Always wanted to know something about the show? This is the place to 'Ask Aled'!
#417045
neebs wrote:So lets not tell any jokes which may offend, but it's fine to fill the news bulletins with stories of sexual infection, condoms etc at a time when young children are listening..... :?


Because it's a public service duty to educate. To stop getting sexual infections use condoms etc.

On The Surgery we also list abstinence as a way of not getting sexually diseases.
#417065
Aled.

isn't it that the bbc trust is trying too make every person happy.

We remember the will young joke and the negitive heat that it brought from it. Mostly from the daily mail. But yet most normal listeners have taken it as a joke and for what it was worth...
Were you offended by the link in anyway??? i suspect not. because you got the joke for what it was worth.
ofcom had what. 150 - 200 complaints in that, and chris and the bbc were reprimanded from ofcom for the incident. i would hazzard a guess that all of the people who complained were not in the QUOTE demographic that you are broadcasting too. they were probably 50 - 60 year old people who DID NOT EVEN LISTEN TOO THE SHOW and are complaining because the daily mail have printed a story too sell too people and they complained because it precieved chris too be homophobic as described in the artical.

we go back too andrew sachs incident and what trinspired, Maybe russle brand went over the top. i don't know. i never heard the link personally so i can't possibly tell. but the way that the sun and mail portraid it is that was the worst thing too happen since 9/11 or something. And i have heard that there were 2 complaints until the papers brought it uip. (again going back too what i said a moment ago) all of a sudden, 200 complaints were recieved by ofcom. Unless you can show us that bbc i player traffic for that show went up significantly, it supports my previous statement that the papers printed the artical, and people who didn't even listen too the show complained to ofcom

If we want too listen to robots on the radio, we would listen too fern cotton. or key 103 or real radio.
The reason we all listen too chris is because he speaks his mind, bends the rules and doesn't give a toss what people think, and that is why there is a love him or hate him thing in the country.

Point we are making is we listen too chris because it is chris, it is intresting radio. and your figures prove it. if we didn't want too listen, we switch off. the people who complain too ofcom don't even listen too the show, and many feel you are not only trying too cater for your audience, but too people who don't listen too the show and will complain wihout listening. quick vote guys, would you complain at something that someone said was offencive before listening too tthe thing yourself???? i wouldn't, but yet we are catering for that very fact.

Nanny state britain rears it's ugly head...
#417074
your argument seems to tie itself in knots.

is the main point that you're acknowledging that the BBC has to be more careful with their content because it's at risk of negative press more than anything else, and this is why the show has to walk on eggshells

or

chris should be able to broadcast in the style he sees fit, regardless of consequences because the proportion of his fans who listen specifically for his style outweighs those who listen for another reason

as they seem to contrast each other in relation to aled, but both appear in your post.
#417077
Aled, can you answer me a technical question please?

On my DAB radio when I listen to radio 1 it says Radio 1 on the screen as it should do but "BBC Vision Trial" keeps flashing up in its place. I know that BBC vision trial was that week this year and last year where you filmed the show but why should that be flashing up on my DAB radio now??
#417082
Aled wrote:So are we saying you're the authority on what's offensive?

No, I'm saying that common sense is. Or should be, but the BBC seems to be happy to abandon it in favour of the reactionary response of "Outraged of Oxford" or whoever. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to apply, but the BBC bosses seem to think it is beyond the wit of man to do so - either that or they don't have confidence in the people they are employing to be able to.

Realistically Al, if (for instance) Chris is to be gagged to the extent that he can no longer make a joke about anything contentious because it might offend "someone", they might as well put Dev on breakfast and forget any attempt to make radio entertaining to anyone but four year olds.
#417128
Aled, are the new newsbeat beds/themes etc going to be launched this weekend? If not, when are they going to be launched?
#417129
newsbeat wrote:Aled, are the new newsbeat beds/themes etc going to be launched this weekend? If not, when are they going to be launched?

Living up to his name...(you are a him, right? I always assume, though sometimes I'm wrong. I thought Devils Duck was a woman at first...)
#417131
Yes, I am a 'him'.
#417137
Aled wrote:
neebs wrote:So lets not tell any jokes which may offend, but it's fine to fill the news bulletins with stories of sexual infection, condoms etc at a time when young children are listening..... :?


Because it's a public service duty to educate. To stop getting sexual infections use condoms etc.

On The Surgery we also list abstinence as a way of not getting sexually diseases.



BAG IT UP B4 YOU SLAP IT UP AYE!!!!! (WESTWOOOOOOOD!!!!)

guys get off his case he is producer not BBC
#417142
John22 wrote:
newsbeat wrote:Aled, are the new newsbeat beds/themes etc going to be launched this weekend? If not, when are they going to be launched?

Living up to his name...(you are a him, right? I always assume, though sometimes I'm wrong. I thought Devils Duck was a woman at first...)



*flashes a bit of leg* I can be whatever you want me to be ;)
#417156
Yudster wrote:
Aled wrote:So are we saying you're the authority on what's offensive?

No, I'm saying that common sense is. Or should be, but the BBC seems to be happy to abandon it in favour of the reactionary response of "Outraged of Oxford" or whoever. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept to apply, but the BBC bosses seem to think it is beyond the wit of man to do so - either that or they don't have confidence in the people they are employing to be able to.

Realistically Al, if (for instance) Chris is to be gagged to the extent that he can no longer make a joke about anything contentious because it might offend "someone", they might as well put Dev on breakfast and forget any attempt to make radio entertaining to anyone but four year olds.


O For **** sake your never happy are you? chris says what he says stop with all the grilling for gods sake
#417157
chrysostom wrote:I AGREE WITH BIGGSPUDS.

sorry it had to be capitals, to make it a little bit more dramatic. aled isn't stupid enough to openly criticise BBC policy on a public forum.

also

* "wrap it up before you slap it up, aii"


I Stand corrected lol
#417162
Certain (most) people on this site hate that word, including me. It even says in the rules/guidelines not to use such words, giving it as an example...
#417171
Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog wrote:
Aled wrote:So are we saying you're the authority on what's offensive?


Didn't you just decide you were in an earlier post? Anyway its missing the point entirely.


Only in that, it is part of my job to gauge where the line is. I don't get it right every time - but I see every complaint that gets made about the show so I'm pretty knowledgeable in what offends our audience.

That's not to say that common sense doesn't play a part in the judgement. If I got a complaint - even if it was a couple of hundred complaints (and therefore possibly a campaign) that speaking derogatory of mouldy apples offended people - We wouldn't be banning the conversation!

But tastes change. The line about what is acceptable moves naturally as society changes. I've witnessed it during the lifetime of our show. Telling people who are genuinely offended by stuff - oh it's PC gone made isn't very fair. Often it's the only thing people throw up as a way of expressing the frustration that something they'd said out of habit all their lives is now considered 'wrong'.

Let me give you one example. I remember working in the daytime office in Radio 1 - so that would have been within the last 9 years - and someone on Jo Whiley's team put their phone on loudspeaker. It was Lenny Henry who left a voice message expressing disappointment in us for playing a song with the 'N' word in it. I remember my reaction was shock, and thinking he was being a bit sensitive and over reacting but the word wasn't used in an angry way. A few of us had a discussion as to whether there was anything in it, and I think the end judgement was the 'N' word was continued to be used in that case.

I'm white. And at that time the word was used. Lenny showed us through complaining that there were black people who were becoming offended and were feeling uncomfortable with that word. I didn't get it.

Fast forward 9 years and the 'N' word is one of the 4 most sinful words for the BBC and you will not hear it on Radio 1 without permission from the highest level.

I'd imagine no one here would disagree with that. Now, it's an extreme to make my point. But it happened. Now imagine the million of grays inbetween the obvious black and white and the many ways that acceptable line sits across what people say and joke about and imagine how fluid that like is.

The BBC is part of the conversation and it reflects society, but a mainstream breakfast show owned by the BBC (i.e. you and everyone else that pays the licence fee) is not the place to challenge where the line is. If someone is honestly offended by something it has to be discussed and taken seriously whether we agree with it or not.
Last edited by Aled on Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 47

Tuesday show is up