Chris Moyles - Would You Be Offended?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by Leyfy, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. Leyfy

    Leyfy Active Member

    'I went off to Ireland and other places to film and unlike a lot of the Who Do You Think You Are? shows I didn't go to Auschwitz,' Moyles said.
    'Pretty much everyone goes there whether or not they're Jewish. They just seem to pass through there on their way to Florida.'

    Is this offensive? Or just press jumping on the 'bbc-bashing' bandwagon after the Brand/Ross incident last year?
  2. Mr Guinness

    Mr Guinness Member

    I find most of what Chris Moyles says offensive to be honest. I'm not a fan. That said - I don't think the 'joke' in question is worthy of too much airtime.

    I prefer radio 2 these days. Oh dear.... I'm old. (but not old enough for radio 4 :tongue:)
  3. andywooler

    andywooler Supporting Member

    I didn't hear the show so therefore cannot have been offended......
  4. Mr Guinness

    Mr Guinness Member

    I suspect it's available through the BBC 'i' player. If you're quick, you could listen to it now and get yourself well and truly offended. You'll then be in a much better position to complain, regardless of the fact that you weren't actually offended in the first place. :wink:
  5. andywooler

    andywooler Supporting Member

    You mean you actually have to hear to to be able to complain?

    I'll be watching wossy tonight in case there's more!
  6. WoodenFlugel

    WoodenFlugel Moderator Staff Member

    I think the fact that the first few characters of the link are www.dailymail say it all really.

    More BBC bashing from our wonderful media. Want a recession? Well talk about it for 6 months and you'll get one. Want to get a TV presenter in trouble? Well stoke up some good old fashioned outrage from people who are ready to be outraged and you'll get that no problem. Trouble is the BBC is so PC these days they go into a flat spin whenever there is the slightest sniff of controversy.

    It seems to me the media are quite prepared to stoke up a celebrity's "controversial" status, until the exact moment when they decide they need to sell more papers at that celebrity's expense - then crash! that same person who was their darling 6 months ago is now the spawn of satan.

    You know, old George Orwell wasn't that wrong with 1984 - he was about 25 years out and he should've been pointing his satirical spear at the media rather than the governing classes, but it seems to me we're not that far from a age where newspapers and TV are telling us what to think and heaven help you if you happen to disagree.

    As for Moyles - I listen to him every morning in a desperate attempt to remain "youthful" (though he isn't that much younger than me). He brightens my deary road-rage inducing drive into work and for that at least I feel I ought to defend him. He isn't to everyone's taste - but then even dear old Tel on the other side isn't.

    A thought to close - am I the only person here to think this would be a much, much better country to live in if we didn't have such a pack of pig-dogs as a press?
  7. Mr Guinness

    Mr Guinness Member

    You are certainly not alone in that thought!!! :clap:
  8. andywooler

    andywooler Supporting Member

    So, more Daily Mail bashing instead?
    You know that all the press covered this story so that was also unwarranted!

    Like all mature adutls, I read newspapers (in my case it is the Daily Mail) and watch the BBC and am quite capable of making my own mind up on the stories they print/broadcast.

    Back to the topic: If the programmes in question didn't find something in the past of the subject that was interesting, it would make awful tv - I am not at all surprised that each epsiode contains a selection of lost mass murderers, holocaust victims, drug runners, pirates etc - finding out your great uncle george was a bus driver is not engaging TV so in that context, I can understand the point Moyles was making - and if you understand that point, you cannot be offended by how he expressed it.
    Anyone who see it as some kind of anti semitic comment clearly don't get it or they simply want to sell more copy!
  9. Leyfy

    Leyfy Active Member

    Yes, I have to admit I am not a daily reader of (or the paper itself), but when I was looking for a link I typed into google 'chris moyles Auschwitz' and that was the first link I came up with! I saw the original story on MSN through my email address so wasn't sure if that link would work.

    I have listened to Chris Moyles since I was at university in 2000/03, and he was on in the afternoon (student wouldn't be out of bed in the morning! lol), but recently I have started to switch off a bit - mainly because after over 8 years of listening, they seem to be going round in circles.

    In the same week I heard him singing the song about Will Young (mainly focusing on his sexuality) and I thought that would provoke more complaints than this particular story.

    To be honest though, if you have listened to Chris before (or seen numerous comments in the press - especially when he first started at Radio 1 then surely you would know what to expect?!
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2009
  10. 4thmandown

    4thmandown Member

    The most important thing to remember is that newspapers and the media are there to make money, first and foremost! In that sense the Daily Mail is no worse than any other. Chris Moyles provided a feeding frenzy for the all the hacks of the media, and a somewhat easy feeding frenzy at that. (Does anyone remember the Spitting Image portrayal of the press as pigs in pork pie hats? That sums up the gutter press for me). As I see it journalists care less about the truth or people's sensitivities rather than getting their names on the front page and making a few quid.

    As for Chris Moyles I can't stand the man myself, for my own reasons, but he is a controversial character who will says what he feels, often without thinking first (as it appears to me). I don't think that he was being anti-semitic or diminishing the terrible events that took place at Auschwitz at all, but Auschwitz is not the sort of word to be used casually, or without careful forethought, no matter what the context.

    In the case of the Daily Mail the evidence I can see is that, however misguidedly, it sees itself as the guardian of the nation's moral standards; a somewhat smug and self-righteous belief. (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone). It was also set up to stir up people's feelings, or give them something to moan about - to quote it's original owner - and in that respect it certainly does. Would never read it myself. My ambition is to have a balanced opinion. (still working on that one! ;-) )
  11. themusicalrentboy

    themusicalrentboy Active Member


    I don't know if Mr Moyles has been to Auschwitz - if he hasn't he needs to go and get a feeling of the atmosphere around that terrible place (the room full of human hair might be a good place to start). It is most certainly not something that should be made fun of (one of the very few things in this world that is not open to poking fun at).

    If he has been to Auschwitz then he should know better than to use it for silly passing comments which he KNOWS will get some people riled.

    I have to say that I usually like Chris Moyles, and I will still listen to his show but he should really have thought twice,especially considering the other radio-centred controversy recently.
  12. BigHorn

    BigHorn Active Member

    To be honest it wasn't really a joke to be offended at was it? It was more of an observation that, unlike 3 other celebrities who's families had been at Auschwitz and then ended up in glamorous locations, his family were pretty ordinary.
    If - and only if - he had belittled the suffering there, then he would have deserved any criticism or punishment thrown at him. And I don't take this argument that to be offended you have to hear it first hand. The Ross and Brand case deservered to be whipped up by the media as that was totally unacceptable. I doubt this case will get raise much public indignation though.
  13. themusicalrentboy

    themusicalrentboy Active Member

    just to clarify - I wasn't offended persay, I just cringed at the lack of thought that went into what he said.
  14. Leyfy

    Leyfy Active Member

    But surely, that was my point?

    WAS he poking fun at it? No, I don't think so.
  15. themusicalrentboy

    themusicalrentboy Active Member

    maybe he was, maybe he wasn't - either way it is not a topic which should even be discussed in this way.

    Thinking about it again he most probably wasn't making fun but it is still a tad insensitive you must agree?
  16. WoodenFlugel

    WoodenFlugel Moderator Staff Member

    Perhaps, but maybe not as insensitive as the programme producers who look for what amounts to a "good bit of death" (my words not theirs BTW) in a celebrity's past or the press who then highlight what may well be a perfectly innocent observation and twist it into an anti-sematic comment.
  17. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

  18. Leyfy

    Leyfy Active Member

    Yup, exactly :clap:
  19. Anno Draconis

    Anno Draconis Well-Known Member

    No, you're not :rolleyes:

    :clap: Excellent point.

    I'm never entirely comfortable with the notion of Auschwitz as a place you choose to visit - I went to Krakow a few years ago and there were minibus tours you could go on (I didn't); it's almost become a "must-see" on the backpacking circuit, which strikes me as a bit tacky, if I'm honest. Make it a monument to those who died, with visits by appointment only, if you ask me.

    Regarding Moyles; in the main people listen to his show (and always have since he was the self styled "saviour of early morning radio" a decade ago) because it's edgy, because he might say something that makes you think "is that allowed?" - just like Brand and Ross. He knows that, just like Brand and Ross, and makes sure that every now and again, he delivers something controversial.

    Something else to contemplate: The more you set something up as an untouchable "sacred cow", the more comedians seeking to establish an edgy, controversial reputation will take potshots at it.
  20. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    It's not the "edgy" I take issue with, it's the "comedian"... If I had to pick a phrase to describe his act, I think "boorish bully" would be more appropriate. But then, it's been a while since I was forced to listen to it every morning - maybe he's changed his style a bit?

    p.s. I'll gladly sign up to the anti-gutter-press movement too. And, sorry Andy, that includes the Daily Mail, much though it pretends to be above other papers in that bracket.

Share This Page