posted 07-30-2001 12:48 PM            

quote:

---

It was C4's most vetted programme. So how did it attract a record number of complaints?
By Louise Jury, Media Correspondent
30 July 2001

Whatever accusations may be levelled against Channel 4, nobody can claim that its controversial Brass Eye satire on paedophilia slipped into the schedules unnoticed.
For a half-hour comedy, it was placed under an extraordinary degree of scrutiny. Executives all the way to the top level of Michael Jackson, the chief executive, and Vanni Treves, the chairman of the board, were involved in talks about the show that they knew had the potential to offend. When the schoolgirl Danielle Jones went missing, the sensitivities of that case contributed to a decision to delay transmission earlier this month.

But after viewing a rough cut of the programme shortly before it was broadcast last week, both men gave their backing ­ which they continue to give.

They always knew that there were two factors that made trouble likely. First, the track record of the programme's creator, Chris Morris, a reclusive writer regarded variously as a comic genius and an amoral offender of all mankind. Second, the subject, a matter that could scarcely be more contentious with the general public.

But no one, perhaps, could have predicted the level of outrage. The Independent Television Commission (ITC) has never received as many complaints about a broadcast in its 11-year history and a further 2,500 people have complained to the channel itself. The decision to screen the programme has put Channel 4 on a collision course with Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who has demanded to see its executives and wants to know why it was made and, more significantly, why it was repeated on Friday despite the offence caused. She also wants to see the ITC itself to discover whether it needs greater powers to intervene.

The new show was commissioned by Caroline Leddy, Channel 4's head of comedy, from Talkback, the independent production company formerly owned by Mel Smith and Griff Rhys Jones, which made the original Brass Eye. She was closely involved in the filming and lawyers were consulted at every stage. But, knowing the risk of offence, she also discussed the programme with Tim Gardam, the director of programmes, who referred it upwards. Their caution was understandable.

Written and presented by Morris, the show purported to be a serious investigation into paedophilia. Yet the gravity of the subject was unnervingly undermined by scenes including Morris as a rapper who sings about being abused by his father with a model of a child strapped to his body as if they were having sex. In another scene, Morris described sex between an adult and a child as film was shown of a man and woman writhing in bed.

The show also persuaded a number of famous people to take part by lending their names to specious campaigns highlighting the dangers of child abuse. Some of these stars have been most vocal in their disapproval, although the programme may have highlighted their gullibility as much as it satirised paedophilia.

Phil Collins said he believed the film was to be sent into schools to help educate children. "I did this in good faith for the public benefit," he said. Yet it is hard to understand why some of the participants did not think twice about what they were being asked to do. Collins wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the words "Nonce Sense" to warn children against paedophiles. "I'm talking Nonce Sense," he said, a statement that should have rung danger bells. Dr Fox, the DJ, joined in with an extraordinary claim that, genetically, paedophiles have more in common with crustaceans than with humans. Kate Thornton, the pop presenter, told viewers about an internet system, HOECS ­ pronounced "hoax".

Richard Blackwood, the comedian who recorded an item that claimed paedophiles' hands caused toxic vapours to raise from their computer keyboards, said afterwards: "If you think that kiddie porn is funny, then you should have a good laugh."

In the wake of the growing disapproval,the board and senior management of Channel 4 issued a statement yesterday. "The channel stands by its decision to commission and broadcast this programme, which, through savage satire, sought to make a serious point," it said. "Chris Morris was not making light of paedophilia; his target was the dangerous sensationalism and exploitation that can characterise media coverage of the issue."

The programme was scheduled and repeated late at night and was clearly labelled as likely to disturb some viewers, a spokesman added. Morris, meanwhile, was on holiday yesterday with his family. As always, it was said he had nothing to add to the points made in his programme. The ITC, which has no powers to preview a programme before transmission, is now investigating the show.

Tessa Jowell appears as cross with the regulator as with Channel 4, although the ITC believes it is limited by the 1990 Broadcasting Act in what it can do. If the commission applies a hasty sanction ­ which could include a fine or even, in extreme cases, the revoking of a broadcaster's licence ­ a broadcaster can apply for judicial review.

Channel 4, meanwhile, remains undeterred by the furore. "We have noted the comments of government ministers," a spokesman said yesterday. "It is part of the channel's remit to ask hard questions about the way society and the media deal with its most difficult problems."

---

I saw this programme and although I'm not easily offended at all I turned it off after 10 mins.

Should we be pushing back the boundaries of what is acceptable or should there be censorship on tv. This programme made me very uncomfortable but should things like this be banned do you think?

posted 07-30-2001 12:56 PM            

On one hand some of the stuff seems funny as hell, on the other hand, it does seem to be unintentionally taking away from the gravity of the subject matter.

posted 07-30-2001 01:27 PM            

I on the other hand am not convinced. The story has made headline news on TV and in the papers.

What I saw didn't make me laugh and paedophillia is a very dodgy subject to tackle. A girl who had been molested as a child sat on a couch next to her sister who was speaking on behalf of her dressed as a troll. Then the girl started communicating in the only way she knew how by taking her top off and touching her breasts. Somehow it seemed kinda wrong so I switched it off.

I just can't make up my mind if it should have been shown or not. I can see arguments for both sides. It's just if this gets banned it will set new precedents, which aren't always a good thing.

posted 07-31-2001 05:24 AM            

I mean the kind of humor that is supposed to be portraying contemporary ideals, and (like this show sounds) make controversial ideas seem less heavy and easier to poke fun at. Kind of like everything one sees on South Park, where its something you're not exactly disturbed or offended by because of the fact its nearly become a stereotype.

But then, South Park is also a crudely animated cartoon, so anything on it can be put in the realm of suspended disbelief. There have been episodes that dealt with pedophilia (like the one where the kindergarten teacher who's gay is upset at not being molested as a child, so he asks his dad to molest him. Its funny not because of the subject matter, but because of the patheticness of wanting to be cliche')

But still, you don't see an actual 'live-action' comedy sketch show where say, a woman is getting date-raped and its supposed to be funny. Or where a woman's rape testimonial is hard to hear over the sound of people doing it in the next room. See, its still pretty untouchable.

Oh yeah, abortion is another one.

posted 07-31-2001 09:54 AM            

Unfortunately the only debate they have actually started is about censorship. And I don't see the point of creating controversy for controversies sake.

posted 07-31-2001 04:23 PM            

Throwing a blanket over this pedophila thing won't make it go away. In fact, I'm willing to say that more people aren't complaining about the show itself but rather to vent their own anger over the whole issue. Censorship? Yeah, right. It's the unfocused outcry of people who have opinions but won't say them for fear of the results.

In short, you can never go too far with humor. You only hit the wall that the human race calls Taboo, which are just issues nobody wants to deal with because it requires being open, laying your beliefs, and not being sorry for feeling the way you feel.

As for all this public outrage: just more sensationalism. Take it seriously and the world must be a very dark and loud place for you.

posted 07-31-2001 04:23 PM            

Throwing a blanket over this pedophila thing won't make it go away. In fact, I'm willing to say that more people aren't complaining about the show itself but rather to vent their own anger over the whole issue. Censorship? Yeah, right. It's the unfocused outcry of people who have opinions but won't say them for fear of the results.

In short, you can never go too far with humor. You only hit the wall that the human race calls Taboo, which are just issues nobody wants to deal with because it requires being open, laying your beliefs, and not being sorry for feeling the way you feel.

As for all this public outrage: just more sensationalism. Take it seriously and the world must be a very dark and loud place for you.