Fointy Pinger / The Brand Distraction

Feature: The Brand Distraction - By Tetsuo

'Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride...' But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. Bill Hicks

As the dust settles over the Brand/Ross furore, it's clear the media have played, at almost every step, an instrumental part in the downfall of one of Radio 2's most beloved shows - the Russell Brand show. That over 30,000 people were incited into moral outrage, should almost be a side-story to the outcome of the exertion of a small group of conservative, narrow-minded stiffs. The following attempts nothing much more than to highlight the manipulative manner in which the mass media spun a story out of something most level-headed people could happily dismiss, and also illustrate the facts that had to be suppressed to achieve this state of artificial hysteria.

So, for those who are unfamiliar with the Russell Brand show, (or more specifically the show in question that peculiarly dominated UK news in the in the final week of October 2008), here is a brief synopsis: notorious ego-driven comedian Russell Brand once again broadcasts his popular weekly Radio 2 show - an anarchic mix of irreverent humour, music, special telephone guests and the odd idealistic musings of Brand and his team. The show was similar to how it has always played out over the past two or more years, but with one difference - Jonathan Ross sat in place of regular co-host Matt Morgan.

Andrew Sachs, a 78-year-old actor best known for portraying "Manuel" in classic BBC sitcom Fawlty Towers, was due to appear on the show, but pulled out. Now, Brand's bird-shagging exploits were often part-and-parcel of the humour of the show, and regular listeners would have had a fairly large inkling that the main reason for inviting Sachs onto the show would have been to, at some point, reference (not for the first time) the fact Brand had slept with his Granddaughter, have a bit of a titter about it and gauge Sachs' reaction. However, it's also important to be aware (again, as regular listeners would have been) that Brand treated all of his guests with affection, and the intention of any converse with them was never to offend. With Sachs' no-show, however, Brand and Ross instead decide to leave messages on his answer phone: paving the way for the pair to act with more mischievous license than had he been in the studio on the phone. Ross blurts out that Brand had "fucked" his granddaughter. The fact it was true gave it that purpose; that edge, and strangely enough, made it funny. Three extra messages left in an attempt to smooth over any offence caused with freestyle singing and fluffed apologies only made it funnier. Not the most ingeniously-devised gag in the world, sure, but it was light-hearted and amusing enough to make anyone listening under the age of about 70 find it laugh-out-loud funny, and with it, the punch-line in the whole "set-up" (as it were) was complete. This sort of thing had been done many times on the show in the past - leaving humorous, mischievous messages on answer phones - usually to the detriment of Brand himself.

Afterwards, although he requested that it be "toned down", the show was personally approved by Sachs over the phone (he would later state he had misheard the question - a dubious backpedal), and broadcast seven days later on a Saturday night on Radio 2. It was to be the last Russell Brand show.

The following day, Sachs got hold of the messages left on his phone, and was perturbed by the fact that they had also been broadcast as part of the show. His agent took his plight to hateful, fear-mongering, racist shite-rag the Mail on Sunday and bore Sachs demanded a public apology. Hundreds of their readers - people who would have never heard the show or incident in question had they not been made "aware" of it's "vile" content - are encouraged (as are often expected, being Daily Mail readers) through misrepresentation to be morally-outraged. At the time of broadcast, there had been two official complaints (for bad language). Two. After three days, the number of complaints about the content of a radio show no-one had listened to had risen to tens of thousands, but only after widespread media condemnation. As faux outrage poured into the BBC offices, right-wing outlets further stirred the shitstorm by demanding the immediate sacking of both presenters for such an "attack", labeling it "deeply offensive" and "obscene". Others declared it "sick", "disgusting", "vile", and "filthy" - manipulative uses of language to enrage the easily enraged. They were lies, in fact. And with it, the ugly, conservative vocal minority of Britain demanded the same, because after all, they are the real people of Britain, the moral gatekeepers of our island and their voice must be heard (or should that be "herd"?). Even politicians (mostly Conservative's and, inexplicably, Gordon Brown, who apparently had nothing more pressing to concern himself with at the time) felt compelled to get involved in the debate. "And hey, why not?" they must have thought. "It might divert attention away from the fact we're a bunch of corrupt, incompetent liars in the middle of a financial crisis" (but hey, what's new?). "Who is to blame?" "Who should be sacked?" "Does Jonathan Ross get paid too much?" Well, yeh, he does, but that's not the fucking issue at hand here, is it? So let's focus.

The only thing more depressing than the thought all this could come from such a deeply trivial non-issue (what if Sachs had remembered to appear on the show? What if he decided that he wasn't going to allow himself to be offended by a bit of silly? Would there have been an outcry if the Russell Brand show was recorded by an independent radio station? What if Ross had said "slept with!" instead of "fucked"? Does that mean we've all just been pissing over the use of a swear? Are we all such idiots?), is the demonstration of how easily provoked certain people can be, and in this particular case, how far (despite their minority) their voices are made to be heard. The vast majority of people are level-headed, intelligent; capable of consideration and reason. But when fascist outlets such as the Daily Mail and ITV carry such credence, there are often consequences of their indignation - the most significant in this case being the self-imposed resignation of Brand. Why do the media allow fuddy-duddy old farts like Michael Parkinson a say in the matter? Do we really care what perpetual vile cunt Louis Walsh has to offer? And is that David Cameron's point of view I hear? Or is it perhaps because their opinions follow the status quo that they get to speak their brains, whilst sense-talkers such as Noel Gallagher are pushed to the back of the class?

The BBC is governed by an external body, obliged to be seen to be acting in the interest of the British public and to take action according to their concerns. With a few hundred thousand self-righteous complaints, this had to be seen by them as a major incident, despite the fact that no concerns had been declared by any listeners of the most popular radio podcast in the UK. A proportionate reaction (though not proportionate to the reality of Brand and Ross' actions) was handed out to Ross, Radio 2 controller Lesley Douglas resigned and a full investigation was launched into the "editorial control" of radio broadcasts for the future. Which basically means Radio 2 will continue to be home of the likes of Terry Wogan and Aled Jones, and less (if any) "risks" will be taken to hire wildcard talent like Russell Brand in fear of a similar incident. Fun is just not in season, it seems. An episode of Never Mind the Buzzcocks was even cancelled because it featured Brand, with the BBC saying it had no plans to show the program at any later date. Good going! Why not have a blanket ban of all comedy shows, then there'll be no risk of any repercussions if a bunch of snooty morons are "offended"? I see the gutter-press have already beat me to that suggestion, though. Darn.

I'm going to use this last bit as an excuse to post a photo of the lovely Georgina Baille, who seems to have done rather well out of the whole affair selling her "story". I'll let her off despite her blatant hypocrisy. Perhaps the wider repercussions won't materialise, and of course, this incident will not be a story once the media decide on their next focal point. But it highlights again how the mass media give vocal outlets for particular sour-faced people who share in their condemnation, but absolutely not to those voices of reason who don't want to take life quite so seriously.