"Justified by the context"?
The context being that they were trying to be funny and completely failing? You could justify almost anything by that...
Broadcasting watchdog Ofcom has ruled that comments by the presenters of Top Gear, at the expense of "lazy, feckless" Mexicans, were "justified by the context". Back in January, Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May incurred the wrath of the "world leader in the fields of refried bean cuisine, high-level corruption …
"Humour can frequently cause offence. However, Ofcom considers that to restrict humour only to material which does not cause offence would be an unnecessary restriction of freedom of expression."
Ofcom in outbreak of sanity? Who'd of thunked?
However, I think that also means Ofcom didn't find Tramadol Nights funny, but then neither did many people.
"Given the audience's likely familiarity with the presenters' "mocking, playground-style humour", Ofcom suggested the majority of viewers "would therefore be likely to have understood that the comments were being made for comic effect"."
I like Top Gear, I get the humour, but this was a totally ignorant comment.
You read the Daily Mail too much. Maybe you should those "political correctness gone mad" stories right to the very end. Most of the time there is a disclaimer buried in the last paragraph confirming everything up to that point was bullshit, grossly distorted or justified by facts only grudgingly just mentioned.
Shadowfirebird and AC, this is exactly what ofcom ruled on (that comedy does not fit everyone.) Your tastes are not that of which the humour was being directed at. If you stopped all comedy that offended someone/anyone then all comedy would stop.
I do not watch TG regularly (seen one or two now and again) and even I know what type of humour to expect and that that humour is not in any way directed to cause offense.
I *do* watch TC regularly (and enjoy it) and I thought that the Mexican "jokes" were pathetic.
Of course, you're right in that you can always find someone to be offended at any attempt of humour, regardless of the quality.
But my point was simply this: ruling that the jokes were acceptable because in the context of a show where people make tasteless jokes, is a stupidly broad excuse.
You might as well say that Hitler was justified to invade europe in the context of his being a power-mad dictator. This is true -- but no help at all.
"You might as well say that Hitler was justified to invade europe in the context of his being a power-mad dictator. This is true -- but no help at all."
Yes because Hitler invading western europe is very comparable to a bunch of middle aged blokes telling bad jokes about Mexicans....
dont apologise for finding something funny... that's how we got in this mess with political correctness gone mad anyway....
"I my not like your joke, but I defend your right to tell it"
Bernard Manning in an interview said "Every joke will offend somebody somewhere. but nobody will be offended at every joke. So the jokes you are offended by or dislike, consider them a tax against the ones you do find funny"
I like that the decision shows some common sense.
As a TG fan though, the Mexican diatribe was a bit unusual and out of place. Controversial banter is normal for them, but the Mexican piece was so contrived and vitriolic it was like they were just seeking controversy rather than anything else.
"but the Mexican piece was so contrived and vitriolic it was like they were just seeking controversy rather than anything else"
... which is pretty much what they do all the time. Didn't seem to me to be any more "vitriolic" or controversial than saying a Renault was a "Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey" of a car. Or characterising the Australians they were hosting as a bunch of convicts for that matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys
If someone manages to work out the point of up/down-voting, would they please let me know? At the moment it seems like just a way of not having to articulate an opinion. They're like convenient knee-jerk buttons: you don't have to know quite *why* you dis/agree. They're just right/wrong, dammit!
Given that in 2009, Top Gear was drawing viewing figures of 7 to 7.5 million per episode, and in 2010 (allegedly) even more, I'd suggest that there are more than 7 million people who think that Top Gear is not tiresome, past its sell by date or that it's time to call it quits.
I'm not going to down vote you, however I don't see why I shouldn't given that surely the system is there to express users feelings that they agree or disagree with you? Surely if you hold a different opinion to and disagree with a comment, then you should down vote it, that's what the damn thing is there for.
call it "quites" what? Not "quites" funny? Not "quites" making any sense?
So you don't like Top Gear.. *shrug* plenty of people do... Not every episode of any TV show is gonna be gold, you don't junk a winning show simply because of a bad episode.
I don't understand the lack of perspective shown around this issue.
Its not like there's anything important going on so I suppose we have to whinge about something eh?
"Not quite as odious but exactly as unfunny, exactly as tiresome and exactly as past their sell-by date. Time to call it quites, beeb."
Dear Register,
I find Mr Code Monkey's comments offensive to my personal religion - a major tenet of which is the freedom to watch buffoons prat about on TV whenever one feels the need. To that end his call for one of the few remaining sources of overblown buffoonery on television is particularly offensive to people of my beliefs. I would appreciate it if you could refer this to the "powers that be" and have him removed forthwith or at least a full page retraction printed in the Times.
Yours Sincerely
Someone with a very very thin skin who should probably just get over it.
Great. The world, apparently, used to think of the British as being gentlemen. Now they think we are just a bunch of boorish tossers. Thanks Top Gear.
The French, apparently, used to call us the "roast beefs", because we ate roast beef. Now they just call us the "f**k offs", because all we ever say is "f**k off".
This post has been deleted by its author
Are you saying it is acceptable, nay, predictable for Johnny Foreigner to form a racist stereotype of British people based on a single television show but us superior British Gentlemen should be worldly enough to dismiss simplistic imagery and absorb ourselves fully in the foreign culture before we form an opinion of them?
I find that mildly racist to be honest.
I am Mexican and I didnt find it offensive.
"Great. The world, apparently, used to think of the British as being gentlemen. Now they think we are just a bunch of boorish tossers. Thanks Top Gear."
Wow - seriously?
If anyone made a value judgement on the entire British population based on Top Gear then I dont really care what they think of the UK... Their opinions are so warped they really dont matter.
Obviously in the case of the cheese eating surrender monkeys calling the British "Roast Beefs" because some people eat it is just as incorrect as calling us "f**k offs" which is just as incorrect as calling them "cheese eating surrender monkeys."
Banter is international. Getting upset about it is pointless.
that if you have a history of being offensive then it is OK to be offensive. To be honest I quite liked the joke but it was clearly at the expense of Mexicans.
However it seems strange to me to say that it is OK to offend people so long as you have a history of offending people. Are they really saying that if someone such as Jimmy Carr had told the same joke then they would have ruled against him because he is generally perceived as a nice bloke?
The message to any upcoming comedian surely has to be to work on their racist, sexist routine and slot nicely into the (sizeable) gap left by Bernard Manning.
"The message to any upcoming comedian surely has to be to work on their racist, sexist routine and slot nicely into the (sizeable) gap left by Bernard Manning."
that comment is so "fattest" !!! the fact that he was overweight had no baring on his humour (or lack of it depending on your standpoint)
as a overweight person, I am so offended that I am going to call ofcom to complain !!
I wonder how many double whoppers with cheese I can buy with my compo claim !
His routines are very offensive.. to everyone, and bloody funny too.
If not convinced look up his routine on Red Nose day where he said this:
'I saw a charity appeal in the Guardian the other day, and it read "Little Zuki has to walk 13 miles a day just to fetch water". And I couldn't help thinking, she should move.'
Or how about this
'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Rohypnol(TM).'
Or this
'I live near a remedial school. There is a sign that says, slow... children. That can't be good for their self esteem. But look of course on the positive side, they can't read it.'
...to actually seeing this episode on dave in a few years to see what all the fuss is about. as for the 'sick with cheese on it', i'm offended. my sick never has guacamole and jalapenos in it....
i'm dumb, but i fail to see why this had to go to OFCOM. TG is known for derisive humour and in a lot of instances, that's why it is a liked show. or perhaps that short one should complain that the tall, fat one and the strange, rural one are always making fun of him.
wa'eva...
This post has been deleted by its author
When they yank on the yanks*... the yanks either agree with the yanking or show up to prove otherwise. Why don't the Mexicans show up and prove they are not as the negative stereotypes claim. They should bring their car over and show that it's no lazy pile. If all the offended ever do is whine about being made fun of, then they will never prove the stereotype wrong, but rather the contrary. Seriously... some people need to grow a "set" and get over it.
<puts on flame proof coat>
I know this will yank some people the wrong way because it encroaches on their comfort zone. oh well... I'm used to it. I'm a yank and I always take up for myself because I have a "set" and I'm not afraid to take a step or 10.
* example of Clarkson railing on yank tanks... go find that vid of him reviewing an older Lincoln Town Car and complaining that it doesn't handle well. DUH! It was made to coddle pensioners and provide a very soft (re: luxurious) ride. It wasn't made to be a track star.
If you post is meant to be satirical then that's a massive fail. Hammond probably would laugh at it as he is capable of laughing at himself.
Stewart Lee on the other hand, while being very funny at times is a self important opinionated prick. How funny was he with Jerry Springer the Opera? Oh how I didn't laugh and I despise religion. It was just an exercise in seeing how many people he could offend. He is known being able to dish it out but not take the flack that comes with it.
Hammond on the other hand would just shrug it off and not give a toss if someone insulted him. Don't get me wrong, I do like Lees comedy and have done ever since Lee and Herring, but if given the choice of going to the pub with Lee or Hammond for a drink then Hammond would win hands down as I know I would be able to have a laugh with him.
The World According to Clarkson
I'm sure plenty of national stereotypes are not in the book..... ;-)
The abuse doled out to the ex-convicts in the same episode was received in the spirit it was meant. It's the spirit of Top Gear......the face on Hamster as he took off in the Tranny was hilarious.
It's like the opposite of IDGAS - more like I Give Too Much Of A Shit.
I enjoy TG for what it is - an entertainment show with well-positioned cute chicks in the audience.
I'm actually a fan of Top Gear. I generally like the humour and 'spontaneous' banter and the dynamic between the presenters - as well-worn as it is by now; and I love the presentation of the show, which I swear borders on artistic in some places. I like the silly challenges and the overall sense of fun. And I'm someone who's not the slightest bit interested in cars, beyond their necessity in getting me from one place to another in lieu of non-existent or inadequate bus services and increasingly expensive trains.
All that said, I think Top Gear can do better than this. I know its humour isn't to everyone's taste, but as has been pointed out, no humour is. But let's suppose you believe it's "political correctness gone mad" to criticise someone for making cheap jokes based on dated and inaccurate stereotypes. Let's look at it from a different angle: don't we pay the BBC enough money for them to come up with some new, clever jokes, rather than falling back on lazy material like this?
Finally, whenever the twin subjects of offence and freedom of speech come up, whether it's comedians, Danish newspapers, or whatever else, I tend to take the same view: Freedom of speech means having the right to say what you like. But because you can say a thing, it doesn't mean that you have to say it, or that saying it will be a positive thing to do. It doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't censor *yourself*, in the name of simple respect - or even 'manners', as unfashionable as they may be in these days.
And if you simply *have* to criticise, parody or satirise, go for it; but then recognise that freedom of speech doesn't - can't - render you immune from any possible consequence of what you say. That said, I strongly believe that taking offence about something is a matter of choice: a person makes that decision and further chooses whether to act on that offence. But in general, it's my view that making a big fuss about being offended just shows insecurity.
Personally, my response to the complaint from the Mexican ambassador would've been to offer him a sporting bet.
If I can take a flight to Mexico, disembark, and without leaving the airport, buy a stuffed donkey, a bottle of tequila with a fake worm in it, a sombrero, some cold and unpalatable 'local' cuisine and a colourful poncho, then will he pay for the flight and withdraw his complaint? Surely, after all, that would demonstrate that the image described by Clarkson is one that Mexico is actively exporting would render the complaint invalid?
It's a fair cop, guv'nor!
Here, have a beer, mate. It's British, so it's warm. Gawd, love a duck!
The UK version of Top Gear is broadcast in over 30 countries, Mexico among them. For a citizen of Mexico, it might be one of the few reference points they have for the UK. Go to Mexico this year and some folks in the local cantina might well associate you with Top Gear. The incident was reported in their newspapers, and the Mexican senate is considering a motion of censure. So yes, Mexico was pretty annoyed.
It is pointless to insult whole countries for nothing, just to draw attention to yourself and get some headlines. It worked though - TG was in all the 'papers, including El Reg.