I don't normally comment on current affairs, but here goes ....
Last weekend, two television football commentators learned that the fully qualified assistant linesman for the match they were covering was female and joked (off air but not off camera) "Someone had better go an explain the offside rule to her". In the furore that followed one was sacked, the other resigned and, unfortunately, the linesman has since been withdrawn from two matches because of the excessive media interest in her.
The public debate has, of course, ranged from one extreme to the other. Some are saying that the punishment should have been faster and deeper - the television company should also take responsibility for the actions of its employees - while others have said that it was just banter and people should not live in fear of expressing what they think.
In my view the question is less about bias of any kind than that of professionalism. Yes, people will always make comments that denigrate one area of society or another; this is a fact of life. I do it myself, for example when call centre staff in India tell me to call back in four hours when it's currently 20:45 and I have work in the morning, but those thoughts are based more on their lack of understanding of the community they are employed to serve rather (i.e. time zones) than their race, but could be interpreted as racist by others.
However, comments should be viewed in the context of both the position held by their maker and the content of the comment. A football fan in the stands can make a comment about a linesman's gender and, however tasteless, it's not in my (female) mind a serious issue. If, someone who is employed by a major broadcaster by virtue of their experience of the world of football and is viewed by the public as an expert in the field makes a comment that "striking underground workers are overpaid idiots" then neither is that a serious issue as that is not an area in which they hold any particular expertise. BUT, if that same football professional makes the same comments as the fan in the stands, then they are guilty of gross unprofessionalism and deserve whatever they get. Well, not quite everything*.
Additionally, if someone who is paid handsomely to stand in front of a camera and talk about football makes sexist/racist/whatever comments about someone involved in the match while in front of a rolling camera and holding a microphone, the argument "It wasn't on air" shouldn't even be considered; it is precisely their job to be conscious of what they say in front of the camera whether or not it's currently being broadcast. Let's face it, no-one discounted Gordon Brown's comment about the "bigoted woman" Gillian Duffy when he forgot his microphone was on.
It's the same argument that an office worker found guilty of shoplifting £100 of mobile 'phone should not expect to lose their job, while a nurse found guilty of shoplifting £5 of food can be sacked; the nurse (and I found myself hesitating over writing "she") is employed in a position of care for vulnerable people and her (ok, I said it) trustworthiness must be beyond doubt. Yes, this is a case I had many years ago when I was adjudicating claims to unemployment benefit.
Foremost among the supporters of the commentators were the three presenters of "Top Gear", who said that if tv presenters are held accountable for banter they would all be sacked a hundred times over. I disagree, for a very specific reason; the nature of the programme they present requires a certain arrogance, laddishness and idiocy so their required standard of professionalism encompasses a certain level of sexism, racism (well, anti-German at least) and remarks about murderous lorry drivers. However, I would be shocked if the presenters of Fifth Gear said the same as they are serious motoring journalists.
**********************************************************
* I said that the sacked/resigned commentators did not deserve quite all that they got. I understand that they are now negotiating contracts with an Arabic television channel, Al Jazeera. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on whether their sexist banter qualifies them for these jobs, but I will feel very affronted if they end up being paid more as a result of their unprofessionalism.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Looking a gift horse in the mouth
On Wednesday evening of this week I went to the recording of a tv game show. Not only was the ticket free, but I was promised payment of £20 for my "participation".
To explain, although the show was recorded in England, it was for Saudi tv and was recorded in Arabic. As it was unlikely that the producers would be able to find enough Arabic speakers to make up the audience for the full series (recorded over two weeks) they were prepared to pay "expenses" to non-Arabic speakers who, in return, would cheer and clap vigorously in the appropriate places. As the show consisted of contestants taking on various physical challenges (throwing, catching, clearing obstacles while blindfolded, etc.), the language wasn't really an issue.
So, in essence, I had an evening's entertainment and £20 and they had my support for the participants. It seems like a win/win situation.
Except .....
The ticket stated that doors would open at 17:45 and close at 18:15, so it was reasonable to expect that recording would start at around 18:30. At this stage, I didn't know how long recording would take, but 2.5 to 3 hours seemed a reasonable assumption, letting me out around 21.30.
In fact, while in the queue for the studio (at a time when I could still choose to walk away), I was handed a release form to complete, which said that recording would run from 18:30 to 21:30. Even with a slight over-run, I would be out well before 22.00.
The ending time was important to me for one simple reason: the recording took place in north London and I live on the southernmost edge, so I knew my journey home by public transport would take around two hours.
I enjoyed the recording. The first contestant (Khalid) lost everything he had one so went home empty handed, the second (Suleiman) won a reasonable sum, and the third .....
The third contestant (Braziz) did really well. He went through the games really fast - much faster, in fact, than the props crew who had to set each game up. And the setting up was taking some time.
When it came to his sixth challenge, playing for 125,000 Riyals (£21,000/US$33,300), it took around half an hour for the crew to set the game up. It was now after 21:30, so I assumed he would play this game (he still had four lives left) and that would be it for the night.
He completed the challenge on his first attempt. Yes, after 30 minutes set-up, he took three minutes to succeed.
It was now after 21.40 - after the stated ending time, so it would be reasonable to stop filming then and pick up the following night.
Wrong. The crew came on to set up another challenge.
While the set-up was under way (i.e. recording was not in progress) I went to ask one of the ushers if he knew what time they were now likely to end. His reply was "Get back in your seat!". I explained I had a long journey home. "GET BACK IN YOUR SEAT!"
By 22.00 the challenge was set up. However, I clearly wasn't the only one worrying about leaving as there were announcements telling the audience to remain in their seats and, when I looked, the ushers were now blocking the exits.
Of course, as the contestant was now playing for the top cash prize of 250,000 Riyals (£42,000), the presenter decided he needed a long chat with him before he played.....
Ten minutes later, young Braziz got to play the game. He still had a "trial run" to use (i.e. he could attempt the game once without committing to play it and losing all his winnings if he failed) so this seemed a good time to use it.
The trial run took a matter of seconds - and was not successful. The contestant, very sensibly, decided to leave with the money he had already won. So then they had to record an exit chat between the contestant and presenter.
It was after the contestant had left with a wave and a big smile that the presenter looked at his watch at commented "10:14 - how?"
But he still wasn't finished. Another announcement to the audience to stay in their seats, and they recorded the ending of the show.
And then they recorded an alternative ending.
And, just for good measure, a second alternative ending.
We were finally allowed to leave at around 22.20, 50 minutes later than we had been notified. And 20 minutes later than the time which, had I been told it was going to end, I would have decided not to attend the recording.
Except that we still had to queue up to hand in the release forms and get payment - and since there was only one way out, you couldn't decide to forego the £20 and make a run for it.
I got across London to Charing Cross pretty quickly, but not quickly enough to catch the 22.47 train (which was the last one I was happy about catching, and could have caught had I been allowed to leave the recording at 22.00).
I got back to my local station at 23:57. As I approached the top of the station approach, I saw the last bus of the night go past me. And, as far as I could recall, the car hire office just by the station was in darkness. I walked home.
Four days later, I'm still very unhappy. Not that the recording went on longer than advised - that happens in tv - but that, well after the "contracted" time, I and other members of the audience were refused to be allowed to leave the studio. To my way of thinking, that constitutes illegal detention.
I've emailed the production company. I expect to be told "You were getting paid, so why are you complaining?".
To explain, although the show was recorded in England, it was for Saudi tv and was recorded in Arabic. As it was unlikely that the producers would be able to find enough Arabic speakers to make up the audience for the full series (recorded over two weeks) they were prepared to pay "expenses" to non-Arabic speakers who, in return, would cheer and clap vigorously in the appropriate places. As the show consisted of contestants taking on various physical challenges (throwing, catching, clearing obstacles while blindfolded, etc.), the language wasn't really an issue.
So, in essence, I had an evening's entertainment and £20 and they had my support for the participants. It seems like a win/win situation.
Except .....
The ticket stated that doors would open at 17:45 and close at 18:15, so it was reasonable to expect that recording would start at around 18:30. At this stage, I didn't know how long recording would take, but 2.5 to 3 hours seemed a reasonable assumption, letting me out around 21.30.
In fact, while in the queue for the studio (at a time when I could still choose to walk away), I was handed a release form to complete, which said that recording would run from 18:30 to 21:30. Even with a slight over-run, I would be out well before 22.00.
The ending time was important to me for one simple reason: the recording took place in north London and I live on the southernmost edge, so I knew my journey home by public transport would take around two hours.
I enjoyed the recording. The first contestant (Khalid) lost everything he had one so went home empty handed, the second (Suleiman) won a reasonable sum, and the third .....
The third contestant (Braziz) did really well. He went through the games really fast - much faster, in fact, than the props crew who had to set each game up. And the setting up was taking some time.
When it came to his sixth challenge, playing for 125,000 Riyals (£21,000/US$33,300), it took around half an hour for the crew to set the game up. It was now after 21:30, so I assumed he would play this game (he still had four lives left) and that would be it for the night.
He completed the challenge on his first attempt. Yes, after 30 minutes set-up, he took three minutes to succeed.
It was now after 21.40 - after the stated ending time, so it would be reasonable to stop filming then and pick up the following night.
Wrong. The crew came on to set up another challenge.
While the set-up was under way (i.e. recording was not in progress) I went to ask one of the ushers if he knew what time they were now likely to end. His reply was "Get back in your seat!". I explained I had a long journey home. "GET BACK IN YOUR SEAT!"
By 22.00 the challenge was set up. However, I clearly wasn't the only one worrying about leaving as there were announcements telling the audience to remain in their seats and, when I looked, the ushers were now blocking the exits.
Of course, as the contestant was now playing for the top cash prize of 250,000 Riyals (£42,000), the presenter decided he needed a long chat with him before he played.....
Ten minutes later, young Braziz got to play the game. He still had a "trial run" to use (i.e. he could attempt the game once without committing to play it and losing all his winnings if he failed) so this seemed a good time to use it.
The trial run took a matter of seconds - and was not successful. The contestant, very sensibly, decided to leave with the money he had already won. So then they had to record an exit chat between the contestant and presenter.
It was after the contestant had left with a wave and a big smile that the presenter looked at his watch at commented "10:14 - how?"
But he still wasn't finished. Another announcement to the audience to stay in their seats, and they recorded the ending of the show.
And then they recorded an alternative ending.
And, just for good measure, a second alternative ending.
We were finally allowed to leave at around 22.20, 50 minutes later than we had been notified. And 20 minutes later than the time which, had I been told it was going to end, I would have decided not to attend the recording.
Except that we still had to queue up to hand in the release forms and get payment - and since there was only one way out, you couldn't decide to forego the £20 and make a run for it.
I got across London to Charing Cross pretty quickly, but not quickly enough to catch the 22.47 train (which was the last one I was happy about catching, and could have caught had I been allowed to leave the recording at 22.00).
I got back to my local station at 23:57. As I approached the top of the station approach, I saw the last bus of the night go past me. And, as far as I could recall, the car hire office just by the station was in darkness. I walked home.
Four days later, I'm still very unhappy. Not that the recording went on longer than advised - that happens in tv - but that, well after the "contracted" time, I and other members of the audience were refused to be allowed to leave the studio. To my way of thinking, that constitutes illegal detention.
I've emailed the production company. I expect to be told "You were getting paid, so why are you complaining?".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)