Is that Schroedinger's Cat in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?
After some very interesting conversations in various comments I think i've realised why such a non-issue the whole barrowman radio 'thing' actually IS an issue for me. But it isn't what you think.
I still totally stand by what I said, that it's ridiculous in its non-eventness in terms of JB. It's what he does and we love him for it. It wasn't inappropriate given it was radio - for all we know he just *said* that's what he was doing, i don't believe that, but it is kind of the Schroedinger's Cat of John's pants isn't it? - and it wasn't unexpected, indeed it was prompted.
Here's my issue. All the condemnations of JB's actions by news outlets and various fandom wankery annoy me for one reason. It doesn't appear that he did anything wrong. None of the news articles or what the BBC itself said indicate he broke any BBC regulations. It wasn't on television, it wasn't on a children's show, so I don't see that the time or place can be the issue. If there is a BBC rule on misconduct that includes "alluding" to things, then maybe. maybe. BUT, he didn't actually do anything but display some skin. I don't find that in the least bit offensive. Had he been rude, misogynistic, racist, violent, hurtful, naked in the street around children, whatever, sure. But what he did was the same as a bodily-function joke - something i find disgusting but wouldn't censor others enjoying - which are often a radio station's mainstay.
So really, it comes down to what kind of humour people find funny vs offensive. To condemn JB - for any aspect of it - worries me. (not the least because everyone says they love him for that behaviour). But to start curtailing people's actions and words because someone, somewhere, might be offended is a dangerous path. It starts infringing on people's rights to free speech and action. I doubt any Americans would disagree with me if I said I found the lengths of censorship America goes to on tv and radio is ridiculous and in some ways downright wrong. I would *hate* to see the UK go the same way. Especially as then it's just a hop, skip and a jump to Australia doing the same.
This hilarious comment, which someone left on one of the "news" articles really sort of sums it up for me:
"The BBC should lose their licence fees without fail.
I recently read that all the previous Dr Whos were actually stark naked under their clothes while they were on television. It's an outrage."
In a strange way, I wish he *hadn't* apologised, because I don't think he had any reason to, unless he personally thought he shouldn't have done it for his own reasons. Only one person complained to the BBC about the incident. The BBC and JB himself only say that he went a bit too far, got a bit too carried away. That's speculative and entirely based on personal opinions of taste. It smacks of politics and censorship - or at the very least the potential of it.
So the reason the whole thing makes me mad is because people are wanking about the WRONG things. It really isn't about John at all.
I still totally stand by what I said, that it's ridiculous in its non-eventness in terms of JB. It's what he does and we love him for it. It wasn't inappropriate given it was radio - for all we know he just *said* that's what he was doing, i don't believe that, but it is kind of the Schroedinger's Cat of John's pants isn't it? - and it wasn't unexpected, indeed it was prompted.
Here's my issue. All the condemnations of JB's actions by news outlets and various fandom wankery annoy me for one reason. It doesn't appear that he did anything wrong. None of the news articles or what the BBC itself said indicate he broke any BBC regulations. It wasn't on television, it wasn't on a children's show, so I don't see that the time or place can be the issue. If there is a BBC rule on misconduct that includes "alluding" to things, then maybe. maybe. BUT, he didn't actually do anything but display some skin. I don't find that in the least bit offensive. Had he been rude, misogynistic, racist, violent, hurtful, naked in the street around children, whatever, sure. But what he did was the same as a bodily-function joke - something i find disgusting but wouldn't censor others enjoying - which are often a radio station's mainstay.
So really, it comes down to what kind of humour people find funny vs offensive. To condemn JB - for any aspect of it - worries me. (not the least because everyone says they love him for that behaviour). But to start curtailing people's actions and words because someone, somewhere, might be offended is a dangerous path. It starts infringing on people's rights to free speech and action. I doubt any Americans would disagree with me if I said I found the lengths of censorship America goes to on tv and radio is ridiculous and in some ways downright wrong. I would *hate* to see the UK go the same way. Especially as then it's just a hop, skip and a jump to Australia doing the same.
This hilarious comment, which someone left on one of the "news" articles really sort of sums it up for me:
"The BBC should lose their licence fees without fail.
I recently read that all the previous Dr Whos were actually stark naked under their clothes while they were on television. It's an outrage."
In a strange way, I wish he *hadn't* apologised, because I don't think he had any reason to, unless he personally thought he shouldn't have done it for his own reasons. Only one person complained to the BBC about the incident. The BBC and JB himself only say that he went a bit too far, got a bit too carried away. That's speculative and entirely based on personal opinions of taste. It smacks of politics and censorship - or at the very least the potential of it.
So the reason the whole thing makes me mad is because people are wanking about the WRONG things. It really isn't about John at all.