400 m*&£@fuck*@s
Whatever the overall success of the consciousness-raising efforts of Live8, it clearly failed in the cases of the 400 people who complained to the BBC about bad language during the live broadcast. For them, the obscenity of poverty paled into insignificance when Madonna asked London if it was fucking ready and Snoop Doggy Dog urged the crowd to wave their motherfucking hands in the air.
It was quite refreshing to see swearing on TV without a grovelling apology right afterwards.
With there being kids in the crowd at the gigs perhaps the performers should have erred on the side of caution with their language.
But the overal point of the event should mask any complaints about swearing.
Mere modulations of air. Why people get in such a furore about something like this beats me.
It’s not either/or: it’s both/and. Care for the poor and care for language standards.
I’ve never seen an intelligent argument for why it is only possible to do one or the other of these two things.
What is the connection between them anyway? Nothing. They are two independent things, both of which we can simultaneously do.
The most intelligent remark I heard was: If the pop stars gave a million of their own money every time they swore on live TV that would be a significant drop in the ocean.
No one can deny the genuine good cause of the live 8 event but is listening to someone consistently repeat ‘ MotherFucking ‘ at tea time the kind of society we wish Africa to model itself on ? Any criticism of the show is considered to be in bad taste but the precedence has now been set, any live event broadcast at any time of the day containing excessive and severe swearing can now be justified, especially if Ofcom does not uphold any complaints about swearing in the show, i.e. ‘ it was a live event. ‘ The moral fabric of our society is gradually being eroded, young children hearing their pop idols swearing freely, without criticism is a poor reflection of our society today, and it is only going to get worse.
Oh no! Young children might hear their favourite pop stars swearing! Because young children never swear do they? And young children always do exactly what their favourite pop stars do don’t they?
Ps – you don’t see swearing on tv Andrew you hear it !
Swearing has nothing to do with morality. They’re just words.
Odd how most swear words originate before television was invented.
I was quite clearly using see in the sense of watching TV.
Interesting how you choose to pick out this one word instead of actually addressing the argument I posted in repsonse to yours. You don’t perhaps know a ceratain “Doctor” Shell do you?
The only Doctor I know Andrew is the one I can never get an appointment with when I want one. To adress your point though, why do we have a watershed in the first place Andrew ? I have two daughters 3 and 4 years old, cant I let them enjoy a few more years of innoncence without having to explain to them what a MotherFucker is or describe to them what a c**t is ? Come on the watershed is there is protect them from that, let them watch TV and play with their dolls, they can learn all about that later. If you were the parent of my children would you really be happy with them using c**t or MotherFucker in their everyday conversations? Let them enjoy being little kids for now and that means protecting them – which is why we have a watershed !
Do you have to explain to your daughters what a “moron” is?
The only reason the words have any power is because you make them all the more attractive to your children by trying to prohibit them.
A ‘ moron’ is that meant to be insulting to me Andrew ? When you have to result to insults it usually means you have lost the argument. Perhaps you would also be happy if my kids being were also able to view explicit sex or physical violence, or maybe drug taking, buggary or animal cruelty, perhaps as a father you would be quite happy for your children to say fuck or c**t to you or your friends but I’m pretty sure you would be in the minority.
Hey are you trying to sabortage my narrative on here, it’s all messed up !
Nope, said nothing of the sort Chris. I merely meant that if you have to explain to your children what every swear word means, do you have to explain the origins of any vaguely insulting term or adjective that ever appears on television, such as “moron”, or, say “idiot”? Or is it just that because your kids hear those words quite a bit they don’t care about the origins or even deeper meanings of them because they’re too young and just take them as words?
If that’s the case (and I suspect that is the case), then why do you assume that the situation would be any different with swear words if it weren’t for your unrealistic attempts to prohibit them?
I agree that using swearwords willy-nilly is offensive – but the offence I take is that they so quickly lose their currency when overused. The occasional ‘Fucking hell! and ‘Oh, shit!’ sound funnier for not being said too often. If they’re said by a vicar, they’re better still. 🙂
I was reading some stuff about Frank Zappa and censorship yesterday and he made a point that’s quite relevant. There are probably more pop songs about love than every other subject combined, so if you think children (and other people) are capable of being influenced by what they listen to then why aren’t we all just loving each other a lot more?
I love you Nick
Seems that most people don’t mind their kids reading swearwords on the internet… Even offical sites such as the BBFC and Ofcom, have such words on their sites, for kids to go and read.. But say it on the radio… and wow…
I admit that swearing on the wireless pre-watershed (does radio have a watershed ?) isn’t a good idea. But this is a special case. The BBC DID NOT do the swearing. People wanted to listen to it live. No point of it being live 8 if the BBC have to delay it to monitor for swearing.. Then there’s the chance that people might miss the swearwords…
In events like this parents should accept there may be some swearing, or not allow their children to watch such things….
Radio doesn’t have a watershed, and has much fewer restrictions on swearing. I’ve heard shit (that’s the word) in at least 3 songs on the radio today. (Money by Pink Floyd, Fast Love by George Michael and a Sheryl Crow song)
I think they only have restrictions on the breakfast shows, and between 3pm and 5pm, ie. when kids are likely to be listening.
Andrew N is right – Advertising / promulgating / normalising things on the tv obviously doesnt work. That’s why no-one advertises there.
???…Hang on a bit…
Never mind – Snoop Dogg’s language has helped no end to relieve African poverty, & we are all in his debt.
Hang on a bit….. where did I mention advertising?
Advertising, and its success, is a demonstration that showing things on tv may reasonably be expected in many instances to have a positive effect on the proliferation of that thing.
There is a big difference between doing something on TV, and using TV to persuade someone to do something.
Good point! But there’s also a big difference between Joe Bloggs (who has no influence) doing something, and Snoop Dogg or Madonna (influential as they are) doing the same thing. A point demonstrated by the advertisers, who are at great pains to get their products endorsed by someone as ‘cool’ as possible.
except that madge hasn’t been cool for a long time.
she’s now an embarrassing middle-aged mum who’s desperate to appear cool. you’ll notice that she’s got hardly any commercial endorsements any more, even gap have dropped her.
And snoop dogg doesn’t appeal to young children, his music, shite as it is, is just not aimed at their lug’oles
Good! That cheers me up