Anyone who’s been following the news in Britain in the past few months can’t have escaped the Big Brother racism rows. Firstly, ‘celebrity’ Jade Goody became a national hate symbol for her bullying of Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty, calling her amongst other things “Shilpa Poppadom”. Channel 4 were roundly condemned by everyone from Gordon Brown, to a Bihari mob (who burnt effigies of executives), to Ofcom, Britain’s self righteous post-hoc TV censors. Then, in the next series of BB, Emily Parr was unceremoniously cast out of the house for using the “N word” (bizarrely quite innocently) to another contestant. The chastening effect of Ofcom’s condemnation and the media furore around CBB seems to have prompted the producers’ tough action.
But almost simultaneously, on the show Shipwrecked, ex-public schoolgirl Lucy Buchanan was busy declaring that black people were “bad”, that she hoped for the restoration of slavery and the British Empire, and that she didn’t like fat and ugly people (insert uncharitable joke here). Ofcom’s recently published reaction this time defended Channel 4’s right to include unpopular views in the programme (of course with the proviso that these were “in context”).
Whilst of course it’s always good to hear anyone attacking limits on freedom of expression, frankly what the hell is going on? To me, Lucy’s views are a lot more coherently obnoxious that the rather arbitrary faux pas committed by the other two; more reminiscent of the traditional racism of the elite, rather than the ‘chavtastic’ chauvinism of someone like Goody. However in a time where xenophobia is seen as a rather proley pursuit, and often as a tool to bash the white working class, Goody makes a good punchbag.
However I think incoherence is more of a motivation than class war. Without a clear idea of what it wants to censor or why (unlike for instance with Irish Republicans in the 1980s), Ofcom has made it up on the hoof, condemning displays of pseudo-racism one day, and permitting real displays on another. But as was noted previously on this blog, the encouraging part of this story was the reaction of the other contestants who argued against Lucy’s bigotry- they had faith in talking and arguing rather than shutting people up. If only the same could be said for Ofcom.
Robin Walsh
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Random incoherence is one possibility but political pressure is the more persuasive explanatory factor. Compare the ridiculous levels of public outcry over the "Shilpa Poppadom" incident, with "community leaders" rallying 50,000 complainants and everyone up to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair chipping in with the virtual silence over the Shipwrecked show.
What comparing the two cases shows is that Ofcom's pretence at being an independent regulatory body is a sham - they're like a weak football referee who responds to the ferocious boos of a crowd by doling out a red card instead of a yellow.
This in itself demonstrates the danger of seeking to regulate speech: decisions will always be politically influenced, never "impartial" -- even when entrusted to an "independent" body. Or perhaps especially when so entrusted, since Ofcom is an unaccountable quango that is not subject to direct popular control, which makes it even more manipulable by a small minority of people than a government that directly seeks to limit free speech.
Post a Comment