More swearing
Another bit of swearing hit the airwaves on Thursday morning. It came as we on Five Live Breakfast were talking to an Israeli soldier about a protest against his country's leadership over the handling of recent conflict.
"I'm sorry for the word, but they f***ed up and they have to pay the price," said the soldier.
Nicky Campbell apologised - and immediately people contacted us to say that was unnecessary.
"The use of the F word was in my view completely in context," said one listener, Keith.
The broadcasting industry watchdog Ofcom however says caution must be taken over swearing, particularly at Breakfast time. Indeed Radio 1 has threatened to fine presenters if they are caught swearing on air.
So is a soldier swearing something we should say sorry for?
Here's another e-mail:
"re the interview earlier with Israeli officer. Great radio, not at all offended, it's real people in a real situation that man had just walked off a battlefield and was speaking from the heart !!! It's what Five Live is all about !!!
Keep it up - Andy Owens, Liverpool"
Comments
I think the fact that he said "f**ked up" puts across the point more strongly than a few minutes of "civilized" back and forth would have. To suggest that people don't swear in real life is folly, and the media should represent this. On the other hand, if we have people f-ing and blinding left and right then the impact caused by this will become negligible, and all we'll have managed to do will be to desensitise the audience and lower the quality of material.
So no, I don't have a problem with somebody using strong language where it is justified. The trick is not to allow everyone and anyone to swear about anything and everything… "The f-ing NHS this, the f-ing tax man that."
The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s eagerness to apologise and document its potential failings is, as always, very sweet and an invaluable trait in the world's modern media.
The word was appropriate in the mind of the interviewee, and therefore appropriate for the show - whose intent was doubtless to have the soldier speak his mind - however there was nothing offensive about Mr Campbell's apology either.
I was perfectly happy to have the both.
Anyone that uses three exclamation marks in a row shouldn't be trusted
Breaking News!
Soldiers swear!...
Reminds me of a comment my mother in law said about the Film 'Three Kings' She said "It's not a very good film and listen to all the swearing, not very realistic"
She is obviously from the same planet that thinks swearing was inappropriate during that interview.
We really should take a more relaxed approach to swearing. Most people swear to emphasise a point. If you take that away (or apologise for it) you are somehow taking something away from the interview itself.
Andy Owens and Radio 5 too, should take a less parochial view of swearing and coarse language on public broadcasting. Andy Owens is not 'the public' and the public contains many others who are offended. It also includes children and others who do not have the sophistication to understand that "it is in context" and that "It's what Five Live is all about".
In the same direction, I was personally disappointed if not offended during a midday News this week, to hear a female announcer use the coarse description of "up yours". This was not even an "In context" quote. It was just her own inappropriate choice.
Let me finish with a rather different niggle! I can understand ordinary interviewees, often nervous and untrained, littering their replies with 'you know' and 'I mean', but surely your professionally trained Interviewers should do better. Regrettably, most of them don't.
Yours faithfully, Jim Sibbet. A (mostly), happy Five Live listener.
"The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s eagerness to apologise and document its potential failings"
Doesn't exist. If you read the initial post, the possible error was made by the Israeli soldier.
It is not surprising that if the subject being discussed concerns Israel, Palestine or Lebanon then a significant number of people will hold very strong views. Therefore their opinion on the Israeli soldiers use of language will greatly differ... As already pointed out some people felt that his language was entirely appropriate. I however agree with Richard Jackson. I'm not going to get into the politics and personally swearing doesn't bother me. However, we have to understand that the use of the F word can provoke alarm and distress in any circumstance. At breakfast time an apology from the presenter was correct.
There should be a clear distinction between the TV/ radio presenters swearing on air and occasional swearing of the interviewees. The former is absolutely unacceptable, the latter depends on the circumstamces and the contetns of the interview.
In that particular case, the soldier said "I'm sorry" which is enough and shouldn't be extended by additional apologies.
What's the f***'s your problem? Soldier swearing? Next you'll be telling me you saw a bear walking into woods with a roll of toilet paper. Check out the Nation Front site for 22ct obsenity. I read it for the gardening page.
BTW, what's URL?
Well, two points, really. Firstly, wasn't there an email that was more supportive, rather than against? I don't mean the core position of the emailer; clearly he/she (didn't catch gender, it's irrelevant anyhow in context) has no issue with the swearing, but the styling and language of the writing is consistent with the kind that automatically draws disdain from most areas of the internet's population.
Not that there's anything wrong with not being able to put one's point across with grammar and punctuation and all - oh wait. Yes, there is.
Okay, I'll get off the soapbox long enough to make my second point, now.
Usually, I would agree wholeheartedly that there are situations wherein swearing is quite - acceptable. Not good, or okay, but acceptable. I myself swear. Usually at my computer. However, I do not apologize for it beforehand, because if I have the forethought to apologize, I also have the forethought to -not swear-. It is unacceptable to promote the idea that it is socially acceptable to swear - so long as you apologize first - in public.
If he had said it 'from the heart', as one person comments above, then there would have been an apology -afterwards-. As it stands, he knew what he was saying, where he was saying it, and that it was wrong to do so. That's from the -mind-, which makes all the difference.
Where have all the postings gone? I can see one at 15.51 on Tuesday though apparently ten have been submitted. This Editor's Blog confuses me as the number of comments posted seems to bear no relation to that indicated.
On the substantive issue I wish the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ would accept that Radios 4 and 5 aren't childrens networks and allow some strong language when justified without coming over all nervous and apologising to those who will be offended by "bad" language even when it is entirely justified and in context.
Why should you have to apologize because someone else's emotions are such that they don't even freeze noticing The Evil Cyclops Of Embarassing Soundbitesâ„¢ is looking right at them to begin with.
Not like people don't hear much worse used far less judiciously walking down the street.
If people can't handle the language, they can go back to watching the Sound of Music.
Context is all. If it had been used gratuitously, it would have been different. And I hate those weasely newspapers and website writers (as above) who put asterisks in when we all know what the d**n word is anyway. I won't use the word here, anyway, because the moderators might just decide to stick asterisks in it or not use my comment. There you go: censorship.
Talking about use of English - please can the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ learn the difference between 'less' and 'fewer' ?
It is not just people being interviewed, but the presenters themselves who misuse this - it should be 'less tax' and 'fewer taxes' not 'less taxes'. This is just one example of many I hear.
I would be offended if someone apologized for my use of words. First of all, unless you're my parents you cannot apologize for me, I can only do that myself. Further if you have any kind of respect, you won't discredit me with such a false apology. Adults should always speak for themselves. If there are people who expect only political correctness in documentaries and live reports, I feel sorry for them. Maybe they shouldn't watch such dangerous and mind-challenging content then. Reality certainly isn't appropriate for everyone.
It be a sad little race - humans that is!
Reporting of facts it not being questioned here. We do, of course, have a responsibility to children and young people, who may have been listening at breakfast time.
Standards in our society are falling all the time and the fact that swearing is now commonplace is testament to that.
It is up to responsible broadcasters, such as the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳, to prevent our society slipping further and to maintain high standards.
Broadcasters (such as Channel 4) that have low standards in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator will not be respected for long.