In which the boy compares fiction with fact and finds himself lost somewhere inbetween.
I finally – quite sadly – got around to watching the last episode of the superb FOX show House the other day. Brilliant, eminently watchable, and addictive to the last though it was, one feels that it was the only appropriate way to end such a programme, befitting its main character, its structure, and its overarching theme: everybody lies.
This theme is currently prevalent in a variety of immensely successful network television shows. It may be said that “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death“; encouraging stuff, Revelation 21:8. But to some writers, lying is an art, a way of life; something to do to pass the time. How I Met Your Mother‘s philanderer to end all philandering, Barney Stinson, claims that “a lie is just a great story that someone ruined with the truth“. Another fantastical FOX network series, Lie To Me, is built around the basis of one man, Dr. Cal Lightman, and his ability to expertly read body language – namely microexpressions – in order to ‘find the truth behind the lies’. Bloody Homeland showcased an entire season of successful artifice, pretence and fraud from Congressman (formerly Gunnery Sergeant) Nick Brody, followed by the CIA’s convenient replacing of deception with even more latent (or blatent, depending on your view) underhandedness. And as for Walter White..? ‘Breaking Bad’ was and is most definitely a by-phrase for turning to any number of dark sides.
It would seem, according to fiction, that deceit is an anti-hero’s elixir…and though this adage may well work successfully as a premise for a fictional medical drama, a show comprising one man’s attempt to sleep with every woman in New York City, or anything relating to the American government, I didn’t particularly think it would subsequently become apparent that this is the case in reality too.
Just as Lewis’ redheaded ex-soldier appeared to have a life falling down around his ears before Carrie and her crew conveniently covered the congressman’s ass with what essentially boils down to a folder marked “Piss off, he’s doing something secret“, it would seem appropriate to say that a whirlwind of lies, damn lies and – well, not so much as statistics, but certainly more lies – have stood a considerable test of time (longer than the fictional eight years of Homeland‘s, anyway). And those lies have been wrapping and winding their way around not only the throats of senior members of the British Broadcasting Corporation, but around the establishment itself.
Over the past – well, who really knows how long? We’ll go with ‘while’. It covers all manner of sins – over the past while, the powers that be at the BBC have woven a tangled web of deceit that even Charlotte (of ‘s Web’ fame) and Aragog (Harry Potter, anyone?) wouldn’t have enough silk to create. The previous six weeks’ worth of news emanating from the corporation has caused widespread concern in dual dimensions: one, due to the fact that it was hidden from the public for so long, and two (now coupled with the “shoddy journalism” that has dragged an innocent party or two into the fray) because of the frankly lethargic way in which reporters and researchers are resorting to reveal their finds. Yes, I’m talking about you, Iain Overton. Twit.
In the previous week, 99% of the information passing through BBC News has been about itself, so much so that a member of the Twittersphere made a remark suggesting the institution should start a “BBC BBC News channel“. After Savilegate there came Newsnightgate, swiftly followed by McAlpine- and Entwhistle-gate; two more resignations later and it has gotten to a point where there have been more gates in the papers than in an ironworks factory during the Victorian period. With £1.3 million given to Entwhistle – as Harriet Harman put it – as a “reward for failure” after doing a ‘Russell Brand’ and martyring himself for the cause, there have been calls for more resignations as well as a “radical structural overhaul” from Lord Patten. Even the PM chimed in, stating that Lord Patten “has started to make the right noises“. Odd as that turn of phrase is, it’s probably more encouraging than the BBC Trust chairman handing in his notice too.
As for the PM…it may even be less of a chime and more of a knell; partly due to the fact that he and precious few others have piped up to say anything, as if they’re not marginally responsible. The links between the government and the BBC – however impartial the institution makes itself out to be – are widely known, and deeply rooted.
Lies, wrapped in deception, shrouded in mystery…and a partner in crime has been found for the biggest conspiracy of silence in modern times: that guilty party of journalistic lethargy and absent-mindedness. It is most unbecoming to see that the past forty years has seen this society of seclusion, obscuring the “worst kept secret in showbusiness” from the world; a secret that really should have been made public at the earliest opportunity. At the time, and given the circumstances, it would have ‘not been a big deal’; hence the cover-up. Someone made that decision, and so the screens were raised around the truth until the present day. In a parallel universe, we might just have looked back, shaking our heads at the stupidity of a cigar-toting Leodensian who was subsequently dismissed in the early 70’s instead. Who knows who would have been the lead presenter on Top of the Pops? Who cares? At least the reputation of the BBC would have been upheld; or maybe, the institution’s seeming monopoly over broadcasting would have been quelled in its youth, rather than our chastising of the elderly standard it has now become.
Deceit is a many splendored thing: it would appear that yes, everybody does lie. (Quite apart from that, there’s never been a worse time to broadcast Children in Need. At least it shows they’re not backing down.) However, things are hardly ‘business as usual’; reality should see a damning remark made against this deceit. Just because Gregory House strives for truth from his patients while lying to his staff does not mean that it is acceptable in real life. Just because Barney Stinson will willingly tell any woman whatever they want to hear to bed them does not make this right down your local. Hell, just because Nicholas Brody is a mole in a fictional US government does not mean we can bend our views, allegiances and opinions in order to hide the truth.
If the BBC want to survive, surely honesty is the best policy.
Oh, and finally: Thanks to Dorothy Allison for the title to this blog. Perfect.
“Stand your ground! If someone questions you, distract them from the original lie with more lies…“
– Barney Stinson, circa 2009
– TB
I don’t think it has ever been more prevalent for this adage: Never work with children or animals. Minus the ‘animals’ part.
Forgive me for using such foul and tasteless language as a title for a blog post. A ‘Savilism’, if you will. I arrogantly wriggle my arms like they’re clearing their throats and half-smile my disgraced (and downright disturbing) half-smile as I hold a cigar between my jaundiced teeth.
I felt that there was something I had to say about the situation currently occurring in the annals of the British Broadcasting Corporation. No, not Strictly, you buffoons. Riley’s in it to win it though, if you’ve been patiently waiting for my view. (I don’t think you have.)
No no. ’tis Savilegate that I want to shoot the shit about this time.
And I’ll have to be careful how I’m going to talk about this one now too. Because…it’s not that I’m defending him in any way whatsoever. I’m not coming out and saying that I think it was all a practical joke, like a certain idiot. What ‘Sir’ Jimmy done, did and done was equal parts unforgivable, irreparable, and completely unsavoury. I’m sure the man himself would hold his (sticky-out-y) arms up – as far as he could reach, given his age and the weight of all that (frankly confusing) jewellery – and admit that what he did was wrong.
Not only are we discovering that everyone in the BBC – well, maybe not everyone, but people who should have said something – knew what was occurring, either in the 50’s and 60’s; the 70’s (I’m glad I wasn’t invited) or the 80’s, where behaviour such as this was ‘tolerated’ in the company. According to certain (completely over sensationalised) reports, he abused “60 victims across six decades”. Anybody thinking that this title may have from a bright spark who thought it’s memorable ‘pub talk’ alliteration was more important than the facts…? Me too. Especially when you add the “SIX investigations”. Jesus Christ, SIX SIX SIX?
“Savile?” they said. “More like DEVILe!” they said.
But here is my point, plain and simple: aren’t we viewing the activities of another age with a modern perspective? A perspective which, by our modern moral code, is completely understandable, but as little as twenty years ago would have been scoffed at by the public?
Iain Martin has published a piece on the ‘Savile Row’ (shell-suits only), stating that “we might as well launch an investigation into the entire 1970s” (article is up in here). As mentioned in one of the articles linked to above, a “broader BBC culture…tolerated sexual harassment” in the 1980’s. Is this to say that we should now launch an inquiry into periods of time…? Get your game tapes at the ready, ladies and gentlemen. The Leveson ain’t got nothin’ on this.
The “broader BBC culture” was – purely and simply – a broader culture of the time.
I’m sorry to say that Britain wasn’t exactly the ‘sure-footed, straight-edged nation’ it is now back then. I mean, we only abolished slavery in 2010. So much for the worst thing happening in our country that year being the leader of our country calling a bigoted lady a…well, bigoted lady, before two absolute idiots stepped up to replace the disgraced Scotsman that appeared to let our country slump…not that the new boys have helped. Oh, and a bunch of Chileans emerged from a mine. Unfortunately, not like this.
The point being that, during the mid-to-late 1960’s and early 1970’s, there was a form of ‘sexual revolution’ for this country, following the likes of hippies (‘killer bell-bottoms, Jethro’) and Woodstock (‘killer guitar solo, Jethro. Where did you get your bell-bottoms?’) taking over the US. With the introduction of sex as a more socially acceptable topic – rather than that of the ‘lay back and think of England’ housewife – everyone and his aunt Mildred were clamouring to profess their undying freedom from the chastity of their behind-closed-doors lifestyles. In turn, I imagine that television production companies – many of whom were hosting live shows within their headquarters featuring children – were equal parts worried and confused about how to deal with it. ‘It’ being the amount of young’uns who were desperate to show that they were more mature than their counterparts. Now, at the time – and that statement is particularly important – at the time, it would appear that a blind eye was turned because Savile’s, Peel’s – and, it would appear, several others’ – behaviour was deemed ‘acceptable’. At the time.
And that doesn’t even justify their behaviour. Looking back upon it, what they did was scandalous. Looking back upon it, it was career-ending. Looking back upon it, it was immature of them to perform in that way. But at that time, it was ‘acceptable’. No one stepped in to stop them. If anything, the BBC covered it up to let it happen. Christopher Biggins has said, within this article, that it was the “worst-kept secret in show business”, that “he believed he was above it all”, and that “heads of department [at the BBC] should be held to account”. I agree strongly, but am severely worried about how crippling it is going to be for their industry at present.
Because it didn’t happen ‘at present’.
The amount of bum-pinching (see: ASS-GRABBING if you’re American), flirting, staring, leching and downright sodomy that occurred either on or behind the scenes of Saturday evening family entertainment throughout the years has been shocking in itself. Morecambe and Wise had pretty girl after pretty girl onscreen, with Eric displaying a level of “great sexual interest” in the female – here, an example (Diana Rigg, from the other Avengers). I wouldn’t be surprised if this ends up getting our ‘bit o’ Bully’ into trouble, or Paul Daniel’s lust after “rather throaty” Chinese girl comes back to haunt him. I do not want to know what that magician’s assistant helped to conceal.
Each and every one of these men has thought themselves untouchable – with many more besides. Before marrying someone almost half his age, our aforementioned magician apparently had his wizardly way with over 300 women (form an orderly queue for your ‘magic wand’ jokes, please); Richard Bacon was a crack/smack/coke/fruit-machine/Coco Pops fiend while he presented children’s television. (One of these is true. Well, they could all be true. But the news article only proves one. I’m sorry.) If Harald Schmidt, or – say – the Finnish president(?) were British, they would be shot; the former, for his attempt to ascertain the truth about Sam Fox’s chestal region, and the latter for what can only be described as excessive ogling. Hell, even Bob the Builder muttered “fucking hell” under his breath once.
I say bring on the naming and shaming. Bring on the career-destruction. There’s enough information out there to shock a small empire – of which, we are. But point the finger at the right person. A corporation such as the BBC is a living entity; it has shed its skin a dozen times since these events first happened. Each person within each role to blame has changed. It is about someone – anyone – owning up. Admitting to the public that there were cover-ups.
But it’s not just the BBC either – allegations have been made relating to both hospitals and psychiatric wards too. Former institution heads – those that probably replied to the alleged actions with, “Na, it’s Jimmy! He wouldn’t do a thing like that!” – should admit their wrongdoings.
I’m not saying, in any way, that what this man with the child in his eyes (take that how you will) – who still lived with his mother and who even Louis Theroux knew was odd – …I’m not saying, in any way, that what he did was right. It was most definitely the complete polar opposite. But whoever decided to keep it hush-hush let it happen. Someone should have owned up. And someone still should.
It may not be right for us to look upon these old acts with a modern perspective. But by God, is it right for us to find the scoundrels to blame.
And as for THIS…strewth.
– TB
reviewtimewithtb 