I've been keeping quiet these last couple of weeks. There are a number of reasons for this that I won't go into in any detail here - suffice it to say that occasionally, I am wont to become a little more isolated and introverted, and to merely observe the passage of the world around me. But now, having watched the drama that has unfolded around surely the most high-profile case of gross misconduct in the workplace in the UK EVER, I feel moved to comment.
Yes, I'm talking about Jeremy Clarkson. I'd rather not be. Days after he decided that punching his producer was the correct response to being offered cold meats instead of steak and chips, the greatest genre author this country has ever produced, and one of my all time favourite human beings, Sir Terry Pratchett, passed away, and I am still reaching for the words that would describe adequately the massive void his passing left in the universe. But that's for another time and another blog. Today, I am going to talk about Jeremy.
If you are expecting any kind of extreme point of view here, I'd suggest that you stop reading now. I am here neither to decry the man as Beelzebub, nor defend him as a Really Great and Misunderstood Bloke. I'm here in fact, to deconstruct a lot of what I have seen said about the man, and attempt to pull the needle of truth from the haystack of hysteria.
Let's run through a few basics first - Clarkson (as far as I can see) was not 'sacked'. He wasn't 'fired'. He didn't 'lose his job'. Clarkson was on a contract, the same way as every other 'major star' at the BBC, and just like the rest of them, his contract had an expiry date. As it happened, that date was around about now, which would have meant I imagine that negotiations about the renewal of said contract were well underway by the time he mistook his producer's face for a punching bag. The decision of the enquiry, as reported by EVERY MEDIA OUTLET, was that his contract would not be renewed. This isn't being sacked. It wouldn't show on a CV as a sacking, and in fact if it wasn't for the fact that Mr Clarkson was so famous, it is unlikely that the facts of what had happened would ever have emerged. The distinction may seem trite, but to me it is very important, especially when you consider it with the language used by Lord Hall in the statement announcing the decision, which expressed that he had 'not taken the decision lightly' and that it should 'in no way detract from the extraordinary contribution that Jeremy Clarkson has made to the BBC (I'll assume he's talking monetary there but we will get to that). This wasn't the language of a man sacking an employee who had finally pushed their luck too far - this was the weasel words of a man who had picked the absolute least resistant path and was still apologising for it just in case anyone wasn't happy - which is sort of a metaphor for the way that the whole of the BBC is run these days when you think about it. I mean, talking about Clarkson's 'sacking', Lord Hall said:
"For me a line has been crossed. There cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another dictated by either rank, or public relations and commercial considerations"
Yet think back to 2008 when Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand made 'that' phone call to Andrew Sachs about his granddaughter and the BBC Trust described the incident as:
"a deplorable intrusion with no editorial justification"
Interestingly, despite many calls for it to happen, Ross was never sacked either, despite the much stronger language used by the trust to describe the incident. Brand resigned, and Ross carried on, eventually reaching the end of his contract and electing not to renew it.
So Clarkson wasn't sacked. Now, to go on from that point, this wasn't Clarkson 'reaching his last warning'. It is interesting to me that he himself made such a particular point of telling the press after his last 'incident' (apparently muttering a racially inflammatory word in a nursery rhyme, dug up from an outtake never meant for broadcast) that he was 'on his very last warning' and that 'one more incident' would see him gone. I can't imagine that he was telling people this out of a sense of shame, or because he in any way cared what was thought of him - indeed his whole career has been about constructing a persona which is very much about NOT caring what anyone thinks of him - so I can only see it as a deliberate move. As someone who still watched Top Gear (with an increasing amount of unease as time went on) it seemed to me for at least the last two years that we were no longer watching an overgrown child boorishly having fun with his mates on camera, but rather a tired old man who just wanted it to be over. I couldn't help but feel, as he gurned for the camera each week, trotting out one of his 'Jezza-isms' about the Greens/Liberals/Women/the BBC/etc. that he was just swinging wildly about, trying to find something he could say for the sake of it that would make the BBC cry enough and get rid of him. I have no idea why this might have been the case, but increasingly that was the impression I got.
Regardless, the 'straw that broke the camel's back' narrative that the media saw fit to run (and run) with was misleading in my opinion. This wasn't another example of Jeremy bringing the corporation into disrepute by expressing one of his 'hilarious' opinions about women/climate change/foreigners/homosexuals/etc. This was him punching a man in the face. Screaming at said man that he would be fired. In public. Over not getting the hot food he had asked for. This is what would be described in any workplace environment as gross misconduct. When one is found guilty of gross misconduct (as he undoubtedly was, seeing as how all parties agree that he did in fact lamp the poor producer) then unless there are extreme mitigating circumstances (which would therefore downgrade it from gross misconduct) then that person will be fired, regardless of whether they have a previous record of being an absolutely model employee or whether they are Sweary McLoonyRacist and have been spouting nonsense and getting verbal and written warnings for years. That's just the way that it is. The fact that he wasn't even sacked, merely 'didn't have his contract renewed' speaks to the lie in Lord Hall's statement that nobody is above the rules, regardless of position or popularity. Example - imagine that said producer had punched Jeremy or Richard Hammond or James May in the face, then make a rough estimate of how long he would have been employed afterwards, and whether there would have been the same dance around words and phrases such as 'contract will not be renewed' being used. Yeah, I imagine that you reached the same conclusion that I did.
If it sounds as if I am gunning for the man as much as most newspaper columnists have been lately, it's time for the balance. Jeremy Clarkson is not the devil.
Yes - he is a man who has made a living out of 'being offensive'. Now, I tend to take the Ricky Gervais approach to offence, which states that you can only take offence, you can't give it. This rather glib turn of phrase actually makes an important point - when you think about it, ALL humour involves laughing at someone, and mostly it involves laughing at misfortune, whether self-inflicted or otherwise. We laugh at Christians and 'chavs' and Americans and that's ok, but should we laugh at fat people, or women, or Mexicans then it all gets a mite more complicated. There is an argument (and a persuasive one at that) which suggests that the reason for these distinctions, which may seem so arbitrary on the surface, relates to the relative empowerment of any given group - Americans and the Church are quite big and ugly enough to look after themselves thank you very much, whereas women and the obese are already disadvantaged in society and therefore require defence from such mockery, which serves only to undermine them further. It's a good point, and it makes logical sense. Where it tends to fall down on closer examination is that we are attempting to objectively quantify a subjective experience - i.e. the theoretical upset/embarrassment/humiliation that the target of the humour feels. We are then weighing this against their relative empowerment and establishing an arbitrary scale of measurement which tells us some arcane magical formula allowing one to be ok and the other not. This feels a little nonsensical to me - if we can ask some people to 'have a sense of humour' then why not all? If we must strive to 'protect' some people/institutions from being mocked, are we not, in some odd way, actually contributing to the view of them as 'lesser'?
I digress. Clarkson says stupid things. He says them (I suspect) because they cause a fuss, which leads to publicity, which leads to higher ratings/sales figures. But often I think those things are blown out of proportion. When he made a joke about truckers murdering prostitutes, it was tasteless and crass. When he and his co-presenters 'hilariously' described a Mexican car as probably sharing the national characteristics of being 'lazy' and 'feckless' and 'flatulent' they were being arses. But watch any Frankie Boyle DVD and count how many instances there are of jokes about AIDS. Cancer, Kerry Katona being sexually promiscuous, Scottish people being fat and alcoholic and useless. Boyle is controversial, sure, but I don't think the same narrative of 'evil' has been put forward about him. Of course, the counter is that Clarkson is more popular and as a result has more influence, particularly amongst young men (the default target demographic of Top Gear the last ten years) and there is again a valid point there to a certain extent. But again, are we really attempting to quantify offence here? If a man makes a sexist joke to his friends, is he really being less objectively offensive than a comedian who makes the same joke to a whole audience? It's the same joke, just told to more people. Is that the basis of judgement here? The reach of what is said? Because to me that rather seems to be missing the point.
He's also sometimes quoted out of context. Remember the infamous 'all teachers should be shot' remarks that saw him vilified? Well when you took the whole interview, and not just that one soundbite, then the comments took on an entirely different shade. Perhaps not as funny to some as others, but far from the malicious evil that was implied in the press. For those who missed it, it went something like this:
Interviewer: What do you think of the teachers strike Jeremy?
JC: I think it's brilliant! I drove through London this morning and the roads were totally clear. However, as this is the BBC, in the interests of balance I also think that they should all be rounded up and shot obviously.
Hardly swiftian wit, sure. But also not what he had been accused of. There was the infamous nursery rhyme thing as well, wherein if you listened really closely to the outtake that was never intended for broadcast, he might have muttered the 'n word' as part of a nursery rhyme (because those were the actual words). Now, I have seen many people say that the fact the clip wasn't meant for broadcast is irrelevant, because it showcases the fact that he is a racist. Perhaps it does (I doubt it personally but there you go) but if it does, it indicates only that he might *think* racist thoughts, and once we go down the road of regulating what people are allowed to think then that is a whole different kettle of fish. Regulating what people say is fraught enough with danger, but if we are to vilify a man and call for him to be sacked on the basis of what he *thinks* regardless of what he actually says and does, then we are all already living in Orwell's 1984.
And then there was the Falklands incident, wherein the whole programme was accused of deliberately taking a car to Argentina with a number plate that may or may not have referred to the Falklands war (because it read H982 FKL). Now, leaving aside that this may either have been a giant coincidence or another 'hilarious' Top Gear jape, let's look at the reaction, caught on camera. An entire film crew chased for miles by a convoy of people, most of whom were not even alive when the conflict in question took place, throwing rocks at vans, threatening the lives and safety of complete strangers. On the basis of some letters on a number plate that one might vaguely link to a war that happened over 30 years ago. Clarkson and his production team may be a bunch of cretins, but I personally don't see the issue here at all. But let's put it down on the litany of bad stuff that Jezza did because it fits a narrative eh?
For my money, there is ample evidence to suggest that the entire production team, film crew, editors and everyone else associated with Top Gear has been deliberately courting controversy for years. They were all sensible enough to not risk broadcasting a bit of footage in which Clarkson might have mumbled an unintelligible sound which still sounded vaguely similar to a racially inflammatory word that rhymes with 'digger', yet they didn't think that him pointing to an Asian man on a bridge and declaring 'There's a slope on that bridge' might be a little bit off? Or that the whole team spouting off about 'lazy feckless flatulent Mexicans' might get them in hot water? Or Clarkson's comments on truckers and prostitutes, or homosexuals, or women might be a little much? Of course they did. They knew well enough that they were putting out 'edgy' content, and they counted on it causing a fuss and therefore providing more attention to their brand and their star, and when it went too far, well, they could all point to Jezza, who was just a big oaf who didn't know any better.
May and Hammond are no better - look at the way each has reacted in recent weeks. May - long sold as 'the sensible one' of the trio, said that 'what ought to have been a small incident easily sorted turned into something big'. Yes, because when one man punches another in the face for not having their hot dinner ready as per their demands, we should all just shrug shoulders and move on eh? And Hammond had this to say on twitter: "Gutted at such a sad end to an era. We're all three of us idiots in our different ways but it's been an incredible ride together." Not 'I'm really gutted that some poor crew member got decked by my mate for no good reason', not 'I wish that Jeremy had behaved a little better', just 'Boo hoo, I don't get to hand around with my mate doing stupid stuff for money anymore.'
For what it's worth, I sympathise fully with Oisin Tymon for being punched in the face, and even more for the raft of abuse and death threats he's had thrown around about him for 'ruining Top Gear', but as he himself says, he has worked on the show for ten years and always enjoyed a positive working relationship with Jeremy. So for ten years he has been part of a whole show which has belittled various ethnic minorities, mocked homosexuals, women, foreigners, liberals, green campaigners and basically anyone who isn't a 'lad' who wants to drink beer and drive fast cars. He's been an integral part of a culture that has allowed a (non live) show to continue to be broadcast with various stupid, insensitive and crass remarks being made and, let's not forget, he wasn't even the one who reported Jeremy for punching him.
That last point is interesting. Clarkson's defenders cite this as a prime example of the man's robust integrity - that he effectively felt guilty enough about the incident to own up and take his punishment. His detractors similarly hold this up as an example of his self-serving nature, of playing the victim and attempting to look the bigger man. I think both are wrong. The timing of this incident is suspicious - does anyone *really* believe that Jeremy just happened to lose his rag and punch a man within a couple of weeks of the end of his contract? When he himself had repeatedly told the media in the last six months that he was on his absolute final no other chances warning with his employers? When he has been quite obviously deliberately saying whatever crass and pointless thing that he can on each and every show for two years now? No. I think that this was simply his ticket out. He'd slung around comments about 'slopes' and prostitute murder and lazy feckless foreigners and god knows what else for years on what was supposed to be a light entertainment show, and he'd never got so much as a suspension, or a docking of pay. All he got was an increasingly ridiculous series of toothless 'warnings' from Auntie to be on his best behaviour in future. In some instances, they had even defended his stupidity, only relenting to criticise him (and even then mildly) when they literally couldn't get away with not doing so.
Even now, after he has literally physically assaulted a colleague, they can't actually bring themselves to sack him and openly criticise him - hell, Alan Yentob, creative controller at the BBC was on record within hours of the announcement saying that this wasn't in any way closing the door on Clarkson returning to the BBC in future. Add that to today's news that the 'Top Gear Live' shows that were booked to be done this year will now continue, re-branded as 'Clarkson, Hammond and May Live' and part funded by the BBC, and this looks less like a 'sacking' and more like a mutually beneficial arrangement all round. I'm sure that Clarkson will be fending off offers of employment, and that he will take the other two with him to keep riding the gravy train, and I'm sure that a more commercial TV station will be able to double whatever money they have been on with the BBC. The corporation itself, meanwhile, gets the benefit of looking like they are 'tough on their stars' (how often have you seen the phrase 'nobody is bigger than the show' in the last few weeks?) and that they have listened to public opinion on a controversial star. In actual fact, all they have really done is save themselves the salary of three of their top paid presenters (and all the money that they must have been spending sending them around the world, buying all the stuff for challenges etc) without looking like the 'killjoy BBC' (we HAD to let him go, he punched a man). No wonder Clarkson has looked so relaxed throughout the whole thing, and no wonder he was able to offer his 'heartfelt' support to poor Oisin for all those Top Gear fans picking on him.
Clarkson isn't a monster (not even a dinosaur, as his painful Sun Column on the whole affair tried to paint him). Neither is he stupid or oafish. He's actually an incredibly savvy businessman, who took a show that nobody much cared about either way and turned it into a brand that the BBC has marketed worldwide with ever increasing success for a decade. He's also a deeply cynical man, willing to say whatever it takes on TV to get a bit of controversy stirred and boost attention. He plays the oaf and the old man stuck in his ways, and the people of the UK lap it up, either praising him as a saint of straight talking common sense or demonising him as a racist, mysoginistic right wing fascist who will bring about the fall of civilisation as we know it. The truth, I fear is rather more mundane. He's simply an intelligent man prepared to play the part of a neolithic arsehole for cheap laughs. The tragedy with Clarkson is that with all the intelligence and on screen charisma, he chose to leave whatever principles he might have had at the door in order to make a buck.
I hope (in my optimistic fashion) that maybe he really was trying to get fired because he saw no other way out. Part of me wants to think that he will return as a completely different onscreen entity, freed from the 'Jezza' persona which seemed to be compulsory and increasingly tired and cynical as time went on in Top Gear. I hope that he and Hammond and May will prove all the naysayers wrong and do something different that takes us all by surprise. I hope too that the BBC will take the opportunity to rebrand Top Gear into something that can be fun and irreverent for a wider audience - a show that draws in all sorts of people and includes them in the joke instead of making them the butt of it. But given that all those editors, producers, sound engineers, cameramen and everyone else have been putting together the same show for the last ten years of controversy and silliness, I suspect it won't be the case. Nobody there will be under any illusions - they all know that Clarkson wasn't sacked, they have all read the statement that he may well return in the future, they all see him carrying on with a rebranded live show part funded by BBC money which springs off the back of the very TV show that they all put together. They know that all they need is a few new faces and the same old formula and everything will be absolutely fine.
Ultimately, the story of Clarkson and Top Gear isn't the story of one evil man and his power crazed crusade of bullying, violence and terror. It's the rather more sad tale of a whole bunch of people who corroborated to make an increasingly toxic TV show for the sake of the ratings and money, and who even at the stage of actual physical violence visited on an employee, will do everything that they can to minimise the damage done to themselves and the perpetrator, rather than in any way do the right thing.
So please stop telling me that no one person is more important than the show - I'm afraid that it just doesn't wash.
Yes, I'm talking about Jeremy Clarkson. I'd rather not be. Days after he decided that punching his producer was the correct response to being offered cold meats instead of steak and chips, the greatest genre author this country has ever produced, and one of my all time favourite human beings, Sir Terry Pratchett, passed away, and I am still reaching for the words that would describe adequately the massive void his passing left in the universe. But that's for another time and another blog. Today, I am going to talk about Jeremy.
If you are expecting any kind of extreme point of view here, I'd suggest that you stop reading now. I am here neither to decry the man as Beelzebub, nor defend him as a Really Great and Misunderstood Bloke. I'm here in fact, to deconstruct a lot of what I have seen said about the man, and attempt to pull the needle of truth from the haystack of hysteria.
Let's run through a few basics first - Clarkson (as far as I can see) was not 'sacked'. He wasn't 'fired'. He didn't 'lose his job'. Clarkson was on a contract, the same way as every other 'major star' at the BBC, and just like the rest of them, his contract had an expiry date. As it happened, that date was around about now, which would have meant I imagine that negotiations about the renewal of said contract were well underway by the time he mistook his producer's face for a punching bag. The decision of the enquiry, as reported by EVERY MEDIA OUTLET, was that his contract would not be renewed. This isn't being sacked. It wouldn't show on a CV as a sacking, and in fact if it wasn't for the fact that Mr Clarkson was so famous, it is unlikely that the facts of what had happened would ever have emerged. The distinction may seem trite, but to me it is very important, especially when you consider it with the language used by Lord Hall in the statement announcing the decision, which expressed that he had 'not taken the decision lightly' and that it should 'in no way detract from the extraordinary contribution that Jeremy Clarkson has made to the BBC (I'll assume he's talking monetary there but we will get to that). This wasn't the language of a man sacking an employee who had finally pushed their luck too far - this was the weasel words of a man who had picked the absolute least resistant path and was still apologising for it just in case anyone wasn't happy - which is sort of a metaphor for the way that the whole of the BBC is run these days when you think about it. I mean, talking about Clarkson's 'sacking', Lord Hall said:
"For me a line has been crossed. There cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another dictated by either rank, or public relations and commercial considerations"
Yet think back to 2008 when Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand made 'that' phone call to Andrew Sachs about his granddaughter and the BBC Trust described the incident as:
"a deplorable intrusion with no editorial justification"
Interestingly, despite many calls for it to happen, Ross was never sacked either, despite the much stronger language used by the trust to describe the incident. Brand resigned, and Ross carried on, eventually reaching the end of his contract and electing not to renew it.
So Clarkson wasn't sacked. Now, to go on from that point, this wasn't Clarkson 'reaching his last warning'. It is interesting to me that he himself made such a particular point of telling the press after his last 'incident' (apparently muttering a racially inflammatory word in a nursery rhyme, dug up from an outtake never meant for broadcast) that he was 'on his very last warning' and that 'one more incident' would see him gone. I can't imagine that he was telling people this out of a sense of shame, or because he in any way cared what was thought of him - indeed his whole career has been about constructing a persona which is very much about NOT caring what anyone thinks of him - so I can only see it as a deliberate move. As someone who still watched Top Gear (with an increasing amount of unease as time went on) it seemed to me for at least the last two years that we were no longer watching an overgrown child boorishly having fun with his mates on camera, but rather a tired old man who just wanted it to be over. I couldn't help but feel, as he gurned for the camera each week, trotting out one of his 'Jezza-isms' about the Greens/Liberals/Women/the BBC/etc. that he was just swinging wildly about, trying to find something he could say for the sake of it that would make the BBC cry enough and get rid of him. I have no idea why this might have been the case, but increasingly that was the impression I got.
Regardless, the 'straw that broke the camel's back' narrative that the media saw fit to run (and run) with was misleading in my opinion. This wasn't another example of Jeremy bringing the corporation into disrepute by expressing one of his 'hilarious' opinions about women/climate change/foreigners/homosexuals/etc. This was him punching a man in the face. Screaming at said man that he would be fired. In public. Over not getting the hot food he had asked for. This is what would be described in any workplace environment as gross misconduct. When one is found guilty of gross misconduct (as he undoubtedly was, seeing as how all parties agree that he did in fact lamp the poor producer) then unless there are extreme mitigating circumstances (which would therefore downgrade it from gross misconduct) then that person will be fired, regardless of whether they have a previous record of being an absolutely model employee or whether they are Sweary McLoonyRacist and have been spouting nonsense and getting verbal and written warnings for years. That's just the way that it is. The fact that he wasn't even sacked, merely 'didn't have his contract renewed' speaks to the lie in Lord Hall's statement that nobody is above the rules, regardless of position or popularity. Example - imagine that said producer had punched Jeremy or Richard Hammond or James May in the face, then make a rough estimate of how long he would have been employed afterwards, and whether there would have been the same dance around words and phrases such as 'contract will not be renewed' being used. Yeah, I imagine that you reached the same conclusion that I did.
If it sounds as if I am gunning for the man as much as most newspaper columnists have been lately, it's time for the balance. Jeremy Clarkson is not the devil.
Yes - he is a man who has made a living out of 'being offensive'. Now, I tend to take the Ricky Gervais approach to offence, which states that you can only take offence, you can't give it. This rather glib turn of phrase actually makes an important point - when you think about it, ALL humour involves laughing at someone, and mostly it involves laughing at misfortune, whether self-inflicted or otherwise. We laugh at Christians and 'chavs' and Americans and that's ok, but should we laugh at fat people, or women, or Mexicans then it all gets a mite more complicated. There is an argument (and a persuasive one at that) which suggests that the reason for these distinctions, which may seem so arbitrary on the surface, relates to the relative empowerment of any given group - Americans and the Church are quite big and ugly enough to look after themselves thank you very much, whereas women and the obese are already disadvantaged in society and therefore require defence from such mockery, which serves only to undermine them further. It's a good point, and it makes logical sense. Where it tends to fall down on closer examination is that we are attempting to objectively quantify a subjective experience - i.e. the theoretical upset/embarrassment/humiliation that the target of the humour feels. We are then weighing this against their relative empowerment and establishing an arbitrary scale of measurement which tells us some arcane magical formula allowing one to be ok and the other not. This feels a little nonsensical to me - if we can ask some people to 'have a sense of humour' then why not all? If we must strive to 'protect' some people/institutions from being mocked, are we not, in some odd way, actually contributing to the view of them as 'lesser'?
I digress. Clarkson says stupid things. He says them (I suspect) because they cause a fuss, which leads to publicity, which leads to higher ratings/sales figures. But often I think those things are blown out of proportion. When he made a joke about truckers murdering prostitutes, it was tasteless and crass. When he and his co-presenters 'hilariously' described a Mexican car as probably sharing the national characteristics of being 'lazy' and 'feckless' and 'flatulent' they were being arses. But watch any Frankie Boyle DVD and count how many instances there are of jokes about AIDS. Cancer, Kerry Katona being sexually promiscuous, Scottish people being fat and alcoholic and useless. Boyle is controversial, sure, but I don't think the same narrative of 'evil' has been put forward about him. Of course, the counter is that Clarkson is more popular and as a result has more influence, particularly amongst young men (the default target demographic of Top Gear the last ten years) and there is again a valid point there to a certain extent. But again, are we really attempting to quantify offence here? If a man makes a sexist joke to his friends, is he really being less objectively offensive than a comedian who makes the same joke to a whole audience? It's the same joke, just told to more people. Is that the basis of judgement here? The reach of what is said? Because to me that rather seems to be missing the point.
He's also sometimes quoted out of context. Remember the infamous 'all teachers should be shot' remarks that saw him vilified? Well when you took the whole interview, and not just that one soundbite, then the comments took on an entirely different shade. Perhaps not as funny to some as others, but far from the malicious evil that was implied in the press. For those who missed it, it went something like this:
Interviewer: What do you think of the teachers strike Jeremy?
JC: I think it's brilliant! I drove through London this morning and the roads were totally clear. However, as this is the BBC, in the interests of balance I also think that they should all be rounded up and shot obviously.
Hardly swiftian wit, sure. But also not what he had been accused of. There was the infamous nursery rhyme thing as well, wherein if you listened really closely to the outtake that was never intended for broadcast, he might have muttered the 'n word' as part of a nursery rhyme (because those were the actual words). Now, I have seen many people say that the fact the clip wasn't meant for broadcast is irrelevant, because it showcases the fact that he is a racist. Perhaps it does (I doubt it personally but there you go) but if it does, it indicates only that he might *think* racist thoughts, and once we go down the road of regulating what people are allowed to think then that is a whole different kettle of fish. Regulating what people say is fraught enough with danger, but if we are to vilify a man and call for him to be sacked on the basis of what he *thinks* regardless of what he actually says and does, then we are all already living in Orwell's 1984.
And then there was the Falklands incident, wherein the whole programme was accused of deliberately taking a car to Argentina with a number plate that may or may not have referred to the Falklands war (because it read H982 FKL). Now, leaving aside that this may either have been a giant coincidence or another 'hilarious' Top Gear jape, let's look at the reaction, caught on camera. An entire film crew chased for miles by a convoy of people, most of whom were not even alive when the conflict in question took place, throwing rocks at vans, threatening the lives and safety of complete strangers. On the basis of some letters on a number plate that one might vaguely link to a war that happened over 30 years ago. Clarkson and his production team may be a bunch of cretins, but I personally don't see the issue here at all. But let's put it down on the litany of bad stuff that Jezza did because it fits a narrative eh?
For my money, there is ample evidence to suggest that the entire production team, film crew, editors and everyone else associated with Top Gear has been deliberately courting controversy for years. They were all sensible enough to not risk broadcasting a bit of footage in which Clarkson might have mumbled an unintelligible sound which still sounded vaguely similar to a racially inflammatory word that rhymes with 'digger', yet they didn't think that him pointing to an Asian man on a bridge and declaring 'There's a slope on that bridge' might be a little bit off? Or that the whole team spouting off about 'lazy feckless flatulent Mexicans' might get them in hot water? Or Clarkson's comments on truckers and prostitutes, or homosexuals, or women might be a little much? Of course they did. They knew well enough that they were putting out 'edgy' content, and they counted on it causing a fuss and therefore providing more attention to their brand and their star, and when it went too far, well, they could all point to Jezza, who was just a big oaf who didn't know any better.
May and Hammond are no better - look at the way each has reacted in recent weeks. May - long sold as 'the sensible one' of the trio, said that 'what ought to have been a small incident easily sorted turned into something big'. Yes, because when one man punches another in the face for not having their hot dinner ready as per their demands, we should all just shrug shoulders and move on eh? And Hammond had this to say on twitter: "Gutted at such a sad end to an era. We're all three of us idiots in our different ways but it's been an incredible ride together." Not 'I'm really gutted that some poor crew member got decked by my mate for no good reason', not 'I wish that Jeremy had behaved a little better', just 'Boo hoo, I don't get to hand around with my mate doing stupid stuff for money anymore.'
For what it's worth, I sympathise fully with Oisin Tymon for being punched in the face, and even more for the raft of abuse and death threats he's had thrown around about him for 'ruining Top Gear', but as he himself says, he has worked on the show for ten years and always enjoyed a positive working relationship with Jeremy. So for ten years he has been part of a whole show which has belittled various ethnic minorities, mocked homosexuals, women, foreigners, liberals, green campaigners and basically anyone who isn't a 'lad' who wants to drink beer and drive fast cars. He's been an integral part of a culture that has allowed a (non live) show to continue to be broadcast with various stupid, insensitive and crass remarks being made and, let's not forget, he wasn't even the one who reported Jeremy for punching him.
That last point is interesting. Clarkson's defenders cite this as a prime example of the man's robust integrity - that he effectively felt guilty enough about the incident to own up and take his punishment. His detractors similarly hold this up as an example of his self-serving nature, of playing the victim and attempting to look the bigger man. I think both are wrong. The timing of this incident is suspicious - does anyone *really* believe that Jeremy just happened to lose his rag and punch a man within a couple of weeks of the end of his contract? When he himself had repeatedly told the media in the last six months that he was on his absolute final no other chances warning with his employers? When he has been quite obviously deliberately saying whatever crass and pointless thing that he can on each and every show for two years now? No. I think that this was simply his ticket out. He'd slung around comments about 'slopes' and prostitute murder and lazy feckless foreigners and god knows what else for years on what was supposed to be a light entertainment show, and he'd never got so much as a suspension, or a docking of pay. All he got was an increasingly ridiculous series of toothless 'warnings' from Auntie to be on his best behaviour in future. In some instances, they had even defended his stupidity, only relenting to criticise him (and even then mildly) when they literally couldn't get away with not doing so.
Even now, after he has literally physically assaulted a colleague, they can't actually bring themselves to sack him and openly criticise him - hell, Alan Yentob, creative controller at the BBC was on record within hours of the announcement saying that this wasn't in any way closing the door on Clarkson returning to the BBC in future. Add that to today's news that the 'Top Gear Live' shows that were booked to be done this year will now continue, re-branded as 'Clarkson, Hammond and May Live' and part funded by the BBC, and this looks less like a 'sacking' and more like a mutually beneficial arrangement all round. I'm sure that Clarkson will be fending off offers of employment, and that he will take the other two with him to keep riding the gravy train, and I'm sure that a more commercial TV station will be able to double whatever money they have been on with the BBC. The corporation itself, meanwhile, gets the benefit of looking like they are 'tough on their stars' (how often have you seen the phrase 'nobody is bigger than the show' in the last few weeks?) and that they have listened to public opinion on a controversial star. In actual fact, all they have really done is save themselves the salary of three of their top paid presenters (and all the money that they must have been spending sending them around the world, buying all the stuff for challenges etc) without looking like the 'killjoy BBC' (we HAD to let him go, he punched a man). No wonder Clarkson has looked so relaxed throughout the whole thing, and no wonder he was able to offer his 'heartfelt' support to poor Oisin for all those Top Gear fans picking on him.
Clarkson isn't a monster (not even a dinosaur, as his painful Sun Column on the whole affair tried to paint him). Neither is he stupid or oafish. He's actually an incredibly savvy businessman, who took a show that nobody much cared about either way and turned it into a brand that the BBC has marketed worldwide with ever increasing success for a decade. He's also a deeply cynical man, willing to say whatever it takes on TV to get a bit of controversy stirred and boost attention. He plays the oaf and the old man stuck in his ways, and the people of the UK lap it up, either praising him as a saint of straight talking common sense or demonising him as a racist, mysoginistic right wing fascist who will bring about the fall of civilisation as we know it. The truth, I fear is rather more mundane. He's simply an intelligent man prepared to play the part of a neolithic arsehole for cheap laughs. The tragedy with Clarkson is that with all the intelligence and on screen charisma, he chose to leave whatever principles he might have had at the door in order to make a buck.
I hope (in my optimistic fashion) that maybe he really was trying to get fired because he saw no other way out. Part of me wants to think that he will return as a completely different onscreen entity, freed from the 'Jezza' persona which seemed to be compulsory and increasingly tired and cynical as time went on in Top Gear. I hope that he and Hammond and May will prove all the naysayers wrong and do something different that takes us all by surprise. I hope too that the BBC will take the opportunity to rebrand Top Gear into something that can be fun and irreverent for a wider audience - a show that draws in all sorts of people and includes them in the joke instead of making them the butt of it. But given that all those editors, producers, sound engineers, cameramen and everyone else have been putting together the same show for the last ten years of controversy and silliness, I suspect it won't be the case. Nobody there will be under any illusions - they all know that Clarkson wasn't sacked, they have all read the statement that he may well return in the future, they all see him carrying on with a rebranded live show part funded by BBC money which springs off the back of the very TV show that they all put together. They know that all they need is a few new faces and the same old formula and everything will be absolutely fine.
Ultimately, the story of Clarkson and Top Gear isn't the story of one evil man and his power crazed crusade of bullying, violence and terror. It's the rather more sad tale of a whole bunch of people who corroborated to make an increasingly toxic TV show for the sake of the ratings and money, and who even at the stage of actual physical violence visited on an employee, will do everything that they can to minimise the damage done to themselves and the perpetrator, rather than in any way do the right thing.
So please stop telling me that no one person is more important than the show - I'm afraid that it just doesn't wash.
No comments:
Post a Comment