[DRRNG]

I'm new here, but just wanted to put my opinion and theories.

I'm not a huge fan of Chris's but I do admire him for his participation in the Kili Climb. As for this Ofcom thing, as I understand it 8 people complained about the remarks Chris made about Will Young. Well to my knowledge at least 8 people confirmed on WY's site that they would be/or have, complained to Ofcom about the remarks. Will Young fans really do need to get a life and stop taking everything said about him so literally. The way things are going, any comment about him will be out of bounds. Yet they are quite happy for much worse remarks to be used by themselves and others about virtually anyone else. His fans have made Will a laughing stock.

[Johnny 1989]

The funny thing about this that Chris has admittedly played up to a sterotype but there have definately been worst things broadcast in the past.

As much as I think Mark & Lard are great, I would have thought that the implied swearing that used to appear on their shows quite regulary (listen to any of Lard's Classic Cuts to hear examples of disguised swearing for example) or when Ricky Gervais used to have his XFM show where swearing used to appear uncensored from time to time & also some of the discussions with Karl Pilkington which I though were hilarious but at the same time they could be a bit near the mark also. Jon Holmes can also be very near the knuckle as well from time to time.

It just seems to me that everyone wants to take a swipe at the BBC when all they do is try their best to provide top quality Television & Radio programmes and the whole "get rid of the licence fee" brigade really have a blinkered view. If the BBC were forced to have adverts & the Licence fee scrapped then they would tumble to the standards of ITV, think back to how good they were 15 years ago & how poor they are now.

Do the "Anti-Licence Fee Brigade" really want the BBC to turn into ITV, because I certainly don't

[Karla F]

You are so right DRRNG you have the WY fans sussed. I think they don't realise how pathetic all this makes Will Young look. They did exactly the same to Scott Mills, a few wrong comments about WY and they were all off to the BBC to complain. Its no wonder the station has stopped playing his music. I don't think his fans know how damaging this all is to his career. He is an adult, if he has problem he is more than capable of speaking up for himself, what he doesn't need is over protective mummy-fan base to look after him.

[Nicola_Red]

As much as I think Mark & Lard are great, I would have thought that the implied swearing that used to appear on their shows quite regulary (listen to any of Lard's Classic Cuts to hear examples of disguised swearing for example)

that reminds me of when they brough "Sh1t Agent" back, for ages they did the name of the feature with a poorly-placed beep over the swear word and then one afternoon Mark must have just got fed up of it and just said outright "it used to be called sh1t agent". I almost choked on my tea! Good times.

[Boboff]

The Will Young fans do have allot to answer for. Seems to me there is a bit of attention seeking " I am the only gay in the village" thing going on.

[foot-loose]

I've not read this thread, there are waaaaay too many lines of text.

I might have stated my opinion of the whole thing at the time, I canna remember. Also, this opinion may have changed a bit having spoken with others on the subject.

I think this is the first time that there has been one of these big Moyles bashing moments where I can kinda see where the problem is. I listened to the clip of him singing that song a couple of times and, while it didn't annoy me in the slightest, I can understand how might affect a young gay guy .

My feelings on Ofcom have been made clear on here on several occassions however, I can't argue with that the tone and content of what Moyles said had the "potential to cause considerable offence". To an extent I agree with that, I think he did what he has been known to do in the past and milk a joke too far but this time he went down the wrong avenue at the same time.

Do I think the vast majority of gay folk hearing it will have cared? No. Do I think he is homophobic? Not at all. Do I think that a 14 yr old lad, terrified of what others will say of him if he was to tell them he was gay, might be affected by it? Quite possibly.

The thing with Chris is that he does play close to the line sometimes, and that's why we like him. The innuendo, the jokes - it's all part of why the show is popular. The price for that is that sometimes, the show might get a bit close to the line - hence why there are so many haters.


Does that make sense?

[Munki Bhoy]

Makes so much sense to me, that I'm going to agree with everything you're saying.

And now I need a wash.

[trickymahonia]

Thats a bit Daily Heilish.. you mean like 'hung drawn and quartered'?

Hah you literal ninny. Maybe Comedy Dave can make that tedious link from tarring to disembowelling for you. I sure as hell can't decypher that pinball machine for a brain you must be borrowing.(joke there)

Now that you've dismissed the 'gutter' press, no doubt to be followed by the Guardian, Independant et al, what do you suggest for non-biased opinion on our Saviour? Saviour.

kum buyah my lord.

Funny you mention the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgr ... ris-moyles
Interesting little article!

[Johnny 1989]

As much as I think Mark & Lard are great, I would have thought that the implied swearing that used to appear on their shows quite regulary (listen to any of Lard's Classic Cuts to hear examples of disguised swearing for example)

that reminds me of when they brough "Sh1t Agent" back, for ages they did the name of the feature with a poorly-placed beep over the swear word and then one afternoon Mark must have just got fed up of it and just said outright "it used to be called sh1t agent". I almost choked on my tea! Good times.

Also let's not forget W.A.N.K Cincinnati, which I'm surprised they got away with, even if they only spelt the word out

[Sunny So Cal]

your stalker-esque admiration for Moyles

Ha. I've changed my mind. I like you. I hope you stay. And, admit it, Jonny, you're only jealous you didn't get a cuddle off him.

[Andy B]

I love a good editorial piece as much as the next man and the guardian is normally fairly neutral with regard to Chris. They defended his Auschwitz comments quite well I thought. I don't think the beeb will sack him for being too risky though unless he really drops a clanger either by accident or design. The Sun could probably force him out but then Murdoch can topple governments if he wishes.

I just don't know where they would put him if the age thing came to a head, he's hardly radio 2 material and I doubt he'd take 6 Music as an option. I'm starting to worry about the age thing now. As bad as it is they sort of have a point if the average age is 29/33, both figures have been quoted in recent weeks. I mean what are "The kids" listening to if not Radio 1?

[Aled]

We have 1 million children under 14 that listen to the show. A million and a half teenagers listen to the show.

With 2.5 million under 20s listening (seriously HOW many youth brand from ANY sector can quote that figure?) we are who young people are listening to.

The average figure is a very cruel stat that is very convenient to those who are trying to have a go at Radio 1. Any average age they quote shows what average exactly?

With Radio 1 aiming at an under 30 audience to keep the average under 30 we would have to ban any one over 30 from listening. If one 70 year old listens that pulls the average up compared to many 15 year olds. With the baby boomers from the 60s there are MANY more over 30s in the UK than there are under 30s so it doesn't take a large percentage of them to listen to us before the AVERAGE age creeps up.

As long as young people listen (which they are in huge numbers) then the average becomes less important. As long as we're catering to a young audience - (which we are) then what's wrong with people over 30 listening? Should we penalise over 30s? Stop them listening? tell them to stop? They pay the license fee as much as anyone under 30 - they have a right to listen to us just as much as anyone. is that what this particular Guardian journalist or the Radio Centre* want?

* The Radio Centre is the "trade body for commercial radio companies in the United Kingdom"
* Commercial radio is suffering from it's lowest share of radio listening since commercial radio began.

[MK Chris]

Aled: you are normally very good at being the voice of the show (or of Radio 1) on this forum and I think this is perhaps the best example of that to date, cheers.

[JonnyYesno]

re: Guardian article
When sections of the media report on eachother it's always fraught with agenda and hypocricy. The hacks' knives are always out for the BBC because of the privelages it enjoys and currently they seem to be almost goading Radio 1 to into a premature upheavel from which it may stumble, much to their glee. So I wouldn't take much notice of them.

As long as young people listen (which they are in huge numbers) then the average becomes less important. As long as we're catering to a young audience - (which we are) then what's wrong with people over 30 listening? Should we penalise over 30s?

I'd say your views on audience objectives are spot on, accept the over 30s as a bonus and forget the average age. I suppose the dilemma with trying to attract an exclusively young audience is that you have to alienate the oldies but your show doesn't do that. Indeed today your parody song featured references to Debbie McGee and there was a spate of fishy-on-a-dishy tomfoolery, an intentional broad appeal you'd agree? Good Luck.

[Andy B]

Aled - cheers for clearing that up. It calms my fears anyway. Couldn't bear the thought of having someone young hip and trendy doing breakfast as opposed to someone talented. You say commercial listening is at it's lowest it's ever been, is that why it all sounds so crap and bland then?

JonnyYesno - as I stated earlier, the guardian was one of the few papers that actually defended Chris over his "Outrageous" Auschwitz comments. Their media coverage is usually quite good, if in this case a little ill informed.

[menz78]

daaaaaddd wheres the toilet ROLL!!!!!!!!!

[Andy B]

Where's Abbey when you need her eh?

[JonnyYesno]

JonnyYesno - as I stated earlier, the guardian was one of the few papers that actually defended Chris over his "Outrageous" Auschwitz comments. Their media coverage is usually quite good, if in this case a little ill informed.

The Guardian is more interested in real hatred and doesn't want the issue trivialised, quite correctly, by the silliness of a DJ hence their support against the "outrage". They have however published Gambaccini's vociferous calls for Moyles' sacking over the comment, so whaddya know? One thing for sure, the wind has now changed to the point that all the media is aligned to the same message which doesn't bode well if you're a fan. Sacking him just over these gaffs would be a nonsense.

[MK Chris]

The Guardian, however, was less than consistent with two media-related articles - one being this one about Moyles and the other being an article on the Sunday Express "report" on the Dunblane survivors that I ranted about last week. The Sunday Express issued what The Guardian called a "strongly-worded apology", but actually it was nothing of the sort, nothing like adequate. So if some portions of the media are allowed (in their opinion) to get away with a "look how great we are" article thinly-veiled as an apology, why are they calling for Chris to be removed from his post?

[Andy B]

By good I meant unbiased. Some people are interested in what Paul Frappachino has to say. Now I think about it, wasn't it his calling for Moyles to be sacked for his Auschwitz comments which they then defended? It wasn't that long ago either, only the last couple of weeks to my mind.

[Munki Bhoy]

Aled's post basically proves that they count the listeners wrong. And to be fair, they point this out every time the RAJAR figures come out by mentioning that they don't count the under-14s. If you're looking at your audience as being "under 30" surely this affects matters?!

I honestly don't see how you can put so much stock in a bunch of figures that openly admit they cut out a fair percentage of your target audience. And any decisions that are made based on such a thing must CLEARLY be flawed.

Still, as long as Aled isn't the only one at Radio 1 that can see the flaw here there isn't a problem!

[JonnyYesno]

By good I meant unbiased. Some people are interested in what Paul Frappachino has to say. Now I think about it, wasn't it his calling for Moyles to be sacked for his Auschwitz comments which they then defended? It wasn't that long ago either, only the last couple of weeks to my mind.

There's just too much emphasis nowadays on bias isn't there? I'd rather they publish the full facts with the considered opinion of an expert on the subject matter and then we can then decide whether to agree or disagree. A newspaper merely quoting some phoned-in soundbites of outrage from either camp to achieve a balance is meaningless.In fact they didn't even seek the opinion of a BBC supporter of the gaff so by implication they condoned the anti-Moyles message. It now all seems like an ugly episode of cultural elitism for which there are more worthy targets.

[TIAL]

the guardian was one of the few papers that actually defended Chris over his "Outrageous" Auschwitz comments. Their media coverage is usually quite good, if in this case a little ill informed.

I think it's worth bearing in mind that the two comments were very different. The Auschwitz was blown totally out of proportion because he said one thing and meant something else.
With the Will Young comments there's no denying what he said. It's fine for any paper to have different opinions on each story.
However, whilst it might not have been funny, I don't think it's bad enough to warrant this much attention.

[Commotion]

Discriminating against people - ie taking actions which directly and adversely affect people - based on race, religion, gender etc is illegal in this country. Beyond that, we're all fair game as far as I can see..

If Moyles had sang a song about the singer Seal making comments about his skin colour in the same manner as he spoke about Will Young he would have been fired instantly.

I'm not saying he should be fired but there is a clear double standard in the BBC regarding discussion of minority groups.

Remember Carol Thatcher was fired from the One Show for using the word 'golliwog'

[Commotion]

The fact is it was a joke, hardly the worst joke in the world, in fact I have heard far more derogatory jokes regarding gay people, even by "established comedians".

Your point being?

Bernard Manning and his ilk routinely engagaed in racist routines?

Why is it utterly unacceptable to mock someone on air because of their race but excuses keep getting found for Chris Moyles to mock people because of their sexuality.

It is not serious homophobia like gay bashing I know. But Moyles behaviour is encouraging a culture where the word 'gay' means 'crap' and that must be a horrible thing to hear for a 15 year old gay kid.