"Clarkson should have gone to rehab" say BBC as Top Gear inquiry begins

[VRVC]

I had to create an account just to be able to comment on this because honestly, this is just wrong. And you closing the last thread about this subject proves that not only are you ignorant to the issues at play, you also refuse to listen to anyone trying to tell you otherwise.

You can defend this humour as much as you want but if you think Seinfeld is good because it's only white male people in it, you are fucking out of your mind.

If you think any of the issues with Clarkson is because of his loud mouth tv-persona, you are WRONG.

And if you think it's wrong to regulate TV to get more women and "racial" on it, you are both sexist and racist.

If it wasn't for regulations like this we would probably still only have 2 women on TV overall and 3 black guys. THATS HOW THE WORLD WORKS. Read up on this stuff! It's your job as a human citizen to educate yourself about these kind of things.

If I ever return to this site it will be too check up on this Thread...(Which probably will be closed any second).

[SleepyWill]

If you think any of the issues with Clarkson is because of his loud mouth tv-persona, you are WRONG.

​You only know of Clarksons TV persona... you don't know him off screen. You know literally nothing about him off screen, except what you've been told about him by other people. With agenda's.

And if you think it's wrong to regulate TV to get more women and "racial" on it, you are both sexist and racist.

If it wasn't for regulations like this we would probably still only have 2 women on TV overall and 3 black guys. THATS HOW THE WORLD WORKS. Read up on this stuff! It's your job as a human citizen to educate yourself about these kind of things.

​If you engage your brain when you read what I wrote, you will see that I fully endorsed the regulation of tv. I stated quite clearly though that it should be done at a programming level, not a content level, which I criticised as I do not believe it will solve the problem, and will in fact make the problem worse.

But if you believe that any attempt to combat discrimination should be beyond criticism, even if the approach is demonstrably going to make the problem worse, burying critics with slurs like "racist" or "sexist" instead of putting forward well reasoned arguments of your own, then you are perhaps in more dire need of education than any here.

If I ever return to this site it will be too check up on this Thread...(Which probably will be closed any second).

​Random capitalisation of nouns, which are not proper nouns... yeah, you're the same person, switched accounts again. Come forward, tell us who you really are, put your regular forum name to your words, coward.

[noa]

I had to create an account just to be able to comment on this because honestly, this is just wrong. And you closing the last thread about this subject proves that not only are you ignorant to the issues at play, you also refuse to listen to anyone trying to tell you otherwise.

​I think the only reason these kind of articles are posted is to get attention to this blog and to get people to sign up that are not even that passionate about filmmaking, and when it gets too hot to just lock the thread and start a new attention seeking one. Ah well, the sun is shining now and I feel my time is much better spend going out now with my camera and create something.

[Lammy]

Also:

Jobs aren't actually lost due to this suspension right now. People are still paying the TV license and it gets distributed. Top Gear has already wrapped this series and crews moves onto other projects. So we're only talking about hypothetical future jobs?

In fact, we could argue that more jobs would be created if Jeremy Clarkson leaves - because there may still be Top Gear on BBC, AND POSSIBLY Cars with Jeremy Clarkson on Sky 

 

[Andrew Reid]

I had to create an account just to be able to comment on this because honestly, this is just wrong. And you closing the last thread about this subject proves that not only are you ignorant to the issues at play, you also refuse to listen to anyone trying to tell you otherwise.

You can defend this humour as much as you want but if you think Seinfeld is good because it's only white male people in it, you are fucking out of your mind.

If you think any of the issues with Clarkson is because of his loud mouth tv-persona, you are WRONG.

And if you think it's wrong to regulate TV to get more women and "racial" on it, you are both sexist and racist.

If it wasn't for regulations like this we would probably still only have 2 women on TV overall and 3 black guys. THATS HOW THE WORLD WORKS. Read up on this stuff! It's your job as a human citizen to educate yourself about these kind of things.

If I ever return to this site it will be too check up on this Thread...(Which probably will be closed any second).

​God there are some stupid people out there.

It just proves everything I'm saying is spot on.

That people get confused and take offence like in a massive game of Chinese whispers.

Oh is that phrase racist as well? I am sure someone will complain about that next, because they don't understand it's use or even their own language properly.

In a recent Saturday Night Live show that Jerry Seinfeld hosted he took a joke packed Q&A from the audience amongst them Spielberg, Ed Norton, Larry David and other stars. One of them asked why there were no black people on Seinfeld and Jerry replied joking "It is true that we did not do everything we could to cure society's ills!"

We all know why Seinfeld was great, thank you VRVC you genius, and it has nothing to do with the lack of black cast members on the show, and everything to do with everything else.

[VRVC]

​You only know of Clarksons TV persona... you don't know him off screen. You know literally nothing about him off screen, except what you've been told about him by other people. With agenda's.

​If you engage your brain when you read what I wrote, you will see that I fully endorsed the regulation of tv. I stated quite clearly though that it should be done at a programming level, not a content level, which I criticised as I do not believe it will solve the problem, and will in fact make the problem worse.

But if you believe that any attempt to combat discrimination should be beyond criticism, even if the approach is demonstrably going to make the problem worse, burying critics with slurs like "racist" or "sexist" instead of putting forward well reasoned arguments of your own, then you are perhaps in more dire need of education than any here.

​Random capitalisation of nouns, which are not proper nouns... yeah, you're the same person, switched accounts again. Come forward, tell us who you really are, put your regular forum name to your words, coward.

​How I random capitalize words comes from the fact that I'm Swedish, and English is my second language. So any complaints about my skills as a writer in english will be dismissed.

To say that I don't know Clarkson personally and then by default - don't know anything about this subject - includes (I guess) every single one on this forum. So, If we are going to measure our right to speak up by that standard, we can all quit this right now.

Please describe to me how those levels, and the difference between the changes made in them, are not the same thing. 

Well, if someone would criticize me by with those same words I would have a long hard look inwards, and try to understand where these critics are coming from. 

We have to regulate things in society, TV and all other variables you can think of because how else would we evolve for the better? If Seinfeld would have made the cast of that show 50% more black and female it would not have changed ANYTHING. The same writers would still have written one of the greatest shows ever... And if you DO think that it would be less fun if a person of race or a woman would have played any of the roles in that show.. Then my fellow forum-friend, you are a racist and/or a sexist.

Sincerely, Viktor Ragnemar.

[VRVC]

​I think the only reason these kind of articles are posted is to get attention to this blog and to get people to sign up that are not even that passionate about filmmaking, and when it gets too hot to just lock the thread and start a new attention seeking one. Ah well, the sun is shining now and I feel my time is much better spend going out now with my camera and create something.

​I used to visit this site everyday, just because I AM passionate about filmmaking... That does not mean I have to join the forum. 

Let's go create, it truly is a far better way to spend our time.

[VRVC]

​God there are some stupid people out there.

It just proves everything I'm saying is spot on.

That people get confused and take offence like in a massive game of Chinese whispers.

Oh is that phrase racist as well? I am sure someone will complain about that next, because they don't understand it's use or even their own language properly.

In a recent Saturday Night Live show that Jerry Seinfeld hosted he took a joke packed Q&A from the audience amongst them Spielberg, Ed Norton, Larry David and other stars. One of them asked why there were no black people on Seinfeld and Jerry replied joking "It is true that we did not do everything we could to cure society's ills!"

We all know why Seinfeld was great, thank you VRVC you genius, and it has nothing to do with the lack of black cast members on the show, and everything to do with everything else.

​Oh God, YES, there truly are... 

I haven't gotten a least bit confused, I would just like for you think of the larger powers at play before you start judging everything. 

Well, in one of "Kramers" stand up shows he called a audience member a "N****"... SO... They are all perfect people.

[Lammy]

That people get confused and take offence like in a massive game of Chinese whispers.

Oh is that phrase racist as well? I am sure someone will complain about that next, because they don't understand it's use or even their own language properly.

This provocation isn't really constructive, bro! Is it really that hard just to simply say gossip? Not "women's gossip" or "old wives tales" of course, that'd be just as bad and out-dated.

To be clear, I am not offended, and I do not think you hate Chinese people. But it just on a fundamental level that you simply don't give a fuck lol. And that's absolutely OK, and within your rights to be portrayed like that.

[Andrew Reid]

My point reinforced again by Lammy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

Is it really that hard to stay on the topic the article raises?

[dan]

My point reinforced again by Lammy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

Is it really that hard to stay on the topic the article raises?

​http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mzungu

[SleepyWill]

​How I random capitalize words comes from the fact that I'm Swedish, and English is my second language. So any complaints about my skills as a writer in english will be dismissed.​

So confirmed then that you've switched to yet another username, because I didn't complain about the English language skills under this username, I complained about the English language skills of "Jay Edgar" right after you, under that username criticised my English language skills.

To say that I don't know Clarkson personally and then by default - don't know anything about this subject - includes (I guess) every single one on this forum. So, If we are going to measure our right to speak up by that standard, we can all quit this right now.

This is a forum frequented by broadcast professionals and those interested in the industry the man works in. I wouldn't make that guess personally. I myself have indeed worked with him, spoken with him off camera and as I stated in my very first post under that first thread, would lake very lightly the opinion of someone who makes assumptions of the man based on his tv personality, in much the same way I would take very lightly the opinion anyone hold of Brad Pit if they are making assumptions of his personality based on his character Tyler Durden.

​But good of you to confirm that you have never seen anything of him that someone hasn't published. Now we can take your comments in context.

Please describe to me how those levels, and the difference between the changes made in them, are not the same thing. 

​You seriously don't understand the difference between putting women into every show, no matter who the intended audience is and making quality programming actually designed for women? Let me put it this way, one is an act of futility, it will only serve as a tick box exercise but will do nothing to actually correct the problem of under-representation of women. It is a step backwards, towards tokenism which was rightly called out as a derogatory practice in it's own right. You like Seinfeld, so do I. Would Seinfeld have been as good if the network had forced George Costansa to be a black character portrayed in a positive light, therefore not allowing Jason Alexander to play him, not allowing the character to be short, stocky, slow witted or balding? Would that have done anything for race relations in the US at all? No, it would have damaged a good show for absolutely no gain what-so-ever. Instead, allow the Fresh Prince of Bel Air to exist, give it prime time slots and you may just create better diversity on the tv, allowing a black person to become a genuine star on his own merit, not because he was shoehorned into Seinfeld on the basis of "diversity".

Well, if someone would criticize me by with those same words I would have a long hard look inwards, and try to understand where these critics are coming from. 

​Calling someone "racist" is not criticism, it's name calling. Now, you may be able to justify how I am racist with my stance that putting token women into shows does not help improve diversity on tv, but so far, you have failed to do so. Being a critic is a nuanced business. For starters, you have to be able to enunciate in the language you are choosing to be a critic in, exactly what your opinion is, how it is relevant to your audience that you hold this opinion, why you hold it and how it makes sense - but in order for your criticism to be constructive, you also have to be open to the idea that some people are not going to share your opinion. As a critic, it is your role to explain where you are coming from, because otherwise, who cares about you and your opinion. I certainly don't. You've done nothing to make me consider myself racist, or triggered any desire to take a long hard look at myself.

Maybe consider the following example.

You are stupid.

Notice how this doesn't make you question your intelligence, it doesn't make you take a long hard look at yourself. It's just me calling you a name. It's not valid criticism.

Now consider this:

As someone who has worked in tv and cinema production for the last 30 years, I recently found I was called racist for holding the following view "I believe there should be more quality programming for women, rather than tokenism". It is my assessment that the person who called me racist is stupid. He is a videographer called Viktor Ragnamar and I don't make this assessment of his intellect lightly. I have viewed his work, he seems to be deeply enamoured with racial debate, going so far as to post a highly derivative work where he highlights some words in a interview by Martin Luther King in a special, sparkly computer generated effect. However, I believe that Viktor demonstrated his stupidity quite openly when he conflated gender with race. It should be fairly obvious to any with a modicum of intelligence that there are indeed men and women of every race, thus my comment on programming for women was not at all linked to any comment on programming for black or white people. It would be my assessment that Viktor does not understand the issue he is so passionate about. I would suggest he takes some time to educate himself about the differences between gender and race and ultimately how those two concepts cannot, by any intelligent human being, be treated as the same thing. Maybe there is some nugget of truth in his work, after all, a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day, but even if we do find it, can we honestly attribute that to Viktor? Is the lucky monkey the new Shakespeare, or just a monkey who got lucky.

Do you see the difference between criticism and name calling now, here's a hint. One is difficult and hard work, the other is name calling. One has a value to the debate and discussion, the other is name calling. Finally, one justifies it's existence, the other is... yeah, you got it! 

We have to regulate things in society, TV and all other variables you can think of because how else would we evolve for the better? If Seinfeld would have made the cast of that show 50% more black and female it would not have changed ANYTHING. The same writers would still have written one of the greatest shows ever... And if you DO think that it would be less fun if a person of race or a woman would have played any of the roles in that show.. Then my fellow forum-friend, you are a racist and/or a sexist.

 Wait, what, you actually do believe that Will Smith can play George Costansa as well as Jason Alexander, because the actors themselves are just blank slates right, and writers certainly never write for their actors! Holy shit dude, everyone, hold the phones! It turns out Viktor No-one has made an epic discovery! We can save a fortune, we don't need casting any more. Gone are the days of "90% of your product hinges on casting" it turns out actors are plug and play! You can remove a woman from a role who was cast as the best actor for the job and insert a man, because the writers only ever write gender and race neutral script!

Or not.

And I can't help but to notice, on your vimeo channel, you have a lot of videos of men, one that caught my eye was the one in which you have a white skin-headed man working in a red light district talking about problem black people. Yet you seem averse to putting those black people on camera, especially so they could put their side of the story across. Why didn't you put a black man on camera or interview a woman who lives there, as per your 50% black, 50% women regulation... is it because:

1) That level of regulation would have meant that you didn't ever create that video

2) You are racist and sexist

[Lammy]

Everyone is now twisting each other's arguments to try and be "right". And yeah we are arguing in vague terms. Clarkson isn't really the best example to use for creative risk... because he's consistently working in the mainstream uncensored. It's actually creatively safe to play on the majority opinions and stereotypes. He's not being persecuted by the people, the Government, or the BBC here. He's just suspended for being horrible to a colleague and the BBC are covering their own ass in fear of cover up accusations or if Oisin presses charges. The rumours of the crew pressuring Clarkson to own up is telling.

Jeremy 'The Sun' Clarkson's rivalry with Piers 'Daily Mirror' Morgan is funny. And I would love to have seen the charity fight between them as two consenting combatants. It is far less serious than if he punched Oisin without provocation. 

Errrrgh and back to the above argument:

I don't necessarily disagree with your points Will. I'm sure we both agree there that should be more measures in place to allow and nurture talent from under represented demographics. I am all for positive action (not exactly positive discrimination). And I hate it when the privileged abuse quotas with tokenism and 1 dimensional characters too. Have you seen TV Tropes? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RaceLift 

We are in a creative industry and that is supposed to mesh the way we perceive society, art, and money. Seinfield would not be the same show if Will Smith was in it, you're right. Louis CK's work would not be as well informed if he didn't work with Chris Rock all those years either. And where would Top Gear be without Jeremy Clarkson? Would they be worse shows for it? Well that's up to society to decide. 

Implying EOSHD is racist through your forum posts will result in a ban and subsequent potential for legal action. This is a final warning.

Andrew - no where did I state you were racist nor did I imply you are racist. On the contrary, I said you wasn't - and I only said you don't care and your uses of terms are politically incorrect.  You have no legal action on me here.  I will say if you want to have these kinds of discussions, censorship and banning is not the way. Try not to be so insecure and grow a thicker skin when debating. Or don't bother posting half baked articles at all.

 

[Babel Rain]

The internet seems to create a gargantuan village of angry torch wielding, knuckle dragging buffoons anytime someone speaks with nuance, sarcasm or god forbid humorous intent. Thanks for taking a stand on this issue. I check your site everyday for new content and was surprised to see you weigh in on Clarkson and the BBC. Sadly I don't see the BBC growing a pair anytime soon which means they're likely gathering wood for the fire as we speak.  

[Damphousse]

I’m going to go full ugly American for a minute to inject a bit of sanity into this discussion.  It may offend some but it will no doubt entertain many others.  And please don't take my word for it.  Fact check any of my statements and post any corrections.  I don't want to spread false information.  Here goes...

 

First of all let’s all be honest with ourselves the entire combine British film and television industry, Clarkson included, is a pimple on the butt of an elephant.  It isn’t squat.  I know it.  You know it.  Here in the richest most powerful country that the world has ever seen nobody knows who this Clarkson character is.  I was actually surprised that Russell Brand said Top Gear was the number one show for BBC America.  Then it occurred to me that BBC America is a low tier network and that a lot of break through British TV shows actually appear on non BBC networks.  Talk about lying with statistics.  Nice job Russell.  It’s funny how Russell Brand and all these other characters are saying that there is some yearning for this devil may care rugged individualism… particularly in the US.  Guess what British show annihilates Top Gear’s ratings in the US?  Downton Abby.   Bah ha, ha, ha, ha!!!  So please stop telling us IF Clarkson gets canned the world will fall off its axis.  The hyperbole is unnecessary.

 

Let’s work through some more numbers.  Clarkson’s salary…  It’s a big deal in Britain.  It isn’t $h-t in America.  Charlie Sheen made more money than him shooting two and a half men.  And he chain smoked, did drugs, and banged hooker’s the whole time he was doing it.  What he didn’t do was write prissy little school boy columns for some random rag.  And guess what happened to Charlie?  That’s right when he didn’t follow the rules he eventually got canned.  I honestly don’t even know what he did!  I remember feeling sorry for the guy but the world didn’t end.  No one is marking the day Charlie Sheen got fired and saying that is the day the music died.

 

As a denizen of the country that created the biggest media juggernaut in the history of man let me school you on how it is done.  First of all censorship on the public airwaves… get some.  Clarkson would have been canned long time ago if he was employed by an American network in the US.  The thesis that some reasonable level of censorship means your media market is doomed to failure is 100% false.  Let’s stop pretending.  Once again like the H-bomb and the lunar landing it took America to show the world how it’s done.  The thesis that the UK is a second rate media market because of censorship of all things is absurd.  We have more censorship and we demolish the UK media numbers.

 

Second suggestion from your American cousins…  check out a little thing we call capitalism.  If Clarkson wishes to remain a socialist parasite suckling at the teat of the government dole that’s his business.  But he has to then do their bidding.  If he wants to continue his abysmally low rated show (BBC America numbers) he can quit, risk his OWN capital, and start his own network.

 

Let me tell you about two fine Americans in the media industry who aren’t socialist parasite cry babies.  One is a young black kid from a crime riddled impoverished neighborhood who not only never got a break but was harassed by the cops and even the FBI and virtually banned from radio.  Do you know what that guy did?   He made himself half a BILLION dollars without begging for tax payer money like Clarkson.  He would wipe his @$$ with Clarkson’s salary.  That fine young man who made it with virtually no public airplay is known around the world as Dr. Dre.

 

The second outstanding American entrepreneur is an overweight far right wing white male about Clarkson’s age.  Unlike Dr. Dre but very much like Clarkson he was in the favored class and got all the breaks Clarkson got.  And like Clarkson this white male was prone to saying racist things and causing controversy.  That’s where the similarities end.  Unlike Clarkson there was no President/Prime Minister to stand up for this bigoted privileged white guy and he was eventually run off of the 100% private right wing monstrosity known as Fox News.  So what happened when this guy was run off CABLE TELEVISION and a 100% PRIVATE network? Did he cry like a little b-tch and beg to be allowed onto a tax payer funded channel?  Did he ask another private network to give his multimillionaire @$$ a job so he can eat?  No!  This is America.  He started his own company.  How much do you think he makes a year now?  Try $80 million.  That’s right.  He would wipe his @$$ with Clarkson’s salary.  In fairness I will say this gentleman does have a syndicated radio show, so he didn’t have a blanket ban like Dre.  But no TV… not now… not ever.  Motherf-cker makes more money now than before he was booted from TV.  And his name?  Glenn Beck.  He set up an internet video service for private paying members.  His subscriber numbers?  300,000.  A whopping third of Clarkson’s Neilson numbers… on BBC America!  $80 million.  Clarkson is a clown.

 

FYI In America Top Gear USA which doesn’t star Clarkson is rated higher than the original Top Gear.  Russell Brand conveniently forgot to mention that little data point.

 

I will say though I watch and respect BBC News.  The reason being is I like to see if someone or something in America that claims to be a big deal is even mentioned overseas.  Often times what we obsess over here in America is a complete nonissue in the rest of the world.  Actually not getting mentioned is the best case scenario…  worst case scenario you are viciously lampooned (I'm looking at you Mitt Romney).  It is good to have some perspective.  When someone starts telling me about how important they are to the world I gently tell them, “no one in London has ever f-cking heard of you.”

[Andrew Reid]

The internet seems to create a gargantuan village of angry torch wielding, knuckle dragging buffoons anytime someone speaks with nuance, sarcasm or god forbid humorous intent.

You are right, just look at the vitriol in damphouse's post above for a perfect example.

Thanks for taking a stand on this issue. I check your site everyday for new content and was surprised to see you weigh in on Clarkson and the BBC. Sadly I don't see the BBC growing a pair anytime soon which means they're likely gathering wood for the fire as we speak.  

​I can't think of anything interesting to watch on the BBC at the moment at all. They really have caved into a very risk-averse creative culture.

[Lammy]

 

​I can't think of anything interesting to watch on the BBC at the moment at all. They really have caved into a very risk-averse creative culture.

What did the BBC ever really have that was risky? Eh up, Downton Abbey is ITV/PBS innit?

Hum off the top of my head in recent months I have enjoyed The Casual Vacancy, Doctor Who, Live at the Apollo, The Trip, An Idiots Guide, Weekly Wipe, Graham Norton Show, Louis Theroux documentaries. The BBC Films division has some gems in there too. Yeeeah but I still prefer NetFlix and HBO.

[Oscar M.]

Clarkson is funny and all but . . . .

Public Broadcasting stations such as BBC are not the right place for someone like Clarkson. There are guidelines for broadcasting to the general public. He probably should go to HBO or other private broadcasters. There's a reason for this. You can do anything you want in your personal life, but once you start broadcasting it to billions of people through a publicly supported medium, then that's a problem. You better say what the public wants you to say. "The Public is your boss" - weather he likes it or not. I'm sure that if 80% of his audience around the world had no problem with him, then there wouldn't be a problem. But obviously, that is not the case.

[Oscar M.]

 . . .  I am going to show my ugly American side. I didn't know who Clarkson, or top Gear, was until EOSHD mentioned it and I looked it up and watched a few shows. The only two other British shows I knew of before were . . . yep, you guessed it; "Doctor Who" and "Downtown Abby". Go ahead, call me a sheltered American, but it is what it is.

You're still my man Andrew.

[Orangenz]

Very good commentary Andrew. Well said. It's the rise of being offended and the loss of freedom of speech.