Fairytale of New York

[domalino]

So are the BBC labelling their Radio 2 audience as homophobic?

I think that they're suggesting there's a lot more overlap on the Venn diagram of "Radio 2 Listeners" and "People who will be very angry about not hearing homophobic slurs on the radio this Christmas" than the corresponding "Radio 1" Venn diagram

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

I think that they're suggesting there's a lot more overlap on the Venn diagram of "Radio 2 Listeners" and "People who will be very angry about not hearing homophobic slurs on the radio this Christmas" than the corresponding "Radio 1" Venn diagram

and equally more overlap between "Radio 1 listeners" and "trivial reasons to froth at the mouth and go mental on Twitter".

 

[Ric]

But it’s either offensive or it’s not?
The BBC is paid for by the license payers therefore it should have a more homogeneous approach.

Licence payers aren’t a homogeneous group so I don’t think the BBC should necessarily have a more homogeneous approach.

 

[squirtyflower]

Licence payers aren’t a homogenous group so I don’t think the BBC should necessarily have a more homogenous approach.

They’re not though.
But if the song is offensive ban it.

 

[Phil1]

If we're being honest, it's because the BBC is trying to navigate a small but annoying bunch of people who feel very strongly they should be able to shout out homophobic slurs every Christmas and don't want to be told they've been possibly been offending people for years by doing so.

If you read the BBC statement -

A BBC spokesman said: "We know the song is considered a Christmas classic and we will continue to play it this year, with our radio stations choosing the version of the song most relevant for their audience."​

​

I would suggest the most revealing part would be "this year", and that Radio 2 will standalone in its usage before probably moving on in the future.

I’ve hummed and ahhed over this for the last hour or so and genuinely still don’t know where I’m at.
I will always try and be respectful of the language we use when it comes to race, sex, etc and I’m well aware of the changes that have happened over the years. Mostly for the best.
For some reason this particular subject and song has me in a quandary- I get why it’s not acceptable and why there’s a large section of society that wants it banned but for some reason, in this instance I don’t agree.
I guess I’m a hypocrite but I genuinely can’t explain it.

 

[squirtyflower]

I think that they're suggesting there's a lot more overlap on the Venn diagram of "Radio 2 Listeners" and "People who will be very angry about not hearing homophobic slurs on the radio this Christmas" than the corresponding "Radio 1" Venn diagram

Have you any evidence that people listening to Radio 2 are more likely to want to hear homophobic slurs and be upset if they didn’t?

 

[domalino]

and equally more overlap between "Radio 1 listeners" and "trivial reasons to froth at the mouth and go mental on Twitter".

The only people frothing at the mouth today are people desperate to have homophobic slurs broadcast on radio for next Christmas, despite the wishes of the recording artist, despite the fact that it obviously does offend some people and costs absolutely nothing for the rest of us to accommodate.

 

[domalino]

Have you any evidence that people listening to Radio 2 are more likely to want to hear homophobic slurs and be upset if they didn’t?

The fact the BBC has decided their radio 2 audience wants to hear homophobic slurs but their other radio channels don't is my evidence.

It's not conclusive proof, but it is evidence.

 

[Ric]

They’re not though.
But if the song is offensive ban it.

If the entire song was deemed offensive then perhaps it’d be an easier solution for the BBC. But it’s one word in one line that is contentious, and the band themselves seemingly have no issue with the edited version being played, so I don’t really get the issue. People who want to hear the original, unedited version can do so on endless platforms if they wish.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

The only people frothing at the mouth today are people desperate to have homophobic slurs broadcast on radio for next Christmas, despite the wishes of the recording artist, despite the fact that it obviously does offend some people and costs absolutely nothing for the rest of us to accommodate.

and the only reason it gets taken down in the first place is because people were frothing at the mouth and desperate to be offended by it, but "it costs absolutely nothing" to accommodate.