• Support tellytalk.net with a contribution of any amount

    Dear Telly Talkers. Every so often we ask for your support in the monthly running costs of the forum. You don't have to contribute... it's totally your choice.

    The forums are advert-free, and we rely on donations to pay for the monthly hosting and backup costs. Your contribution could also go towards forum upgrades to maintain a robust experience and stop down time.

    Donations are not to make a profit, they are purely put towards the forum.

    Every contribution is really appreciated. These are done via the UltimateDallas PayPal account using the donation button.

John Simpson's GMB faux pas

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
12
 
Messages
13,389
Solutions
1
Reaction score
27,206
Awards
29
Member Since
28th September 2008
What a fuss some news outlets seem to be making over his little slip while talking about a terrifying mock execution he endured in Beirut.

Most articles I've seen don't even hint at which word he dropped, other than to use phrases like "very NSFW". What profoundly offensive obscenity could he have uttered that's left the world so shaken? It turned out to be:

What an anti-climax. To me, it's just a silly, terribly British brush off that makes me smile when it's said with panache and crisp enunciation (both of which John has). Even Victoria Wood used it in her act, for God's sake.

Yes, it's not ideal for breakfast telly but it was a news programme discussing an adult subject matter impressionable young children shouldn't be watching anyway. And if that's what he said at the time, that's what he said. What a curious line to draw considering the detail he'd just given.

To me John's word was far less offensive than Kate Garraway's flippant comeback, which made light of the traumatic experience about which he'd been speaking.

But it's not the word itself, nor Richard Madeley's flustered response that interests me most. Rather it's the fact that so many news outlets are apparently self-censoring. Rather than simply factually telling us what was said they wrap what's already a non-story in veiled innuendo that renders it confusing and even more pointless.

Are we now so hypersensitive that a mild expletive midstream on a news programme fills up a whole bunch of news streams too panicked to even mention the word around which the article centres,

Is this kind of prissy censorship appropriate for journalism, I wonder? Do news outlets need to protect us from simple facts if they're not pretty enough? And is that word so very offensive after all? I am genuinely curious to know how others feel about this.

In the meantime I daren't put it in writing. But, as Victoria sang in relation to the word being banned (how prescient), it's "a term I'm rather fond of, and to use it I do hanker. It's not heard in Casablanca..."
 

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
16
 
Messages
13,754
Reaction score
25,463
Awards
42
Member Since
1999
I was watching Good Morning Britain this morning I couldn't help thinking John Simpson is a clever man and he knew exactly what he was doing.

The story he was telling related to his real life experience on which a character in his novel is based. So the question put to him by Kate Garraway was one that he must have expected and it was a story he must have told many times. He's a seasoned broadcaster and knows exactly what he can and can't say on TV. I think he planned it all. He would have had 5 minutes on breakfast TV to promote his book but because he said w*****r he now has had extensive coverage in the mainstream media and on social media which has gone on for hours. That's publicity for his book that would otherwise have cost thousands of pounds.

As far as Mr Simpson is concerned, it was mission accomplished.
 

Mel O'Drama

Admin
LV
12
 
Messages
13,389
Solutions
1
Reaction score
27,206
Awards
29
Member Since
28th September 2008
Maybe that would take the clickbait out of it?

Yes, I suppose so. It just seems so wrong for a news site to bait someone to click and then not deliver any information or payoff once they do. The cheek.


He would have had 5 minutes on breakfast TV to promote his book but because he said w*****r he now has had extensive coverage in the mainstream media and on social media which has gone on for hours. That's publicity for his book that would otherwise have cost thousands of pounds.

Oh - good point. Then he would have effectively been using the current puritanical culture against itself for his own gain. I like it.
 

Sarah

Super Moderator
Staff Member
LV
5
 
Messages
8,990
Reaction score
11,981
Awards
14
Location
Ireland (North)
Member Since
1998
Favourite Movie
Silence of the Lambs
Oh for God's sake. :re: And I agree about Kate. I take issue with a lot of the things she says on this programme and this is just the icing on the cake.
 
Top