The Off Topic Topic

[Maladict]

We're talking about Danny Baker, right? The man made a terrible mistake but from what I've seen of him over the years I really don't think he is a racist. Nor was the image intended as such, even though it will look racist to most people who saw it. All of that can be true, contradictory as it may seem. 

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your argument, I just don't think this particular example serves it well.

[Sheilbh]

[Maladict]

OK, what did I do?

[Sheilbh]

Sorry I was actually replying to Mr Foot

Interesting piece on the interview by Helen Lewis - I think this does basically get how the interview will largely be received in the US and the UK:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/03/meghan-markle-wont-be-silenced/618227/

[Maladict]

Sorry I was actually replying to Mr Foot

[celedhring]

Remember when I posted about John McAffee driving like crazy around Barcelona and losing his nuts after he got trapped in Spain during the first lockdown? Well, the guy bought himself a hotel in Tarragona that had gone bankrupt, turned it into a cryptocurrency mining facility, and is now in jail awaiting extradition after the Feds charged him with numerous securities and tax frauds.

Can't deny the guy's resourceful.

[Sheilbh]

So the Society of Editors immediately released a statement saying the "press is most certainly not racist". Some editors are disagreeing with this and saying they weren't consulted and the chair is having quite the day defending that statement:
https://twitter.com/TomHourigan/status/1369227842941255681?s=20

[garbon]

Sorry I was actually replying to Mr Foot

Interesting piece on the interview by Helen Lewis - I think this does basically get how the interview will largely be received in the US and the UK:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/03/meghan-markle-wont-be-silenced/618227/

Interesting that part of British side boils down to: you are supposed to suffer, don't make a fuss about it.

[Syt]

Sorry I was actually replying to Mr Foot

Interesting piece on the interview by Helen Lewis - I think this does basically get how the interview will largely be received in the US and the UK:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/03/meghan-markle-wont-be-silenced/618227/

Interesting that part of British side boils down to: you are supposed to suffer, don't make a fuss about it.

Stiff upper lip, wot wot?

[Legbiter]

Remember when I posted about John McAffee driving like crazy around Barcelona and losing his nuts after he got trapped in Spain during the first lockdown? Well, the guy bought himself a hotel in Tarragona that had gone bankrupt, turned it into a cryptocurrency mining facility, and is now in jail awaiting extradition after the Feds charged him with numerous securities and tax frauds.

Can't deny the guy's resourceful.

I knew he hid out out in Dalvík in North Iceland in 2019 that is until his social media addiction resulted in a twitter user pinpointing his location. He apparently had a reputation as a lovable eccentric in the village. His saga was seamlessly integrated into the local folklore.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting that part of British side boils down to: you are supposed to suffer, don't make a fuss about it.

Yeah. I'm not sure that it is stiff upper lip - that's just how the royals deal with it - I feel like it's more the relentless British crushing of people who have ambitions. It's always a huge difference between Americans and Brits around the confident and (to British ears) boastful/arrogant way Americans talk about themselves, versus self-deprecation, modesty, not being perceived as boastful. There's a bit of tall poppy syndrome about it and, as Lewis says, "don't get above your station" which for royals is to be decorative and non-controversial in a gilded cage. They're not allowed to have opinions, they're not really allowed to be interesting and they're not allowed to complain - not least because, after all, they live in palaces with servants even if they are miserable.

It's a horrible life and I feel sorry for the people born into it or joining it - but there are lots of material benefits that possibly outweigh the costs. Though from being relatively comfortabe normal person there's no way in hell I'd be a royal.

And also the other point is they do have a constitutional role in the UK - so for example the security detail point is one that I think will get a lot of sympathy in the US, but from here why should the UK state pay for security for them if they decide to step back and live in another country. I agree that the royal family could pay out of their abundant resources (but then so could Harry who has a multi-million trust fund from his mum), but I don't think it's crazy that the UK state is not longer providing security.

[garbon]

We're talking about Danny Baker, right? The man made a terrible mistake but from what I've seen of him over the years I really don't think he is a racist. Nor was the image intended as such, even though it will look racist to most people who saw it. All of that can be true, contradictory as it may seem. 

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your argument, I just don't think this particular example serves it well.

While I think there is merit in discussing the punishments meted out, I don't think that appeals to intent counter Shola's concern that Britain is a society where journalists generate racist content. From the point of view of the propogration of racism, it doesn't really matter if the individual intends to be racist or 'is racist', they are still propogating racism.  Think about all the ink spilled on whether or not Trump is a racist. I'd argue his intent doesn't really matter as at the end of the day he was still propogating racist ideas.

If we do want to look at intent, I could see a space where he didn't intend to be racist but knew it could be received that way. The notion he had no idea that it could be perceived as racist doesn't seem credible and that's the stance he took when he first 'apologised' ("Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased."). Here's a bit on a blurb from BBC at the end of coverage on his apology (where he also noted he was quite rightly being punished).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48226247

However, Dr Pragya Agarwal, a psychology academic and equality campaigner, told the BBC that Baker's latest apology, while lengthy and detailed, "still feigns ignorance about the racist tropes, while continuing to play the victim".

"I am really struggling to see how Danny Baker could not have realised what he was posting. The history of racial slurs and monkey chants in football are well-known and so he must be aware of the connotations," she said.

Dr Agarwal said Baker's tweet was "particularly harmful because it came from someone who has a media profile".

"People admire and follow him, so it gives a signal to others that it is perfectly acceptable," she added.

"As a result, it has reminded black people and those of mixed-heritage that they are still 'othered'.

"It is important that we give people an opportunity to address and acknowledge their implicit biases in a safe and non-judgemental space.

"When we do this, we can begin to address the inequalities. If only Danny Baker had done so," she added.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

Broadcaster Scarlette Douglas, who works on 5 Live podcast The Sista Collective and The One Show, told the BBC: "I think somebody told him, 'What you've tweeted was incorrect, so you should maybe say something or take it down.'

"Yes, OK, he took it down, but his apology for me wasn't really an apology. I don't think it's right and I think subsequently what's happened is correct."

Ayesha Hazarika, a commentator and former adviser to the Labour Party, told 5 Live she was "genuinely gobsmacked" by the tweet.

"I couldn't believe it," she said. "I thought it was a joke at first. I thought it was a spoof. It was so crass. What was going through his head?

"You can't just say sorry and then carry on like it's business as usual. When you have an incredibly important platform like he does, you do have to think about what you do and the signals that it sends out."

Baker must have been aware of recent incidences of racism at football matches and the resulting outcry, Ms Hazarika added.

Linda Bellos, former chairwoman of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals, echoed those remarks. saying: "A lot of black players are complaining about noises being made to them. He knows this stuff," she told Radio 4.

His tweet was "foolish", she said, adding: "Never mind that it's royalty.

"The things that are happening to black children up and down the country are not enhanced by his words and I'm glad that prompt action has been taken, and let's hope we have come thoughtful dialogue and learning from this."

[Richard Hakluyt]

If I was trying to build a majority for turning the UK into a republic I would certainly bring the horrible lives that the Royals endure into the argument.

[Legbiter]

If I was trying to build a majority for turning the UK into a republic I would certainly bring the horrible lives that the Royals endure into the argument.

The cynic in me sees this Oprah (of course) interview she did as a branding exercise. Poor Harry looks like a hostage. If and when they divorce she'll level accusations of terrible abuse against him.

[Sheilbh]

While I think there is merit in discussing the punishments meted out, I don't think that appeals to intent counter Shola's concern that Britain is a society where journalists generate racist content. From the point of view of the propogration of racism, it doesn't really matter if the individual intends to be racist or 'is racist', they are still propogating racism.  Think about all the ink spilled on whether or not Trump is a racist. I'd argue his intent doesn't really matter as at the end of the day he was still propogating racist ideas.

Yeah - I agree with this. But isn't part of the issue with Trump also his role as President and his use of his power/what he did. I suppoes the ability to propogate/impact of that individual regardless of intent. So I think you can be fairly merciless for politicians and broadcast journalists (subject to apologising, learning and improving - I regularly think about Naz Shah's change on anti-semitism as something really positive but also far too rare).

If we do want to look at intent, I could see a space where he didn't intend to be racist but knew it could be received that way. The notion he had no idea that it could be perceived as racist doesn't seem credible and that's the stance he took when he first 'apologised' ("Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased."). Here's a bit on a blurb from BBC at the end of coverage on his apology (where he also noted he was quite rightly being punished).

But from that article I don't really see particular issues with his apology. They both feel like they're real apologies rather than "I apologise if anyone was offended" and he was fired from the BBC which I think was the right decision.

The first apology - I agree there's more issues with this one:

"Following one of the worst days of my life I just want to formally apologise for the outrage I caused and explain how I got myself into this mess.

"I chose the wrong photo to illustrate a joke. Disastrously so.

"In attempting to lampoon privilege and the news cycle I went to a file of goofy pictures and saw the chimp dressed as a Lord and thought, 'That's the one!' Had I kept searching I might have chosen General Tom Thumb or even a a baby in a crown. But I didn't. God knows I wish had.

"Minutes later I was alerted by followers that this royal baby was of course mixed race and waves of panic and revulsion washed over me... What had I done?

"I needed no lessons on the centuries slurs equating simians and people of colour. Racism at it's basest.

"But it was a genuine, naive and catastrophic mistake. There is of course little media/twitter traction in such a straight-forward explanation. The picture in context as presented was obviously shamefully racist. It was never intended so - seriously who on earth would 'go there'?"

"Anyway I am now paying the price for this crass and regrettable blunder and rightly so. Probably even this final word from me will extend the mania. ('Dog whistle' anyone?) I would like to thank friends on here for their kinder words and once again - I am so, so sorry."

Second apology:

"I would like once and for all to apologise to every single person who, quite naturally, took the awful connection at face value.

"I understand that and all of the clamour and opprobrium I have faced since. I am not feeling sorry for myself. I [messed] up. Badly.

"I am aware black people do not need a white man to tell them this. Deleting it immediately and apologising for the awful gaffe I even foolishly tried to make light of it. (My situation that is, not the racism involved.) Too late and here I am."

And for what it's worth Danny Baker isn't a journalist. He's a radio DJ - he used to host TV shows like Pets Win Prizes and compilations of people doing football trick shots. For the last 20 years he's been a Saturday morning radio DJ and I think football call-ins.