I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about what I think about the recent Andy Gray / Richard Keys sexism thing. My initial reaction was that I shouldn't be surprised to discover that someone in football is a sexist. After all, I recall a time at Vicarage Road when during the half time presentations a man proposed to his girlfriend on the field. The West Ham fans' immediate reaction was to start chanting "Does she take it up the arse?".
Against this background it is hard to be shocked by Andy Gray's comments. Spend any amount of time hanging around with many football fans and you'll discover that a certain level of sexism and racism is the norm. Therefore my reaction to Gray's comments were to shake my head and hope that the incident would be used to highlight sexism amongst fans to change attitudes. Instead we have had a media witch-hunt in which Gray and Keys have been targeted as a culprits responsible for a wider culture. With their sacking the story vanishes out of the media and football fans can carry on as normal.
It was, however, difficult to disagree with the sacking of such a self-righteous idiot as Gray. So I had until now been happy to go along with the media consensus. That was until I read Charlie Brooker's fantastic piece in the Guardian this morning in which he casts the debate in terms of freedom of speech.
Brooker has chiselled himself out a niche as the most ascerbic - and generally funniest - media commentator of the last few years. I'm beginning to agree with almost everything he says as he points out the contradictions, illusions and lies of the modern print and broadcast news. His recent TV series "How TV ruined your life" started well last week by focussing on how television uses fear to generate news and make the world seem scarier than it really is. His appearances on "Ten O'clock live" have been something of a highlight of a show that has had a bit of trouble finding its feet but shows promise.
So in conclusion, watch anything with Charlie Brooker on it as it's probably great. And if people want to have private conversations in which they're arseholes then they should probably be allowed to, it's when they convince others of their bilge that we should be worried.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, I do not believe that Andy Gray should have been sacked and here's why:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, as a football pundit he has excellent analytical skills, backed up with a life long experience of the game.
Second: What is he actually guilty of? Sexism; yes. bigotry; certainly. Being an uncouth celt; no doubt. But he is hardly alone with these deficiences , there are plenty of sports so called personalities who I would not want to give me the kiss of life if I was on my death bed, that remain employed by the beeb, sky and ITV but slyly avoid entrapment. So why single out Gray?
I suggest that Gray should have been retained by sky and invited onto BBC question time where his views could have been debated and disected. ( remember the humiliation of Nick Griffin and the subsequent demise of the BNP?).
I am confident that after such a full and frank public debate Gray would have looked the loser that he is and slowly would have lost all credibility.
Now, he is becoming something of a cult figure among the lesser aware members of the football fan fraternity.
I deplore censorship.