty about a very sensitive subject? That the quality of the material may not have justified crossing the line of a difficult taboo?

In my mind, I've tried to separate the two issues, but it's difficult. Of course it should have been shown. Of course we should be able to discuss these things. Of course anything is a fit subject for comedy / satire if the point is well made and the motivation clearly to inform and improve debate rather than degrade or needlessly damage.

And on the other hand, though weaker than Morris at his best, the show is moderately defensible as comedy - there were enough good moments to justify half an hour of anyone's time. It did make me laugh.

But it didn't make me laugh enough to think, a few days' later, that it deserved to be the one programme that broached the issue of media paed hysteria.

What The Guardian is saying is that, because of the quality of the programme, its writing, delivery and tone, they'd like to distance themselves from defending the actual material. They're doing the old thing of upholding someone's right to say something even though they disagree with what's being said.


I think all of us, even the enthusiasts, would rather it had been an episode of The Day Today that had garnered this controversy. Something defendable on pure comedy / intellectual terms as well as its intent to broaden debate.

I remember seeing a preview of Natural Born Killers just before it was banned. In the following six months or so, while the ban held, it became a totem of free speech. At parties and pubs people would ask "What's it like? Go on! What's it like?" - excited by the dark appeal of forbidden fruit.

Part of me wanted to say "It's really really cheap and shitty. It made me feel dirty and used. It may be one of the most inexcusably badly conceived pieces of movie trash I've ever seen. I had to run round Soho Square afterwards to burn off the useless adrenalin, and luckily I wasn't carrying a gun. This film is both dreadful and possibly dangerous."

But no, I'm ashamed to say I said "It's really well put together. There's some really funny bits. I can't work out why they banned it. It's not so dangerous."

When a piece of art becomes threatened, it turns into an icon of free speech. By supporting its existence, you ally yourself (as the Guardian leader points out) with one side or the other, in order to show the world where you stand on the issue of creative freedom. When you do that, you often find yourself lying about the content of whatever it is you're defending, because the issue of its right to exist becomes paramount. Only when the furore dies down do you find yourself able to argue about the piece on its own terms.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that this leader article appears to mark a turning point in discussion of the BES as comedy, rather than cause celebre. We should welcome it and attempt to contribute to the debate.

We must all admit, it would have been a far better thing to defend had it been a far better thing full stop.

Do tyou think they're just trying to wrong-foot the Telegraph?

I think there is also an element of people finally calming down, looking again (or just looking to start with). Today's Mail has a sketch-by-sketch breakdown, which suggests they've finally watched it all the way through.

"Lady Chatterley's Lover", NBK and BES were all shit. That doesn't mean there's anything great about people who say "I wouldn't look at it / I'm proud to say I only watched 25 seconds". But equally, the whole "No, media satire, you fool, don't you understand" line (which appears more in the press than this forum) is just as much a kneejerk, based on expectations, than actually looking at the show. It strikes me. But I've said my anti-BES words (see "Playground" thread).

Incidentally, in today's Mail, one of the women in the 'Focus group' sequence is reported as saying people are coming up to her, saying they're surprised she took part in a show like that, and - worst of all - they think she got a lot of money for it. Which is an insight into Mail readers, if nothing else. Also, if she's getting recognised then Simon Pegg better stay indoors for a month or 2.

This "Gary Lineker should be ashamed for getting involved" line that the public and some less well informed columnists keep spouting is very telling.

It proves that many people have no idea how television programmes get made. They are just seeing Lineker associated with something with which they disagree, and immediately assuming he must be in on the joke. It's impossible that he might be stupid / naive / ill informed / well meaning but easily duped, since he's a celebrity and we all look up to them (he's a sportsman, even more prone to idolisation, too).

So we can therefore conclude that Brass Eye's humour is dependent on the audience, at the very least, understanding that the celebs are just reading autocues. If you don't understand that, then the joke isn't clear. If the joke isn't clear, it's not a comedy, and therefore far more offensive.

There's no hope that the "mass of the public" will get BrassEye if they can't distinguish between a celebrity hoax and a celebrity endorsement; if they just see CELEBRITY and hear WORDS and assume the words are coming from the celebrity's mind.

This adds even more credence to the accusation that, for all the claims that Morris is challenging deeply held beliefs, that in fact he's just preaching to the converted. His humour relies on you being aware of the conventions of broadcasting - that's why the papers and the broadcasters and us lot love him so - but the majority of the population don't view their TV like that, don't speak that language, won't get the joke - and will therefore get very upset.

> But equally, the whole "No, media satire, you fool, don't you understand" line (which appears more in the press than this forum) is just as much a kneejerk, based on expectations, than actually looking at the show

Can people who say the "defenders of Brass Eye" are *as* kneejerk as the people who think it was child porn made by paedos be the new people who are being as kneejerk as the people who think it was child porn made by paedos.

No.