How far "over the line" is too far?

Well, it had to happen sometime.
Two English media personalities who have their own shows on BBC have been suspended and had their shows taken off air until further notice. So what exactly was(were) their crime(s)?
Well, this suspension "follows a series of calls made by the pair to actor Andrew Sachs on Brand's Saturday night programme." What exactly was the nature of the calls? The two left messages on Sachs' answering machine feature Ross swearing and Brand claiming that he slept with Sachs' grandaughter. Ok, rude- but not unheard of on TV. Plenty of media personalities swear on TV and make outrageous claims, and most of their audience realize that they are simply joking around. I suppose the question is more about the fact that they physically called the actor and left the messages on his machine, not the actual content of their statements. Of course, the fact that they publicized their prank on TV is also factor.
The actual calls made were very disrespectful, Sachs did not need to come home to listen to such messages but neither does anyone who is prank called by anyone. And I'm sure Sach's grandaughter, Ms Baillie, didn't appreciate the comments either. But honestly, when you or someone you know closely is in the public eye, you expect things like this to happen on occasion. Brand and Ross don't exactly claim their programs to be mature-minded and polite.
On the issue of the calls having been recorded on the show, well, people would have found out about it anyway. Still, it was unacceptable of Brand and Ross, in my opinion, to entertain their audience by leaving lewd messages on Sachs' answering machine. The issue, in my opinion, is more that Brand and Lewd somewhat made a profit of the whole issue. They engaged their audience by being disrepectful to Sachs. Though, I have to admit that I hear people doing this all the time on the radio, just not to famous actors. Radio personalities call various people and either leave rude messages or give them false imformation to frusterate them. So Brand and Ross are definately not the first to prank call someone and broadcast the call, nor, I'm sure, will they be the last.
Sachs' was quoted as saying he was "not surprised" by the suspension of the two hosts but also added: "I am not going to take it anywhere. I'm not out for revenge." Sachs actually comes out as the least irked by the prank than anyone involved, save for Brand and Ross of course. His grandaughter said that the pair should "pay for what they've done with their jobs" and claimed that her grandfather was "really upset and says he wants the whole situation to end". She also added that the pair were "beyond contempt," and "It was bad enough that they recorded these things on my grandfather's answer machine but astonishing the BBC saw fit to broadcast it when they could have stopped it." Ms. Baillie actually raises an interesting question on whether or not it is the responsability of the broadcasting network to moderate what the TV personalities say. Whatever your take on the question, I'm pretty sure that Brand, Ross and any of the people at BBC who viewed the program before it was aired never thought it would create such a big issue. Media personalities make fun of public figures all the time. This time it may just have been a shade too far over the line, which may indicate that clearer boundaries may need to be set for these hosts. After all, all they're really out to do is entertain their audience and make money off their programs, obviously they thought the joke would appeal to much of the public. I don't think the call was made with malicious intent to hurt Sachs or his family.
Still, BBC director general, Mark Thompson apologized to Sachs and his family, publically calling the broadcast a "gross lapse of taste by the performers and the production team".

So, how far SHOULD media personalities go? How far CAN they go before their actions are questioned? I don't know but I'm sure Brand and Ross are asking themselves the same questions right now.

Here's the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm

How can this ever be considered acceptable?

Above: A HAPPY piglet free from cruelty-he's so cute! <3
Charges filed against 6 in Iowa pig abuse case

Recently, several employees of Mowmar Farms were exposed abusing the pigs under their care on a video released to the public by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). My question is how could this ever be considered acceptable by ANYONE? The owners of the farm and the company that it supplies (Hormel Foods Corp.) claim that this video is the first they have heard of this abuse of the animals involved in their industry. Fine. If they say so than hopefully they are being honest. And I hope they take the necessary proceedings to get rid of the abusers and put standards in place that prevents this from happening in the future (the article suggests that there will be consequences for the abusers and potential reforms by Mowmar who has thus far been cooperative in the investigation/charges).
But what about the people working alongside the abusers- why didn't they say something? What about the abusers? Honestly, what could bring someone to hurt innoccent creatures like this? These pigs have a sad enough existence as it is, they are being raised for food or else raised for breeding to produce offspring for food. Wonderful. The least their caretakers could do for them is to make sure that their life before being slaughtered is decent. Come on, animals are living, breathing, feeling creatures. They should have rights too and human treatment of them should be morally and ethically appropriate. I applaud groups like PETA for exposing abuse like this to the public who would otherwise likely be unaware of the mistreatment of the animals in the food industry. And cases like this are even more reason to support Proposition 2 in California- the Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act. Though this act will not directly address the cruelty suffered by Mowmar Farms' pigs, it will support awareness of the plight of many factory farmed animals and bring relief to those cramped factory farm animals stuck in cages unable to move freeley for their entire lives. "No philosophy can justify this kind of treatment. Even the philosophy of cheapness," wrote the Times in an editorial. And they are right. Life isn't all about money. If these farms have to pay a little additional money to make sure that their animals are treated decently then so be it, it is there duty as caretakers of the animals. Many of them are suppliers to major companies and business chains, it's not as though they can't afford it. And Mowmar's pigs deserve to live the short lives we give them without abuse.
Unfortunately cases like this pig abuse in Iowa are not rare, and many cases go undocumented with the animals continuing to suffer until their dying day. Animals were not put on this earth to serve humans but since we have domesticated them they are in our care- they are our responsability now. So that means we have an obligation to protect them and make sure that their lives are lived out peacefully and enjoyably, even if they are being raised for food.
I am glad to finally see this topic covered by a well-known news source such as CNN. Now that more people are aware of the kind of treatment factory farm animals suffer on many farms there should be no excuse for not eradicating this cruelty.

Really, it's not that much to ask to provide farm animals with a decent life. Wouldn't you want it if you were in the animals' place?

Article: http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=15068818&ps=1011&cat=&cps=0&lang=en

Another political witch-hunt?

Palin investigation can proceed, Alaska high court rules-CNN

I'm sure most of you have heard of the ongoing investigation regarding Sarah Palin's July firing of Walt Monegan, her ex-public safety comissioner who: "resisted pressure to fire the governor's ex-brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten" (CNN). According to this CNN article, the investigation has recently been challenged, by "Allies of Palin" (CNN) who believed the investigation is a "Democratic-led witch hunt and that the state Personnel Board should instead lead the inquiry" (CNN). Alaska's Supreme Court has ruled that the investigation can continue as originally planned.

As far as the article went, I originally found it a little awkward (and let me clarify in what ways, because I believe my commentary was misunderstood by whoever commented on my original post, not because of its set up because I agree, its pretty much a classic, to the point article, but because of the word choice. My first complaint is actually gone now because CNN have edited the article and I actually like it better now. Originally some consecutive paragraphs used almost the exact same phrasing and words and it got to be very halty and choppy).
So anyways, on to my other points :) One thing I wish the author would have done, and maybe I'm just being too picky, was clarify the meaning of the word "subpoena" with a subtle, imbedded working definiton. I know this article is in the politics section and the author can reasonably assume that their audience can atleast follow the idea of the story, and will most likely have [i]some[/i] background knowledge of the situation in general. However, think of how simple it would have been to give the legal definition of that one word so that people like me (I admit I am not that up-to-date of legal terminology) could follow without having to go to dictionary.com and type in said word. "Subpoena" is not a word used in everyday conversation and it is reasonable (in my opinion) for some not to know its exact meaning. But maybe I'm just biased :P Originally, [until I was aware that it was a specific legal term] I would have also suggested that the author found a synonym or a different way to say what they meant, instead of repeating the word as it gets very redundant and tiring to read the same word over and over again after awhile. However, as it is a proper legal term I can see where this would not be possible.
I also think that the author could have included a few quotes from people who are not in support of Palin's innocence. The author's use of quotes solely (apart from one official statement by a state senator regarding whether or not the investigation will continue) from Palin supporters (including her husband) makes the article seem a little biased and one-sided. Though the author never implies intentional bias in the narrative, because there are no quotes from the people involved in the accusation, the article is biased. Simply put, there is no chance for the other side to have their say in their own words.
The end of the article, regarding Ted Palin's involvement in the Alaskan administration, though very slightly out of place, was actually good information to put at the end as it answered another question readers may have had about the whole situation. Leaving it to the end was key, that way people reading the article specifically for the information mentioned in the headline would get their information before they tired of reading the article. This is a classic news strategy of leaving the least important details for the end of the article so that readers (most don't read all the way through an article) will get the whole picture of the situation.
Over all though, it was a good news article, very informative and to the point.
Article:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/palin.investigation/index.html

Welcome....to my blog :)

Hi guys, this is Abbie from period 5. I'm one of the Feature Editors :)