Top Gear racist remark (again)

[LondonJohn]

Err, because they realized they made a mistake immediately after it was recorded and decided not to air it? Was it actually Clarkson that wrote that part of the show, or someone else? If a comedian on a sitcom said some lines, and then immediately afterwards said, after hearing them out loud, no that is inappropriate, should they get in trouble??

But no, that's not what happened. Listen again to Clarkson's "explanation". He doesn't at any point talk about his immediate, contemporaneous horror at having accidentally uttered the n-word. Quite the opposite, in fact. He says he (they?) listened back to Take 1, and realised that it contained a word that "sounded like" the n-word, and that as a result they decided not to use it in the show.

You also have to look at the rather difficult-to-explain issue of the THREE takes. The first take is the one that the Mirror showed, in which he mumbles a word that can reasonably be interpreted as the n-word. And the third take is the one in which the word "teacher" is consciously substituted. This in itself heavily implies that they realised and understood the issues surrounding this particular word in the rhyme. But then how do you explain Take 2?

To my mind, there's only one reasonable reading of the situation. I believe that Clarkson (and probably the director and producer) knew full well that a) this rhyme was going to be used at this point in the segment, b) the rhyme, as Clarkson intended to recite it, contained the n-word, and c) Clarkson was going to see if he could "get away" with slipping in the n-word by mumbling that section of the rhyme. I think that this is what they did in Take 1. They then listened back to it and realised that the word was just too recognisable, so they tried again in Take 2. I strongly suspect that they realised that even with increased mumbling etc, it was just too inflammatory and recognisable to keep the n-word in the rhyme. And that's why Take 3 was done, with a totally different (and innocent) word deliberately substituted. I also think that Clarkson then sent a memo to the production office just to remind them not to mistakenly edit Take 1 (or probably also Take 2) into the version for transmission.

To me this is actually no where near as bad as this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...chard-Hammond-calls-Mexico-lazy-feckless.html

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not much of an argument in itself, plus I think that the pattern of behaviour exhibited by all the show's presenters (as endorsed and condoned - and perhaps encouraged - by the show's producers) is a very pertinent factor in assessing this "n-word" (and "slope") incident.

I like the show, I like their juvenile boyish humor. If I had a nickel for every time Clarkson made some idiotic insult about American's I'd... maybe have a couple of bucks. But I don't get offended because I know he's being a buffoon for entertainments sake.

This, if I might be so bold as to suggest, is an intellectually- and morally-bankrupt argument. I am assuming from this that you are a US citizen. As a US citizen, you clearly do not fall into the category of a group that is susceptible to discrimination. You therefore doubtless DO find it very easy to laugh at the Top Gear presenters' insults about Americans (perhaps even when they are aimed at poor, uneducated rural US citizens from the Southern states, since I am also guessing that you don't fall into that particular sub-bracket of US citizens....). If you have any Asian-American friends, though, you might enlighten yourself by asking if they would find it equally easy to shrug off a casual remark about a "slope on a bridge".

I had to Google this one. Completely different from what Clarkson said. If say the cameraman had been black and he was repeatedly calling him "almost" the n-word but muttering and muffling it, then it would be analogous. And BTW under USA employment law, and what I know from working for 10 years or so in the corporate world, those two would be immediately fired.

I don't understand this one little bit. Are you saying that it's highly relevant whether one of the people/groups being offended is physically present in close proximity when the insult is being uttered? I'm guessing you probably haven't looked into the Gray/Keys incidents closely enough. Among their unpleasant canon of offensive behaviour was a misogynistic discussion about a female lineswoman (line judge) and an equally misogynistic discussion about whether or not another pundit present in the studio had had sexual relations with a particular woman (who was not present in the studio).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why does the fact that the "n-word" take was not transmitted make a material difference in regard to whether or not it was acceptable?

By the same measure, do you think that the fact that the misogynistic "banter" of Richard Keys and Andy Gray in the Sky Sports studio - which, similarly, was never transmitted - was any sort of mitigation against the gravity of the language/attitudes?

It make a big difference that Keys and Gray were expressing offensive views of their own while their colleagues were listening to them talk. What they were saying was not said as part of their job. It didn't need to be broadcast to cause offence because it offended the people they work with.

Clarkson by contrast was not expressing an offensive personal opinion. He was reciting a children's rhyme containing an offensive word, working to a script. He didn't say the word out loud. You can certainly object to the poor judgement of very idea being in the script in the first place, but there it was and he had a couple of takes to try to get it right then on viewing it decided it was unuseable. I don't see any comparison with Keys and Gray.

 

[angrysoba]

To me this is actually no where near as bad as this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...chard-Hammond-calls-Mexico-lazy-feckless.html

There were plenty of complaints about that too.

How does it help Clarkson's case that as bad as this was, his show had been worse in the past?

 

[LondonJohn]

It make a big difference that Keys and Gray were expressing offensive views of their own while their colleagues were listening to them talk. What they were saying was not said as part of their job. It didn't need to be broadcast to cause offence because it offended the people they work with.

Clarkson by contrast was not expressing an offensive personal opinion. He was reciting a children's rhyme containing an offensive word, working to a script. He didn't say the word out loud. You can certainly object to the poor judgement of very idea being in the script in the first place, but there it was and he had a couple of takes to try to get it right then on viewing it decided it was unuseable. I don't see any comparison with Keys and Gray.

Wow. In my opinion, you are making a false and irrelevant differentiation. Of course the circumstances were different between the two cases, but the underlying principles were (and are) fundamentally the same.

And if you truly think that casually using the n-word in a piece-to-camera is not "expressing an offensive personal opinion", then there's not really much more that can be said here. There's some form of argument to be made about the relative severity of the offences, for sure, but there should be no doubt whatsoever to any reasonable person that both instances do constitute offensive language/behaviour.

 

[angrysoba]

It make a big difference that Keys and Gray were expressing offensive views of their own while their colleagues were listening to them talk. What they were saying was not said as part of their job. It didn't need to be broadcast to cause offence because it offended the people they work with.

Clarkson by contrast was not expressing an offensive personal opinion. He was reciting a children's rhyme containing an offensive word, working to a script. He didn't say the word out loud. You can certainly object to the poor judgement of very idea being in the script in the first place, but there it was and he had a couple of takes to try to get it right then on viewing it decided it was unuseable. I don't see any comparison with Keys and Gray.

What were the words in the script?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

To my mind, there's only one reasonable reading of the situation.

Maybe that's the problem then.

I believe that Clarkson (and probably the director and producer) knew full well that a) this rhyme was going to be used at this point in the segment, b) the rhyme, as Clarkson intended to recite it, contained the n-word, and c) Clarkson was going to see if he could "get away" with slipping in the n-word by mumbling that section of the rhyme. I think that this is what they did in Take 1. They then listened back to it and realised that the word was just too recognisable, so they tried again in Take 2. I strongly suspect that they realised that even with increased mumbling etc, it was just too inflammatory and recognisable to keep the n-word in the rhyme. And that's why Take 3 was done, with a totally different (and innocent) word deliberately substituted. I also think that Clarkson then sent a memo to the production office just to remind them not to mistakenly edit Take 1 (or probably also Take 2) into the version for transmission.

a) Yes, I'm sure it was all scripted. When the show won an Emmy for best unscripted factual show (or something like that) Clarkson said he couldn't go to pick it up because he was busy writing the script for the next week's show.
b) Yes again.
c) Here's where we differ. You think Clarkson wanted to sneak racist words into his TV show because whatever. Not very effective sneaking when the great majority of the audience will know how the rhyme goes. I think he wanted to appear to be about to blurt out something crass and thoughtless, but pretend to realise halfway through and not actually say it. On previous form, I believe that was the intended joke. Take 3 was an alternative version where they could still give the audience a cringeing moment when they thought he was about to drop the n-bomb but then he said "teacher".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...if you truly think that casually using the n-word in a piece-to-camera is not "expressing an offensive personal opinion", then there's not really much more that can be said here.

He was not expressing an opinion at all, casually or otherwise. Not any more than Quentin Tarantino is when he uses the word endlessly in virtually every one of his movies.

 

[bluesjnr]

...snip...To my mind, there's only one reasonable reading of the situation...snip... I believe ....snip.... I think...snip....I strongly suspect...snip...I also think...snip...Maybe, maybe not...snip...I think...snip...This, if I might be so bold as to suggest...snip...I am assuming...snip...You therefore doubtless...snip...I am also guessing...snip...I'm guessing...snip...

That's a fair lump o' assuming the truth of some good portion of your conclusion. A tactic I've seen you use more than once.

This from a individual who claims an ability to accurately divine "quite a bit" about any particular UK person's deeper ego based on their level of enjoyment of Top Gear and their responses to some of the features of the show. Fancy a pop at the MDC?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What were the words in the script?

I don't know. Is it important for us to establish whether someone wrote the bad word?

 

[LondonJohn]

That's a fair lump o' assuming the truth of some good portion of your conclusion. A tactic I've seen you use more than once.

This from a individual who claims an ability to accurately divine "quite a bit" about any particular UK person's deeper ego based on their level of enjoyment of Top Gear and their responses to some of the features of the show. Fancy a pop at the MDC?

What on Earth are you talking about? You've quoted there a highly-edited collage of words that I have written, all but one of which are explicit references to my opinion, my guess, or my suspicion. You then use this as some sort of evidence of me "assuming the truth of a good portion of (my) conclusion"!!


I'm also guessing that you too are quite a fan of Top Gear and the "hilarious" antics of Clarkson, The Hamster, Capt Slow, The Stig, et al. Is that an accurateguess? I wouldn't want to get accused of "assuming the truth" again

 

[angrysoba]

I don't know. Is it important for us to establish whether someone wrote the bad word?

Ah! Presumably this is why the BBC are investigating what was written in the script.

I must say that I am interested in what they will find. Later on, whatever was originally written in the script was presumably replaced with the word "teacher".

I have no idea who writes these scripts either, but two posts ago you suggest Clarkson himself does. This makes things very odd. Did he write "improvise here" and forget? Did his long-ago upbringing in Doncaster in the 1960's assert itself Dr-Strangelove-like?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ah! Presumably this is why the BBC are investigating what was written in the script.

I didn't know they were. Do you think it will make a difference what the actual wording in the script is? I'm once again simply not clear on what the importance is of this detail.

I must say that I am interested in what they will find. Later on, whatever was originally written in the script was presumably replaced with the word "teacher".

As I said above, I suspect they wrote two versions of the joke, one where bluff, crass, thoughtless Clarkson gets halfway through the rhyme and realises in horror he can't say the next bit so he mumbles it. The other where bluff, crass, thoughless Clarkson crashes on through the rhyme and everyone thinks for a moment he's going to say the n-word before he defuses the situation with "teacher".

I have no idea who writes these scripts either, but two posts ago you suggest Clarkson himself does.

He has said that he writes the script. Likely the producer co-writes and the other presenters contribute their parts, but I don't know the details.

This makes things very odd. Did he write "improvise here" and forget? Did his long-ago upbringing in Doncaster in the 1960's assert itself Dr-Strangelove-like?

Perhaps he wrote "improvise here" or perhaps "mutter this line" or any other possibility. I'm not sure what difference it makes as we can see what he actually did do. Seems he didn't do a good enough job of it, but then he's not really an actor.

 

[lobosrul]

But no, that's not what happened. Listen again to Clarkson's "explanation". He doesn't at any point talk about his immediate, contemporaneous horror at having accidentally uttered the n-word. Quite the opposite, in fact. He says he (they?) listened back to Take 1, and realised that it contained a word that "sounded like" the n-word, and that as a result they decided not to use it in the show.

You also have to look at the rather difficult-to-explain issue of the THREE takes. The first take is the one that the Mirror showed, in which he mumbles a word that can reasonably be interpreted as the n-word. And the third take is the one in which the word "teacher" is consciously substituted. This in itself heavily implies that they realised and understood the issues surrounding this particular word in the rhyme. But then how do you explain Take 2?

To my mind, there's only one reasonable reading of the situation. I believe that Clarkson (and probably the director and producer) knew full well that a) this rhyme was going to be used at this point in the segment, b) the rhyme, as Clarkson intended to recite it, contained the n-word, and c) Clarkson was going to see if he could "get away" with slipping in the n-word by mumbling that section of the rhyme. I think that this is what they did in Take 1. They then listened back to it and realised that the word was just too recognisable, so they tried again in Take 2. I strongly suspect that they realised that even with increased mumbling etc, it was just too inflammatory and recognisable to keep the n-word in the rhyme. And that's why Take 3 was done, with a totally different (and innocent) word deliberately substituted. I also think that Clarkson then sent a memo to the production office just to remind them not to mistakenly edit Take 1 (or probably also Take 2) into the version for transmission.





Maybe, maybe not. But that's not much of an argument in itself, plus I think that the pattern of behaviour exhibited by all the show's presenters (as endorsed and condoned - and perhaps encouraged - by the show's producers) is a very pertinent factor in assessing this "n-word" (and "slope") incident.





This, if I might be so bold as to suggest, is an intellectually- and morally-bankrupt argument. I am assuming from this that you are a US citizen. As a US citizen, you clearly do not fall into the category of a group that is susceptible to discrimination. You therefore doubtless DO find it very easy to laugh at the Top Gear presenters' insults about Americans (perhaps even when they are aimed at poor, uneducated rural US citizens from the Southern states, since I am also guessing that you don't fall into that particular sub-bracket of US citizens....). If you have any Asian-American friends, though, you might enlighten yourself by asking if they would find it equally easy to shrug off a casual remark about a "slope on a bridge".






I don't understand this one little bit. Are you saying that it's highly relevant whether one of the people/groups being offended is physically present in close proximity when the insult is being uttered? I'm guessing you probably haven't looked into the Gray/Keys incidents closely enough. Among their unpleasant canon of offensive behaviour was a misogynistic discussion about a female lineswoman (line judge) and an equally misogynistic discussion about whether or not another pundit present in the studio had had sexual relations with a particular woman (who was not present in the studio).

I was in the middle of writing a long winded reply to this, but I decided to keep it simple.

1) I disagree that Clarkson was trying to use the n-word on the air. That's nothing more then conjecture on your part. They decided it was inappropriate so it was left on the cutting room floor. We can argue about exactly how long and why that decision was made until we're blue in the face. (I was wrong to use the word "immediate" I'll agree with you there).
2) I think sometimes the show has crossed the line into bad taste. That's why I brought up the "Mexican" incident. Not to say that they've done worse, so "so what".
3) I think people are often far too easily offended by jokes on TV. I don't believe anyone has the right to not be offended ever.
4) If you can't see the difference between what the Sky Sports guys did, and what Clarkson said... well I'll try and explain again. Top Gear was trying to do something funny (it wasn't IMO). Clarkson was reciting a rhyme that everyone knows in one form or another, and mumbling out the word we all know he cannot say. It's juvenile stupid humor, that even he realized shouldn't be put on the air. That is very different from calling someone that word. The Sky Sports guys actually said that women are too dumb to be lineswomen in soccer games. Clarkson didn't say black people were dumb, or lazy or worse than anyone else. In fact he didn't say that about Asians in the other incident either. He made a pun with a word that has racist connotations and a bridge that slopes.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I didn't know they were. Do you think it will make a difference what the actual wording in the script is? I'm once again simply not clear on what the importance is of this detail.


As I said above, I suspect they wrote two versions of the joke, one where bluff, crass, thoughtless Clarkson gets halfway through the rhyme and realises in horror he can't say the next bit so he mumbles it. The other where bluff, crass, thoughless Clarkson crashes on through the rhyme and everyone thinks for a moment he's going to say the n-word before he defuses the situation with "teacher".

He has said that he writes the script. Likely the producer co-writes and the other presenters contribute their parts, but I don't know the details.

Perhaps he wrote "improvise here" or perhaps "mutter this line" or any other possibility. I'm not sure what difference it makes as we can see what he actually did do. Seems he didn't do a good enough job of it, but then he's not really an actor.

3 takes wouldn't be bad for many actors!

For what it's worth I think your assessment of the situation is pretty likely.

So much fuss for something they decided NOT to broadcast because the mumbled bit sounded, in context of the well known verse and thus well known word, too much LIKE that word. Isn't that them doing the right thing? 'Hmm we like being edgy and we hate overly PC attitudes but that's just not acceptable so let's replace it'.

Genuinely don't understand the fuss. If they'd chosen to broadcast it, then yes, because the context was too strong and it was too obvious the word they were alluding to, I could understand some outrage but they decided it was inappropriate - isn't that a good thing?

Also Clarkson has strongly expressed his objection to the term - and he's not usually apologetic about offending people.

 

[bluesjnr]

What on Earth are you talking about? You've quoted there a highly-edited collage of words that I have written, all but one of which are explicit references to my opinion, my guess, or my suspicion. You then use this as some sort of evidence of me "assuming the truth of a good portion of (my) conclusion"!!

That's pretty much my point, it makes debate with you difficult due to the fact that you present your opinion, suspicions and guesses as fact. You build your argument upon your conclusions which are not reached by evidence but more often how you'd like things to be. It's a tactic I've seen you use in other threads.

I'm also guessing that you too are quite a fan of Top Gear and the "hilarious" antics of Clarkson, The Hamster, Capt Slow, The Stig, et al. Is that an accurateguess? I wouldn't want to get accused of "assuming the truth" again

But you are, you see. You've concocted this bizarre measure of an individuals deeper ego and have for the second time used it as a pejorative that doesn't address anything I've written. I'd like to know more about how you apply this measure.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Also Clarkson has strongly expressed his objection to the term - and he's not usually apologetic about offending people.

His strong objection to the word doesn't hold water when he was essentially trying to say it without saying it. If he really objected to the word, he wouldn't have even tried.

 

[bluesjnr]

3 takes wouldn't be bad for many actors!

For what it's worth I think your assessment of the situation is pretty likely.

So much fuss for something they decided NOT to broadcast because the mumbled bit sounded, in context of the well known verse and thus well known word, too much LIKE that word. Isn't that them doing the right thing? 'Hmm we like being edgy and we hate overly PC attitudes but that's just not acceptable so let's replace it'.

Genuinely don't understand the fuss. If they'd chosen to broadcast it, then yes, because the context was too strong and it was too obvious the word they were alluding to, I could understand some outrage but they decided it was inappropriate - isn't that a good thing?

Also Clarkson has strongly expressed his objection to the term - and he's not usually apologetic about offending people.

I never fail to be surprised at just how low the threshold of outrage and high the moral ground is here amongst us sceptics.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

His strong objection to the word doesn't hold water when he was essentially trying to say it without saying it. If he really objected to the word, he wouldn't have even tried.

I understand your logic but respectfully disagree - people often use comedy around topics or issues they object to. Besides he decided NOT to broadcast it because he felt it was wrong.

 

[colander]

Guys, guys. It's not racist at all to try to work casual references to dire anti-black racial slurs into your show about cars if you just make sure to never hire any black people to work on filming or editing it. It's just like how multiplying two negative numbers gives you back a positive one--make sure you don't do an odd number of grossly racist things on set and you're fine.

 

[jimbob]

His strong objection to the word doesn't hold water when he was essentially trying to say it without saying it. If he really objected to the word, he wouldn't have even tried.

I would also have been more convinced if he hadn't made racist jokes previously.