Brass Eye

[Simon]

Eb:

> (Brits, I saw that controversial one Thurs. night... you KNOW which
> one... I can't even BEAR to post what the topic was here.

>From the BBC:

>> Morris's 35-minute special [of Brass Eye, a satire showing how easily
>> celebrities and public figures could be manipulated, in this case
concerning
>> paedophilia] was made to complement a repeat showing of his original
Brass
>> Eye series which was equally controversial, again duping public figures
to
>> show how they could be manipulated.

Eb:

> Let me just say that if such a show aired at 10:30 p.m. on a major
network in
> America, you'd have mass burnings of TV sets in the street and
Congressional
> hearings called at once.

John:

> Oh goody. That is, of course, the answer -- burn the TV sets, rather than
> sitting down with your children and telling them how not to fall prey to
> child molesters. Sweep it under the carpet rather than vacuuming it up.
>
> </sarcasm, but well-meant sarcasm>
>
> Eb, I find myself reacting quite sarcastically to this. I'm not sure why,
> but I think it's that only now are people actually realising that child
> molestation is a widespread problem -- in the *UK*. It's such a taboo in
the
> States that we can't discuss it, which means that abused kids will rarely
> feel able to reveal or discuss their abuse. That's the problem here.

Over the last few years this issue has seemed to be getting more press
coverage and action seems to be being taken to improve the situation and
encourage the victims to come forward. I see much of the problem being that
at times the issue only seems to get news coverage when the tabloid press
are going over the top about the issue. Hence many just switch off to the
coverage and never bother to actually think about the issues being
discussed.

I did not see the programme in question, but have seen the clip mentioned
below (while watching Newsnight Review who were discussion the issue).


Eb:

> There were actual *children* who acted in that show!

I think Eb's referring to this (again from the BBC):

> In one scene from Thursday night's show, presenter Chris Morris brought a
> young boy into the studio and asked a "paedophile" locked in stocks if he
> wanted to have sex with him.

John:

> That, IMO, is just plain wrong and was an extremely bad judgment call on
the
> part of the programme-makers. I feel it is appropriate and healthy to
bring
> the issue out into the open (see the work that Carol Vorderman [UK TV
> presenter, roughly as well known as Oprah] has done in publicising the
> dangers of allowing children to surf the net unsupervised), yet the
majority
> of the UK public does not take it as seriously as the US public does.

Bear in mind that with television production techniques it is entirely
possible that the scene was filmed in such a way that the child in the
studio never heard the conversation that was eventually aired on the show.
I would guess that this is the case for this scene.

Whether or not that makes the decision to air the conversation in the seen
format, of a child stood in front of a 'paedophile' in stocks being asked
if he wanted sex with the child, is a different discussion.


[Here follows John's liberal opinion take on it] and [Simon's possibly not
quite as liberal reply]

> I think that it's a good thing that the topic was opened up to widespread
> comment, even if that comment was criticism.

The problem I see is that it has not seemingly done this. The entire
discussion has been over whether the show should have been produced and
shown in the first place. The topic of paedophilia and how to help the
victims and deal with the offenders seems to have been ignored in all the
news coverage of the topic. So at the moment it seems that the aim of the
programme, mentioned below, has not been met.


> It's often very revealing to see how celebrities and people whose
> opinion people respect react when they are put on the spot:

Some celebrities do a very good job of publicising and getting action taken
on important issues. Last week, during all the mayhem in Genoa, we saw Bono
and someone else (obviously a famous celebrity if I cannot remember their
name) talking to the G8 leaders about 3rd world debt. John above
highlighted Carol Vorderman's work on children surfing on the net
unsupervised. These are important issues that need highlighting, but if the
actions of a show, such as Brass Eye, discourage these celebrities from
helping in publicising these issues, for fear of being apart of a similar
spoof show, then the show has caused more harm than the good it could have
done.


> > At one point, DJ Neil Fox was seen hammering a nail into a crab shell,
telling
> > viewers that paedophiles shared more in common genetically with the
crustacean
> > than they did with other humans.
>
> Yeah, that's right, let's attack them with nails and dehumanise them
(it's
> not murder if you kill one of Them, because They aren't people) rather
than
> attempting to deal with what is, after all, a psychological problem.
> Greeeeeat. Welcome to Germany, circa 1933...oh, sorry, I mean Britain in
> 2001.

Of course following on from my comments above if it stops the really
helpful comments, such as the one above from DJ Neil Fox, then it may have
done some good. Help not violence is needed. Possibly this sort of show
will allow those, such as the ones I mention above, to highlight the
important issues in a useful way while making those with the unhelpful
comments keep their mouths shut.

A while back, I am not sure how long ago, The News of the World (a quality
British newspaper - and yes I may have used a bit of sarcasm in that
statement) started to publish a list of known paedophiles who had been
'released into the community' having served prison sentences and gone
through rehabilitation. The tNotW said that 'it was in the public interest'
to know where these people where living.

Now of course if it really was 'in the public interest' then why did the
newspaper in question publish the names over a series of weeks (tNotW is a
Sunday paper)? Surely if it were for the publics better good then all the
names at once would have been the answer.

The result of these names being published was to cause vigilantly attacks
on people mentioned in the list. Thus they were forced away from any
rehabilitation schemes they were involved with and away from any
supervision. That was of course assuming that the vigilantes had found the
right person. In many cases they were targeting innocent people.


> Of course, such a public backlash *has* happened before:
>
> > The ITC has had more than 500 - a figure only beaten by the screening
of the
> > movie The Last Temptation Of Christ, which prompted an organised
campaign by
> > Christian groups, and a TV ad for Levi's featuring a "dead" hamster.
>
> I can still remember the furore that Queer As Folk caused (Channel 4
drama
> based around the gay scene in Manchester that showed [shock, horror] some
> partial back nudity). Absolutely brilliant series, but the Christian
> right-wing conservatives were totally up in arms. IIRC one of the actors
was
> assaulted by a neo-nazi yob (none of them were actually gay, which made
it
> rather ironic).

I have never seen the show in question, but it was meant to be very good. I
also remember the public outcry over the above incident and was totally
amazed. For a show shown so far after the watershed (in the UK there are
restrictions about when certain things can be shown on TV) I cannot see any
reason for the complaint. If it had been shown during primetime then the
complaints would have been justified.

The complaints were not just from the Christian right-wing conservatives
and they are not responsible for all that John seems intent on linking them
with.


> > A Channel 4 spokesman said: "In the current climate of hysteria that's
whipped
> > up about paedophilia, it's impossible to have a debate about the issues
> > surrounding it and you have to use shock tactics of this kind to force
them
> > into the public domain and get people to think about them.
> >
> > "I think the programme shows the massive inconsistencies involved.
People are
> > quite happy for their 11-year-old daughters to go to Eminem concerts
and watch
> > boy bands gyrating and parents are happy to put children in beauty
pageants.
> >
> > "Obviously there are people who have found this deeply disturbing but
if the
> > programme makes people think about the issues, then it will have
achieved its
> > aim."
>
> Moreover, it may help some previously abused kids to tell about their
abuse,
> have the paedophiles removed from society and given the mental health
help
> that they need.

When I last heard the ITC had had over 2000 complaints about the show (to
put this into some sort of perspective the ITC normally gets over a handful
of complaints for anything - when Anne Robinson insulted the Welsh their
were about 150 complaints). My first question would of course be did all of
these people complaining watch the show?

The NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) are
one of the major UK charities involved with helping children suffering from
abuse (of any kind). They have said that they do not think this sort of
show will help children to come forward and discuss their abuse. I am
inclined to believe that they know what they are talking about.

The aim is definitely a good one, but I do not think it will have worked.
Maybe it will be seen to work. In a few weeks time the over the top media
comments on the issue will have died down and maybe it will then allow a
proper discussion on the topic. Only then can we judge as to whether or not
the programme did achieve its aim.


> --John, really hoping that the third time's a charm and that this topic
> doesn't go up in smoke like the last few ones he's posted opinions to...

I am sure it will be fine. It is perfectly possible to discuss any subject
without it going up in smoke.



Simon
--
"It's not Brits who think American readers are a bunch of whinging morons
with the geo-social understanding of a wire coathanger, it's American
editors." - Setting the record straight - Terry Pratchett
---------------------------------------------------------------------------