It’s satire.
You’ve missed the point totally.
</hijack>
While the field pieces and whatever challenges have already been filmed, apparently the in the studio parts are filmed the same week as the air date. So some of the last three episodes haven’t been filmed yet.
Here is a pretty good list of all the Top Gear controversies over the years: Top Gear controversies - Wikipedia
I know they are not all related to Clarkson, but many are. If all he did was “hit” a producer, I think he will be back relatively soon. I’m not condoning whatever he did, but there is no host that could replace him and there is no show that can replace Top Gear. He says something controversial every other week, but I do not know why “a fracas” with a producer would cause BBC to replace the show with something else.
For all we know Clarkson could be pulling some ridiculous stunt.
As someone pointed out elsewhere, we, the UK licence-fee payer, have already paid for these shows, so its a bit rich of the BBC to say we can’t see them. If they have a problem with Clarkson doing the live segment then replace him with someone else for those three episodes or simply run them without him, I’m sure May and Hammond could hold the fort for three episodes.
Someone explained to me that all the out-of-studio bits are pre-taped; it’s the in-studio with the audience standing around stuff that hasn’t been filmed yet.
They also probably don’t want the awkwardness of publicizing Clarkson, via his appearances on the show, or give him the pleasure of seeing them do it. So, spite.
I can just imagine the Top Gear team listing themselves on the credits at the end as, Richard Clarkson, James Clarkson, Brian Clarkson, Hannah Clarkson etc as they sometimes do with other episode themes.
In fact the more I think about not getting to see the last three episodes the more annoyed I am, Top Gear is literally the only TV program I will make an effort to watch and I’m not interested in any of the other waste of airtime programs my non-voluntary licence fee goes towards. I do watch the BBC News and use the website but the bias, spin, and social-engineering that goes on there is disgraceful.
Its rather telling that a BBC article on the Top Gear series is titled, ‘How a Monster Was Born’, “Top Gear: How a monster was born - BBC News”
There is a school of thought that Top Gear is very much off-message for the general BBC ethos and something of an embarrassment but one that makes lots and lots of money for them so the powers that be are somewhat ambivalent towards it, and especially towards Clarkson.
Well sure, because Clarkson is not politically correct and not uber-sensitive toward ninnies and buffoons, or at least his on-air character is. I suspect his on-air character is just an amped-up version of his real personality, which makes executives, particularly media executives, squirm.
It’s angry comedy that tries, and fails miserably, its hand at being satire.
I’ve found that people who say satire doen’t need to be funny are generally people who don’t find anything funny.
OT, but I’ve found a weird taboo in the UK about the genuine belief that BBC News (and BBC in general) is unbiased and truthful.
I’ve found intelligent people get incredibly worked up when even this idea is challenged.
For instance, a large quantity of the Scottish independence reporting last year featured absolutely no representation from the ‘Yes’ side. here Petition. Of course the clues in the name, British Broadcasting Corporation, but hell, people genuinely believe that it wasn’t biased. This is just one example, there are plenty more…
Over here they get worked up by the nonsense that Fox News spouts every so often, saying that US news is biased. I point out that most americans don’t actually watch Fox News, when most Brits watch BBC News, a more subtly biased organisation…
And I think they missed a chance to help revitalize the show starting with, say, a female stig.
Given that there had already been a (black-outfit) stig who went public, all they needed to do was once again say that stig turned out to be human, but now meet red stig or whatever. Red stig blitzes all of the white stig’s times, and everyone just forgets about white stig.
Really, the stig thing is fun, but it’s a bit much to expect people to take the (not so) secret to their graves. After 7 years of trying to hide…yeah let the guy publish his book.
And generally the show has been moribund ever since IMO. Clarkson always seems thoroughly fed up of the increasingly bizarre shit they have him do that was supposedly his own idea. And there just haven’t been enough new ideas.
If they wrap it up now…well, at least they can try to claim they went out on a high. I don’t think they’ll be able to for much longer.
<Still OT>
Sure, but there’s a difference in degree. While the BBC has been biased in the past, it nevertheless does deliver a very high standard of journalism much of the time. There’s a reason it’s the world’s biggest international broadcaster.
And at least they try to publicly address accusations of bias and correct erroneous information.
Is it even possible to hold a higher standard and have no bias ever?
:rolleyes:
If you don’t like the 41st Best Stand Up Comedian ever than that’s fair enough.
You may not find it amusing but it is objectively satire and it is, to me, subjectively funny.
Can you not see the irony here?:
“Last night, Hammond did not want to comment on Lee’s comedy routine, although he is believed to view Lee’s jokes as being ‘in bad taste’”
IME it was bollocks: there was plenty of representation. The BBC is a huge organisation and different parts have different biases.
I have a completely different viewpoint, I watched months of it in England (and interested as a Scot), and got virtually NO pro indepedence candidates asked for opinions. Complete fearmongering and “Here we have two anti independence people to talk on the subject”.
The bias was appalling. I can’t comment on the bias inside Scotland, because I wasn’t there. However, the coverage in England was completely and totally one sided.
Yes, the BBC is a huge organisation, and has different biases. However, in this case, it unified against independence (probably jutifiably, because there went 10% of its funding), marched out their Scottish employees who were all strangely anti independence. Joined the Daily Wail in there slating of any pro independence views (Andy Murray for instance).
It was clear to me, should have been clear to everyone. Yet the myth of BBC lack of bias continues…
[Not-so stealthy brag]
I’ve got tickets to see the great Stuart Lee live at the end of next month 
I met Ben Collins at Silverstone and got him to sign my copy of his book, he’s a top bloke 
[/NSSB]
Do you think you may be suffering from confirmation bias yourself?
Seriously. I hear claims of bias against the BBC all the time but I hear it from every political side at the same time, that’s as good an indicator of balanced coverage as it is possible to get.
I’m politically neutral, certainly neutral regarding Scotch independence and I felt both sides were fairly and widely represented in the broadcast media, Newsnight, question time etc. all had balanced and unbiased panels (as their guideline dictate that they must!) and all opinions were heard. But hey, people will pick up on the one thing that irks them and forget what the overall message of the piece is.
So where is your evidence for bias? The link you provided before just reports on Nick Robinson giving Alex Salmond a hard time…that is what he does to everyone!
Clarkson will probably take himself off to one of the other broadcasters such as Sky, who can afford to throw more money at him than the BBC ever could. There is life after BBC work these days.
I made the same point re ‘balance’ elsewhere recently - if both sides complain, then the BBC must be mostly in the middle most of the time.
But that Nick Robinson incident was deceitful, biased editing. The potted bulletin showed NR asking a question, and ended with him saying “But AS never answered”. The unedited footage clearly reveals that AS gave a full and comprehensive (if unwelcome) answer to the substantive question that NR had posed. He did not answer the trivial ‘gotcha’ question which was appended to it - but the misleading bulletin was deliberate. Or possibly staggeringly inept. Either is indefensible.