In the Woooorld...

Jesus Christ yes, of course.

There was recently a controversy in the UFC because light heavyweight champion Jon Jones tested positive for cocaine (in out of competition testing). Dana White and the UFC's initial statement was extremely supportive of Jon; something along the lines of "we're aware of the issue, and we're working with Jon to get him better. Our number one priority in this is Jon's health and well being, and blah blah blah."

Long story short, because it was out of competition testing, it wasn't grounds for him to be stripped of his title or have his last win reversed or anything like that. It was a violation of the UFC's code of conduct, but not anything that could legally affect his status as a pro MMA fighter.

There was some outrage about this, including some from former fighters who have tested positive for recreational drugs and got in big trouble over it. They said that Jon was getting preferential treatment, and that the UFC certainly never tried to work with them, when they tested positive…

And yeah, no fucking shit. I don't remember any of the names of those fighters who were complaining, what does that tell you? Jon Jones probably made more money for the UFC in his last fight than those other fighters did in their entire careers, combined. Why WOULDN'T the UFC spend more energy on Jon Jones?

Again, the fact that this was out of competition and not a performance enhancing drug is key here. In some instances I absolutely think everybody should be held to the same standard, like if someone tests positive for steroids. But yes, Jon Jones gets his own PR campaign when he fucks up like this, and you, UFC fighter #03718, do not. Become the best MMA fighter of all time and you can do coke between fights too.

 

But his shitty behavior did result in him being fired, right? BRING BACK CHARLIE SHEEN!

 

I'm having trouble trying to figure out what the furor is all about. Actions have consequences, and generally speaking a common consequence for assaulting your boss is that you lose your job. I don't see where 'value' even comes into the equation here; presumably his greater value to Top Gear - than a set assistant, for example - was reflected in the amount of compensation he was getting. You're worth more, you get paid more, and I don't think anyone is disputing this.

If this guy was some miracle doctor out saving lives every day then I'd probably be more willing to argue that he should get a pass for his actions. But he's not, he's just an entertainer, so I don't have any sympathy for him.

 

The furor is all about this being the end of the show Top Gear and by your comment I'd assume you don't watch the show. Top Gear is probably the most watched show "In the World..." and it makes a lot of people sad/mad to not have any new episodes of the show. Especially considering how "minor" this incident really was. It was a drunken upset outburst that was apologized for almost immediately. Yes I understand actions have consequences but the way the BBC handled this it makes me, and probably a lot of others, think that they used this as an excuse to end the show for some dumb reason.

 

And here is the other part I don't get.

"We here at the BBC hate money, so we're firing this man and ending our highest grossing show for no reason except fuck you."

This seems to be what everyone thinks is happening. What it likely is:

"This person has shown a pattern of bad decision making, and has now assaulted someone. We, as his employer, are liable for his actions while he is on set or working on production (which he was), especially if it can be shown that a pattern of bad behavior has been ignored (which until now it has). The next time he drunkenly assaults someone, we could be sued for an epic amount of money and we would absolutely lose due to our knowledge of his behavior and his tendencies. It would be easy to establish that we knew we were putting an unstable individual in a situation that could result in him assaulting someone, and we did so anyway for profit sake, and we would stand to lose hundreds of millions in compensation to any potential victims of his from now on. Therefore we are ending our association with him before we are sued into oblivion by his next victim."

Seems more likely.

 

Honestly, I think they could have lost Richard Hammond or James May and moved on, but the show will suck without Jeremy Clarkson.

 

All my heroes are terrible people. Egotistical, narcissistic, most of them alcoholics. Jim Harrison, Peter O'Toole, Richard Harris, Dimebag Darrell, Hemingway. All assholes. James Hetfield of Metallica and Stephen King are the only people who cleaned up to have some semblance of an ordinary, family man life. Debateable, still assholes. This is one of the prices of artistry. The author Patrick McGrath said something to the effect of artists being unreliable and passionate with vices because it fueled their creativity and vice versa.

While the art itself may present a moral challenge, a moral view, or an ideal, the artist himself is a flawed, terrible person most likely. The two are separate and I do not take a man's actions to affect my enjoyment of the work. He is not a politician, a preacher, or a school teacher. The artist pleases only himself. To take their behavior personally is kind of silly. So, I don't care what Clarkson has done. My enjoyment of his work has nothing to do with how much of a tosser he is. Any inspiration kids take off him is a reflection of the work, not what he does off camera.

UNLESS he's a kiddie diddler or a rapist. Then fuck that person in the face. Some things are unforgivable in the public sphere. The work then becomes nongenuine, insincere.

 

I don't know, there's a special dynamic that those three have. You certainly couldn't replace any of them.

 

It's a TV show. He's not your parents or the Pope; he's a kinda loutish man who occasionally says funny things on your television. He's not dead or even harmed in any meaningful way. Shit, he'll have another show somewhere else within a month or two. The idea of a man who can't seem to stop saying slightly racist (or otherwise offensive) things being effectively employed by the government is in and of itself a weird arrangement.

Clarkson is rich enough that there is probably no possible punishment other than firing that would have had any material effect on his life. He has the equivalent of almost $50 million in the bank and could earn another $10 million at will tomorrow by recording an hour of himself farting on camera; why would he care about a two week suspension? How much could they conceivably fine him (can they even legally fine him? He's not an NFL running back who works under a collective bargaining agreement. Employers can't just go around taking money from people willy nilly). He'd pay it and come back hurt not at all for doing so.

Obviously I get privileges the janitor doesn't get; that's an incredibly banal question. But extending that up to "assaulting the people who work beneath me"? That's about as bad as it can conceivably get in terms of workplace behavior, outside of literally raping or killing someone on set. There's not really any conceivable ethical argument for why he didn't deserve firing. So this all amounts to "People should basically have carte blanche to do whatever they please on set if they make me laugh enough." Understandable if you viscerally believe that, we all have our blind spots or places where we give our favorite artists passes. I've certainly given money, for example, to actors and directors who signed that ridiculous Polanski petition (Scorcese, Ford, Portman, Wes Anderson...). But the BBC isn't beholden to share your view. It's weird to suggest that a company doesn't have the right to fire people who assault their employees. And viewers and non-viewers alike aren't remiss in giving this attitude the side eye.

 

Fair enough, the way that I quoted you made it seem like my post was directly about you personally more than it was, rather than just a jumping off point. I do think it's a bit weird to describe watching a TV show as a "connection" with its star but perhaps that's making too much out of a harmless choice of phrasing. My post was really more about the collective attitudes across both the internet and real life at large.

For example, "mad" was used by one of the other posters in this thread as to how many fans seem to feel (although it wasn't clear if he was describing himself, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). That seems accurate from many reactions I've heard or read. I think lots of things are stupid or poorly considered, but few of them affect my blood pressure the way that many Top Gear fans appear to be taking this. There's a difference between disappointment and actual outrage, and the reaction to this firing has had a bit much of the latter. People are actually sending the producer death threats. It's childish, not unlike people too invested in the fate of their favorite sports team. And if one is going to be "mad" at anyone, Clarkson himself is the best target since this is all the consequence of his actions. If he'd been able to keep his fists to himself, he'd still be employed.

As far as the difference between "carte blanche" and "more leeway," when more leeway extends to include physical abuse of subordinates (and when you're Jeremy Clarkson, everyone on set is your subordinate), I fail to see any real difference. If you can assault people and not suffer in any meaningful sense for it, that's basically carte blanche.

Also, shouldn't employees of the BBC be held to a higher standard than those of, say, ABC because their paychecks come from the British taxpayers' money? They aren't a typical profit-making business; they're an arm of the British government and nominally serve the public interest of the British commonwealth.

 

I think the play from the BBC should have been to determine the list of conditions they would require from Clarkson in order for "amends to be made," put them out publicly, and then let Clarkson decide if he can swallow his ego for the sake of the show. If he can't, well that's on him, and every single one of his fans will know that he essentially quit the show because he didn't like being told he can't punch his crew in the face.

 

I'll echo what most of you have said: Its ridiculous that the BBC would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Somebody had a hard on for that dude.

I will also say, "I don't give a shit"
Once I learned that the entire show is scripted, I couldn't watch it with the same passion anymore. What TopGear did was mask a reality show for its viewers as a real unscripted live TV show. And they did it better than anything before or during its run. I don't know if I took a peek behind the curtain and didn't feel the same, or I was ashamed because I didn't see it organically, and came to the realization that I'm dumb. But either way, I don't give a shit for scripted television.

BTW, I'm not saying that it isn't spectacular television.... I'm just saying its less spectacular knowing that 3 English fucko's aren't as witty as you think they are, and when you watch their races and antics you notice that its just well produced reality TV. Its not natural. Those races, or antics, or jabs and zings,,,,,, they were written and spoken by talented motor enthusiasts.

Top Gear was the best Reality Show ever made to date. Because no one knew it was a Reality Show.

 

Here we go...