I dont think he will as in his interview he just wanted an end to it and was happy with the letters they sent him. His grand-daughter on the other hand, expect to see her on Im a celeb, celeb big brother and every other z-list infested tv programe for the next few months.

So are you saying that because i disagree with your point of view and/or just don't get your logic, i am not being genuine?
Therefore my position cannot be equally 'real' to yours?

When i say I am being serious, it is because I am being serious, and when I say I dont get your logic, that is because I dont get your logic.
I never speak in code.
Fair enough, you have now explained that you are aware that just because the news doesnt feature bad events in the world, doesnt mean they arent going on, but do you honestly believe that there is ?
What about the other stories that were second, third, fourth billing on New At Ten when they featured Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand as first billing.
For example, we have the recession, War in Congo, Afghanistan?
What about all the wars still going on that the news doesn't run as the aren't fashionable to feature at the moment?
What about the story buried very deeply that there was another melting of the ice cap?
Are you seriously saying that all of that "pales into insignificance" compared to the JR/RB story?
And therefore those events have less magnitude in terms of news broadcasting worthiness and public importance compared to the JR/RB story?
Really? Or have i misunderstood you somewhere along the way?

I have just listened to the youtube clip. In comedy terms, it wasnt all that.
Although i do usually find both of them funny and entertaining.
I don't care if they get censured for being rude and crossing the line.
But it doesn't warrant sacking.
And it has been blown out of all proportion.
If everyone was really respecting Mr Andrew Sachs, it would be left alone know, as he has asked.
So my points are that ALL parties in this affair have shown disregard for Andrew Sachs equal to JR/RB.
And are more motivated by self-interest:
1) ITV sticking it to BBC, their main competitor.
2) The Sun making sales about sleaze and crude even though that is their bread and butter.
3) The granddaughter making money, getting famous, and speaking sleeze and crudity whilst aparrently complaining about sleeze and crudity.
4) Politicians trying to get cheap votes when they have better things to do.

And The Great British Public complaining public?

Well, this is just another example of the infamous media/celebrity led sheep mentality thats been going on for years.

I love Wossy and Brand and think they were carried away with a stupid prank and should be giving a fine out of there personal money and thats that. I dont think Brand should leave I like him.

No, I was not saying that just because you don't get my logic that you are not genuine. I said exactly what I meant in that I was wondering if you were being deliberately obtuse - in order to pick a confrontation.
Nowhere did I draw the conclusion that your position cannot be as real as mine.

I explained my position before the second quote of mine you used, but obviously not clear enough for you to understand it.

you want the recession, Afghanistan or the War in Congo to be top billing. They have all been reported on before and in depth.
When the BBC fiasco got top billing it was NEW...
is that clear?
When it is not new, other News will take the top slot.

and you've conveniently ignored that fact that I actually said prior to you not following my logic that I didn't think BBC/JR/RB was worthy of top slot either.

Which is why I wondered if you were trying to make a storm in a teacup, deliberately.

ok, i understand now. But in both your posts you never explained your feelings in terms of news items that were new, your enthasise was on news items of comparitive magnitude and significance, so twas quite easy for me to come up with the conclusions, and therefore questions, that i did after reading your posts.

Even now with the phrase "i have conveniently ignored" something earlier?
No - i just havent read the whole thread.
So if you had considered that i just didnt understand your posts instead of assuming i was out to cause trouble, and pointed me to that earlier post, then i would have got the right end of the stick much earlier..
But back to your point.
Even in terms of 'newsness', I still dont see how the JR/RB story warrants billing above several others?
I would have had it last.
For example, even with your 'newness' logic, the troubles in the Congo story is, in fact, a new one.
As although these troubles have existed for several years, since the last big 'reporting round' of this war, there has been a lull, but now one faction has broken the stand-off and is attacking a major city, dragging the UN into fighting.
And there are plenty of situations in the world that are new and more important than the JR/RB one.

Which is kind of my point really.
Yes, the War in the Congo, recession, and Afghansistan have all been reported on before.
So the thinking is just because its not fresh or there is not some new 'big' particular event, then the attitude of the News Broadcaster is that they shouldnt report these situations on the news anymore.
And who defines what is 'new' as regards the ongoing examples you have stated as have already been reported 'in depth'.
I would argue that havent been reported on "in depth" at all, as many important details are always overlooked.
For example - the recession: this was started by the Credit crunch which was started by the banks not lending to each other which was started at Lehmann Brothers bank.
We were told on the news about 4 weeks ago that the CEO of Lehmann was dragged before a Senate Committe.
Interesting valuable bit of news.
But hang on - what happened next?
Was he punished? Held accountable? Etc Etc?
Making JR/RB more important in scheduling than something like that, which is just rediculous. As the criteria shouldnt rely on 'newsness' or 'bigness', but information around our world, which includes regular updates on existing ongoing situations.
Such as the hardly noted story about more ice melting.
Or the regular human rights abuses and battles still raging which News At 10 ignored over JR/RB.
How does the broadcasters define what 'new' and big' is anyway?
Only when it has something *directly* to do with the West, or UK?
The word 'news' was formed from North East South West, not 'new'.
ITN are only motivated by sticking it to their rival.

Krusewalker - I think you have completely missed the point here.

We are talking about two employees that have broken the law (Making obscene phone calls was illegal the last time I checked)

Try to imagine if you can that you work in an office where one guy has just split with his girlfriend, he and his mate decide to phone her Dad and say a few stupid lewd things but they get her grandfather instead, he is old and a bit slow (as old people can be sometimes, not a critiscism, we'll all be old sometime) the two blokes go OTT and the old man complains to the firm. In that situation the management would check their phone recordings (A lot of firms record everything nowadays) and the pair are immediately sacked, clear their desk and go.

What's the difference

It's all very well bringing war and fammine and the melting ice caps in but the fact remains if you break the law and are guilty you should pay, if you go all soft and iffy over something like this you are the slippery slope to anachy, and if you have anachy in a country like England what the hell hope is their for all those countries which are in war, have fammines, or you might say who the hell cares for the ice caps when there is no clear cut action on a simple matter of an obscene phone call.

The fact they did it only once is irrelevant, the fact they are highly paid is irrelevant, ('tho such salary brings with it responsibility but they would hardly know about that would they) the fact they are on the radio & TV is definately irrelevant.

The only relevant fact is they broke the law, even if they didn't know the law on obscene phone calls as you probably know 'ignorance of the law is not an excuse'

It's no good moaning about the media bandwagon, and all those people who didn't listen to the broadcast, and talking about all the things the media should be highlighting, that's all spurious, I am no fan of the media but anyone who thinks they can control them needs a serious lesson in reality.

And please don't come back with "The CPS would never prosecute" it doesn't alter the fact they broke the law and if you sweep such clear cut breaches of law and order under the carpet you have anachy. Four workers should have been sacked over this it's that simple, and if it were not the wishy washy gutless BBC they would be signing on at the job centre by now

That's it, I'm outa here, like Nippy said on her thread (Which Azz ought to be merge with this one) we live in a world where double standards, deceipt, and muddle headed thinking abound.

Well actually she didn't say that but I've taken the liberty of paraphrasing her last post

KW, no need to read the whole thread, to see the part I thought you ignored.
Its right there, in the same post you quoted.

By saying there is currently no real bad news, I mean right at the time that the other news got top slot.

I did make the presumption you'd read my whole post, which is why I thought you were deliberately misunderstanding me.

The way you would like the news reported is actually the way I would prefer it too, but it isn't going to happen.
Why? Because it is too in depth and would fill more than the half hour slot allotted.
News on TV , just like news in tabloids, talks in headlines.
That's an editorial decision by whoever is in charge of the newspaper or the programme. Both are driven by ratings.
So yes, ITV sticking it to their rivals.

oh, i think i geddit.
i read your post completely differently.
that you felt it was good that they were given top billing as that means there isnt any important bad news events happening that day, which i thought was an startling thing to say.
i also didnt get that this was your post where you said they shouldn't be top billing.
not deliberately misunderstanding you, just misunderstanding you.
although if you are grateful they are top billing as bad news sells papers, then I would say this story must be way above serious stories for selling papers (unfortunately).

but they would have more space if they didnt over-highlight less important issues.
true, its pants....an example below
we agree...

Jonathan Ross has been suspended for 12wks without pay. Good to see mob rule is still alive and kicking in the UK

Just heard that on the telly mate.

Does that mean BBC will stop showing his Friday night show ?