Clarkson, The End?

[EndlessMoneyPit]

Cancel Culture is the new McCarthyism imo. What they have in common is fanatical belief in a principle that's taken to extremes.

They don't want to debate or agree to disagree with opponents, they want to publicly destroy them and their livelihoods.

Extremism is always a turn-off, no matter how worthy the cause.

 

[Teego]

So why did that article get published?
Only because the editorial team let it through. Any other paper would have squashed it before publication. Just follow the money folks.

 

[markjay]

Cancel Culture is the new McCarthyism imo. What they have in common is fanatical belief in a principle that's taken to extremes.

They don't want to debate or agree to disagree with opponents, they want to publicly destroy them and their livelihoods.

Extremism is always a turn-off, no matter how worthy the cause.

Agreed, however there are two levels here.

If you have a media channel and a contributor says or writes something you consider improper or just inappropriate for your platform, you cancel their contract, and that's fine.

But to then go forward and say that this person should not be heard on any media channel anywhere in the world, and at the same also go backwards and erase all of this person's past contributions from the pages of history, is to my mind a gross overreaction.

(This is a general comment, not aimed specifically at the recent Jeremy Clarkson incident)

 

[ChrisHGTV]

Agreed, however there are two levels here.

If you have a media channel and a contributor says or writes something you consider improper or just inappropriate for your platform, you cancel their contract, and that's fine.

But to then go forward and say that this person should not be heard on any media channel anywhere in the world, and at the same also go backwards and erase all of this person's past contributions from the pages of history, is to my mind a gross overreaction.

(This is a general comment, not aimed specifically at the recent Jeremy Clarkson incident)

I also think there needs to be a better appreciation of the nature of the content. Going back to Mr Clarkson i don't read anything he writes as pure fact or his absolute feelings on a matter, it is more fiction/entertainment - art even. But the line is not always clear and i think this is the risk he takes with his subject matter, approach and style of content and why it can be contentious. Not considering them of the same journalistic calibre but i think there can be similarities drawn with say Hunter S Thompson. He wrote about factual things, but with his particular slant and embellishments. I would consider Thompsons work as a mix of fact based journalism and a form of art. When we put such content in the box that says "Fact" rather than "Art" i think we get onto shaky ground with condemning it. I would truly love to know what Hunter Thompson would think of all this.

 

[st13phil]

As someone on t'interweb observed:

And so, a TV show which did more to introduce Britons to the earthy reality of farming than the BBC ever did, is going the way of the horse-drawn plough.

And all because Jeremy Clarkson, he of the eponymous farm, told a joke.

Predictably disproportionate.

 

[Dryce]

I also think there needs to be a better appreciation of the nature of the content. Going back to Mr Clarkson i don't read anything he writes as pure fact or his absolute feelings on a matter, it is more fiction/entertainment - art even. But the line is not always clear and i think this is the risk he takes with his subject matter, approach and style of content and why it can be contentious.

Indeed.

Mr Clarkson basically presents a persona or character in his writing and in his TV shows.

With Top Gear he and May are skilled motoring journalists who ham up some aspects of their presentation but can actually convey actual information within their format using very few words. And that gets missed by many of the detractors and eve some of the enthusiasts.

I think it's also missed that Mr Clarkson has managed to make impact with documentaries such as the one on Brunel for the millenium or convoy PQ17 or Operation Chariot.

Clarkson's farm was hammed up like Top Gear but also used the same techniques to actually convey some real information about farming to a a wider audience.

The trouble is that person/character bit becomes a totem to a range of people (not just so called 'lefties') who miss any substance or tangible information. They just see a loud obnoxious clown and nothing else. And where this overlaps with politics then the attitudes from some towards him from some are more like bigotry.

 

[Bellow]

It wasn't art and it wasn't humour. It was an unprovoked outpouring of hatred aimed at a named individual.
Decide for yourselves how appropriate or inappropriate it was but realise your decision influences society as a whole.

 

[ALFAitalia]

If that was true...I don't think it is.....but is someone not allowed to hate someone else in the snowflake land we live in.....?

 

[Dryce]

It wasn't art and it wasn't humour. It was an unprovoked outpouring of hatred aimed at a named individual.
Decide for yourselves how appropriate or inappropriate it was but realise your decision influences society as a whole.

It was an opinion.

Hardly an outpouring. And I don't recall it being an incitement either.

I described it as 'unpleasant'. I think it was a mistake. But we seem to have reached a situation where if somebody says something it can't be apologised for or put in perspective- we all apparently need to be absolutist and set about cancelling people on a single word, phrase, or sentence.

Maybe he should have used the term 'detest'.

At least he didn't ask where anybody was from.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

It was an opinion.

Hardly an outpouring. And I don't recall it being an incitement either.

I described it as 'unpleasant'. I think it was a mistake. But we seem to have reached a situation where if somebody says something it can't be apologised for or put in perspective- we all apparently need to be absolutist and set about cancelling people on a single word, phrase, or sentence.

Maybe he should have used the term 'detest'.

At least he didn't ask where anybody was from.

Unfortunately this is the latest in a long line of incidents. Whether he believes this stuff - or whether he’s playing a character - he oversteps the line too often which means that it’s deliberate or he simply doesn’t care.

Either scenario isn’t really acceptable - it might be acceptable to some, especially those with common beliefs, but it isn’t acceptable to society as a whole - or else it wouldn’t cause a reaction and everyone would be doing it.

I’ve read in this thread that he simply says what everyone else is thinking and wants to say. The key here though is that everyone else isn’t saying those things and if they are then not with global reach. That suggests that it’s not acceptable.

For balance, I doubt he meant ill feeing in this or any other time he’s caused upset, but he meant to say it, you don't say those things by accident unless in a moment of despair - writing columns and filming shows are not moments of despair.

He often gets away with it - because it’s expected - and he sometimes doesn’t - because he goes too far. His success has largely benefitted from it, but it’s time to leave that character behind now, and evolve with the times.

 

[Bellow]

''Clarkson declared that he despised the Duchess of Sussex “on a cellular level” and dreamed of a day she would be forced to “parade naked” through the streets while people threw feces at her.''

That isn't an outpouring of hate?
For those quick with the snowflake comments, I'm not 'cancelling' Clarkson but calling him out on those specific remarks.

 

[EndlessMoneyPit]

If that was true...I don't think it is.....but is someone not allowed to hate someone else in the snowflake land we live in.....?

Of course you're allowed. As long as it's Clarkson or Boris or someone similar. Miriam Margolies said she hoped Boris would die when he caught Covid. Just a harmless jocular comment...?

I read an article yesterday about Clarkson's previous comments about Ms Markle. The exact opposite of what he wrote recently. In fact he was saying online trolls criticising Ms Markle should be publicly shamed in much the same fashion as described in his recent column.*

I must admit I was surprised that The Sun published it. He's a caricature and this time he's gone a bit too far for some people.

*The article was in The Mirror on 18th January. The pop ups on their site make my iPad so slow I couldn't post a link.

 

[Bellow]

Where was the opposition to 'cancelling' when Dieselman got 'cancelled' from this forum?

 

[EndlessMoneyPit]

Of course you're allowed. As long as it's Clarkson or Boris or someone similar. Miriam Margolies said she hoped Boris would die when he caught Covid. Just a harmless jocular comment...?

I read an article yesterday about Clarkson's previous comments about Ms Markle. The exact opposite of what he wrote recently. In fact he was saying online trolls criticising Ms Markle should be publicly shamed in much the same fashion as described in his recent column.*

I must admit I was surprised that The Sun published it. He's a caricature and this time he's gone a bit too far for some people.

*The article was in The Mirror on 18th January. The pop ups on their site make my iPad so slow I couldn't post a link.

Sorry, too late for me to edit this. I mis-remembered the article, doh. This is part of it:

"Writing in a Sun column in December 2018, Clarkson said Meghan had been "a breath of fresh air for the royals" and slammed her "ridiculous father".

He mocked those who had decided she was "the wicked witch", and even used the very line that has got him in trouble all these years later.

Clarkson wrote: "At this rate, it won't be long before she is stripped and forced to walk naked through the streets of York while people with skin diseases chant 'Shame!' and throw excrement at..."

Full article:

Clarkson eats his own words as awful past Meghan Markle comments emerge

Jeremy Clarkson previously said trolls who hated Meghan Markle were 'ridiculous, cruel and heartless' - and bizarrely made the same vile 'stripped and forced to walk naked' remark

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Bellow]

He mocked those who had decided she was "the wicked witch",

This forum's membership to a large extent then.

 

[Dryce]

This forum's membership to a large extent then.

When I see this sort of statement I tend to think that the commentator is falling into the trap characterising and stereotyping others based on their own selective view of those others.

Then after thinking that - I worry that I may be falling into the trap of characterising and stereotyping the commentator based upon my own selective view of their comments.

 

[ChipChop]

Wonder when Harry is going to make a public apology to Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News UK, whom he describes in his book Spare as a “loathsome toad” and “an infected pustule on the **** of humanity, plus a shit excuse for a journalist." Or is that just free speech?

 

[ajshughes]

I hope its not the end - I think he's hilarious.
Granted, looked at in isolation, his words seem fairly brutal - but that is his modus operandi, he skirts close to border all the time. If he didn't, he wouldn't be so funny.
Must be so difficult to be a comedian these days - the world seems so sensitive to everything. There's perceived offence around every corner.

 

[Teego]

In the olden days the Daily Express would publish letters from "Disgusted of Tonbridge Wells" complaining about some modern atrocities which offended them.
I may not agree with you but I would lay down my life to defend my right to offend you.

 

[neilrr]

I just wish Harry would STFU & disappear for a while. Maybe his dad should have a word.