Danny Baker sacked

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

This to me seems fairly standard practice for someone who’s job it is to know what his (public) audiences want.

You're going round in circles Rick. He does know what his audience likes, that's why his stage shows sell out, his books fly to the top of the sales lists and his radio show gets a good audience. And he has ½m Twitter followers. Would we be having this discussion if it had been posted in response to Jacob Rees-Mogg's latest addition to the family [assuming similar media interest]? No. But because DB didn't know what he didn't know, it's ok to kick him while he's down and justify what's happened to him.

If he didn't know he didn't know. That's all there is to it. Sure, sacking is par for the course these days. You might think that's a great leap forward. I don't, in this specific context.

rick_chasey

Why can’t you see as a public broadcaster what he does on Twitter is part of his job?

shirley_basso

A black female I follow on Instagram posted a photo of herself in a monkey pose (balancing as they were on a surfboard) and put a monkey emoji and 'monkey pose 'as the caption.

Monkeys are funny as they are seem as semi human, often in the circus and were held as pets for the rich and the total family is both.

I think that was the joke.

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why can’t you see as a public broadcaster what he does on Twitter is part of his job?

Why can't you see that it's only wrong if he does know the background to the latest royal baby? Why can't you accept that if it wasn't an honest mistake for which less draconian punishment would be ok, the opposite of that is that he's purposely thrown an entire career down the pan for a quick gag?

I'm annoyed at the nuclear option being the only allowable response to a genuine mistake despite the fulsome apologies, and that he's not going to be on the radio on Saturday mornings because of the way the world overreacts to a genuine mistake.

amrushton

he worked in the BBC which is the Royal channel. It's all about knowing about NOT pressing the tweet/post button. Everyone thinks they have something to say on media platforms but he has worked long enough in the media to know better. It was easy enough to ask someone in his circle what they thought.

CiB

amrushton wrote:

he worked in the BBC which is the Royal channel. It's all about knowing about NOT pressing the tweet/post button. Everyone thinks they have something to say on media platforms but he has worked long enough in the media to know better. It was easy enough to ask someone in his circle what they thought.

I give up. His circle? He was at home with a glass of wine doing what was a silly joke until one party's background became known to him via the instant feedback going his way.

One good thing is that no-one else will do this. Never, or at least not for a few months at least.

rick_chasey

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why can’t you see as a public broadcaster what he does on Twitter is part of his job?

Why can't you see that it's only wrong if he does know the background to the latest royal baby? .

That’s the crux of our disagreement.

Intention for me is irrelevant.

It *does* have racist connotations whether he meant it or not.

Pretty much everyone I know saw it like that. It’s not like it’s a minority interpretation.

Go ask John Barnes.

CiB

Or you could ask Stan Collymore.

Draw? Cheers Rick. Good points well made, I just don't agree.

shirley_basso

How can you open your mouth but not know the impact of what you're saying yet still be punished for it?

That's hardly a very liberal attitude. That is practically limiting free speech.

Saying hob nob could be seen as phallo-centric, whether intended or not!

rick_chasey

Yeah jobs aren’t great for free speech.

We all know when and when not to run our mouth off, right?

tangled_metal

Be knows what his audience wants? Isn't his radio audience to do with football? So I'm guessing that's what they want and what he knows. Does everyone have to know about royals and racist tropes? Do all media personalities have to adhere to employer rules on personal social media accounts or just their accounts set up for their job? Do you do that on your own media accounts?

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

Be knows what his audience wants? Isn't his radio audience to do with football?

No. Not for a long time.

robert88

CiB wrote:

amrushton wrote:

he worked in the BBC which is the Royal channel. It's all about knowing about NOT pressing the tweet/post button. Everyone thinks they have something to say on media platforms but he has worked long enough in the media to know better. It was easy enough to ask someone in his circle what they thought.

I give up. His circle? He was at home with a glass of wine doing what was a silly joke until one party's background became known to him via the instant feedback going his way.

One good thing is that no-one else will do this. Never, or at least not for a few months at least.

You are never 'just at home' when you are posting stuff on the internet.

Just ask MI5.

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah jobs aren’t great for free speech.

We all know when and when not to run our mouth off, right?

Neither is sitting at home on your own personal account tapping out a joke that's just fine but for a bit of missing info that completely changes its context. Hardly tied in with his job, or running his mouth off.

Tangled Metal wrote:

Isn't his radio audience to do with football?

No. The 5L Saturday show is a general chit-chat phone-in with a weekly set of loose themes that occasionally touch on football, along the lines of:

Animals in the house (not pets)
Bizzare ways to get injured
Making kids think you were magic
Being a bad audience member
Parents with peculiar hobbies
Meeting a former boss in different circumstances
and the perennial favourite Last Week's Show This Week where punters can dredge up topics from previous shows (caught the podcast, were away at the time etc)

It's streams of consciousness where punters phone in and share stories. No fighting, no arguing the toss or being set up to look a fool, just good clean fun. And the Sausage Sandwich Game. Excellent fun whilst tatting about on a Saturday morning.

When he did 6-0-6 the aim was to take the phone-in away from boring discussions about playing 4-3-3 or whether Smithers ought to be played as a deep lying full back and have punters calling in to share stories about when they met their centre forward in a supermarket etc.

Good clean fun, enjoyable, now gone due to enough people not being willing to accept a genuine fulsome apology for getting it wrong.

tailwindhome

I had been enjoying his podcast with Gary Linekar.
That may just slip quietly away now. Shame.

kingstongraham

CiB wrote:

Good clean fun, enjoyable, now gone due to enough people not being willing to accept a genuine fulsome apology for getting it wrong.

Also, I think, due to his show having run its course. It's been quite repetitive for a while. As has been said before, if he was one of the really big stars, he'd have had a couple of weeks rest and some training.

chris_bass

He even said after he was sacked that it was red sauce all along (may have had to listen to his radio show to get that) clearly racist - why didn't he like brown sauce? could have put this whole thing to bed

Pross

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Be knows what his audience wants? Isn't his radio audience to do with football?

No. Not for a long time.

Yep, this was pointed out originally on page 3 of the thread but still people keep mentioning a football connection.

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why can’t you see as a public broadcaster what he does on Twitter is part of his job?

Why can't you see that it's only wrong if he does know the background to the latest royal baby? .

That’s the crux of our disagreement.

Intention for me is irrelevant.

It *does* have racist connotations whether he meant it or not.

Pretty much everyone I know saw it like that. It’s not like it’s a minority interpretation.

Go ask John Barnes.

How can intention be irrelevant when we are talking about racism? Unless you are suggesting some kind of unconscious bias - racism requires intent.

Unless you argue that Danny Baker deliberately used a chimp because the baby was mixed race (rather than as I believe he claims because the baby was part of the royal circus) then at most he is guilty of carelessness, as a public figure that may be an offence but it's not one that deserves to end his career and see him vilified as has happened.

If I crash my car into a group of black people because I hate black people that is racism - if I fall asleep at the wheel and take out the same black people then that is lack of care, recklessness perhaps, but not racist. The intent is absolutely key.

robert88

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why can’t you see as a public broadcaster what he does on Twitter is part of his job?

Why can't you see that it's only wrong if he does know the background to the latest royal baby? .

That’s the crux of our disagreement.

Intention for me is irrelevant.

It *does* have racist connotations whether he meant it or not.

Pretty much everyone I know saw it like that. It’s not like it’s a minority interpretation.

Go ask John Barnes.

How can intention be irrelevant when we are talking about racism? Unless you are suggesting some kind of unconscious bias - racism requires intent.

Unless you argue that Danny Baker deliberately used a chimp because the baby was mixed race (rather than as I believe he claims because the baby was part of the royal circus) then at most he is guilty of carelessness, as a public figure that may be an offence but it's not one that deserves to end his career and see him vilified as has happened.

If I crash my car into a group of black people because I hate black people that is racism - if I fall asleep at the wheel and take out the same black people then that is lack of care, recklessness perhaps, but not racist. The intent is absolutely key.

That doesn't make it right to crash into people. You'll still get done and rightly so*. Danny Baker was grossly incompetent and got sacked and rightly so.

* as in the Selby train crash. The guy got 5 years but still denies he was to blame!

joe2008

Robert88 wrote:

That doesn't make it right to crash into people. You'll still get done and rightly so*. Danny Baker was grossly incompetent and got sacked and rightly so.

* as in the Selby train crash. The guy got 5 years but still denies he was to blame!

Hardly a suitable analogy

DeVlaeminck

Robert88 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why can’t you see as a public broadcaster what he does on Twitter is part of his job?

Why can't you see that it's only wrong if he does know the background to the latest royal baby? .

That’s the crux of our disagreement.

Intention for me is irrelevant.

It *does* have racist connotations whether he meant it or not.

Pretty much everyone I know saw it like that. It’s not like it’s a minority interpretation.

Go ask John Barnes.

How can intention be irrelevant when we are talking about racism? Unless you are suggesting some kind of unconscious bias - racism requires intent.

Unless you argue that Danny Baker deliberately used a chimp because the baby was mixed race (rather than as I believe he claims because the baby was part of the royal circus) then at most he is guilty of carelessness, as a public figure that may be an offence but it's not one that deserves to end his career and see him vilified as has happened.

If I crash my car into a group of black people because I hate black people that is racism - if I fall asleep at the wheel and take out the same black people then that is lack of care, recklessness perhaps, but not racist. The intent is absolutely key.

That doesn't make it right to crash into people. You'll still get done and rightly so*. Danny Baker was grossly incompetent and got sacked and rightly so.

* as in the Selby train crash. The guy got 5 years but still denies he was to blame!

I think you miss the point Robert. Of course it's not ok to be careless driving a car but that doesn't make it equivalent to a racist mass murder. Similarly being careless with a twitter post seems a lesser offence than being racist no?

If you are accepting he didn't have the skin colour of the baby in mind when he tweeted but still say he deserves to be sacked because it's something he should have been aware of then our only disagreement is what constitutes a reasonable response. You think ending a man's career and ruining his reputation is fair, I would go for an apology and a reminder to be more careful in future.