Posts
John Barrowman webcam outrage... zzzzz...
Oh that noise? That's the Daily Mail busily gearing up for another witchhunt. Apparently, during last night's Radio One show The Switch, John Barrowman unzipped his flies in front of the webcam.
Seriously, how do the Mail know this? Do they have work experience kids watching all the BBC's output in a bid to find something supposedly shocking? Or does Paul Dacre spend his Sunday evenings watching The Switch website anyway and so happened to be there when it was unleashed?
Although there are only seven people left in Christendom who haven't already seen John Barrowman's cock, the Mail is keen to be starting something:
Last night, radio listeners heard as Barrowman, a guest who was promoting his new single, responded to goading by presenters.
Grimshaw said: 'You’re famous, we’re told, for getting your willy out in interviews. Is this going to happen today? Should Annie be careful?'
Barrowman asked: 'Is the webcam on?', and when he told it was, responded: 'All right. I’ll get it out for you then, no problem'.
Annie Mac is then heard screaming and shouting 'Oh my God!' as Grimshaw and Barrowman laugh.
Actually, that is pretty disgusting - imagine a webcam which might catch a glimpse of Nick Grimshaw.
So, Daily Mail - this is a man flashing his cock on a webcam, is it?
What's that, Daily Mail? You seem to have got bashful all of a sudden. What actually happened?
The BBC confirmed Barrowman had exposed himself on the programme, but said it was not visible to online viewers.
It also said Mac apologised at the end of the show and that no complaints had been received last night.
So, nobody listening was upset. Nobody - if there was anybody - watching complained. And, erm, Barrowman didn't actually expose himself to the audience.
So how does that opening paragraph on your report make sense?
The BBC was engulfed in another decency row today after one of its highest profile stars exposed himself live on air.
Doctor Who actor John Barrowman revealed himself in a pre-watershed Radio 1 show which was also broadcast online via a webcam.
The BBC received no complaints - which is the weakest definition of 'engulfed' I've ever come across - and Barrowman didn't actually 'expose himself on air'. Yes, the story does stir outrage, but only at the really skewed deceit of Daily Mail journalists.
7 comments:
"So, nobody listening was upset. Nobody - if there was anybody - watching complained. And, erm, Barrowman didn't actually expose himself to the audience.
So how does that opening paragraph on your report make sense?"
Don't forget this is the Mail, so by 'was engulfed in another decency row', they probably meant 'will be engulfed, once we've summoned our vast armies of obedient readers to hit the Ofcom button on their speed-dials'.
Can I have 'This Friday' in the Andy Parfitt Resignation Sweepstake?
Can I have 'This Friday' in the Andy Parfitt Resignation Sweepstake?
To be honest, you might not be far wrong. Rumour has it (alright, they've mentioned it on the Guardian mediatalk podcast, and that's good enough for me) that he could get the Radio 2/6Music job.
To be honest, you might not be far wrong
Does that make sense? I'm not sure. "not be far off" would probably be better.
Actually, when he was in the early 1990s revival of Hair, Barrowman was the only one not to get his bits out in the pre-interval nude scene. I think it was something about him being a kids' TV presenter at the time, and he only went as far as skimpy briefs.
However, audiences were treated to Sinitta, Pepsi and Kelvin off of EastEnders comparing attributes on stage.
Kelvin from EastEnders naked on stage? Did he make Something Outta Nothing?
I shall be providing free "boom, tish" for everyone in just a moment.
This might cheer everyone up; In the Mail's online coverage of this story, the Comments section has a nifty new voting system which lets you give each comment a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, and displays its current score. So far, the comments agreeing with the Mail's outrage are showing big red negative scores, whilst those saying the Mail are wrong have big green positives. So "It was not offensive. NO one could see anything" gets +170, whilst "Three more 'presenters/stars' to take off air permanently. Enough is enough!" gets -211. You might want to take a look at it before Dacre decides it wasn't such a great idea and has it removed...
(Oh, and Barrowman shouldn't worry too much - The Mail's story has an 'Ads by Google' box at the foot of the page, offering links to buy, erm, tickets to see John Barrowman in the West End. I for one am disgusted that the Mail is pushing a vile stage show 'starring' someone known for indecent exposure...)
Thanks, that did cheer me up. And I've now voted on all the shit Mail reader comments which I believe to be one of the most useful things I've done this week.
Post a Comment
As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.