[News] POLL TIME - Danny Baker’s tweet

[Stato]

The interesting thing about this thread is that there are a lot of people that have given Danny Baker the benefit of the doubt. I incude myself in that.

When the next episode comes up with Dave, the telephone engineer from London where we have no idea what was said or the context depending on the incdient, will the same people hang the poor git out to dry who then loses his 30ka Yr Job with the associated consequences?

The more people with empathy that read this, the less likely that may be. It really cements the link between social media outrage and disproportional real life consequences

 

[Easy 10]

Neither has Christmas in Birmingham.

I think a lot of this is what we call confirmation bias.

This is an episode that shouldn't bother me but has.

It's a summary of a new society of righteous indignation in which folk wish to publish their newly found perfection now they have the chance to do so.

The post he made is only racist if there was intent. Other than that it is clumsy- and the degree of its clumsiness (and it's very clumsy) is amplified by those who have a staple diet of said righteous indignation to sustain their purpose in life.

In a world of common sense, where racism is a serious issue and people look under the stones rather than at their smoothly polished surfaces (think some right wing media) this kind of act would be turned on its head. Danny Baker would be held up as bit of a pillock (which he is freely admitting to) and allowed to carry on with a reprimand and maybe a useful donation to an organisation that works to oppose racism. The right wing elements who are building the gallows would then be called out for the ongoing subtle racist sub text that runs through some of their veins and then we really would be tackling the issue.

But we live in a society where virtue signalling is the new nicotine and thoughtful debate makes it too long to wait for the next inhalation.

You nailed that so hard it hurts.

Best post on the entire thread,

 

[Ernest]

Thank god the met police are investigating and hopefully he will be explaining himself in court

 

[Easy 10]

he's an obnoxious **cker
who got to big for his boots

And there speaks someone who doesn't like him. Which is fine, I can see how he can be irritating, I don't listen to his radio shows any more because I got a bit bored, and he is a bit old hat.

Doesn't mean he's a racist who deserved to be fired though...does it ?

 

[Easy 10]

Thank god the met police are investigating and hopefully he will be explaining himself in court

 

[Eeyore]

Interesting point about confirmation bias. A lot of us look at this situation with a perspective of what can be referred to as white privilege. It is far easier for me as a white man to miss or dismiss racist connotation than it is for someone who has lived racial prejudice their entire life. Should I say 'nothing to see here', I can, if I choose, walk away and not give the subject another thought until the next time a social media furore arises. Black people don't get to walk away. The voices of those who have experienced deliberate or subconscious prejudice have to be listened to by those of us lucky enough not to have experienced it.

However, it is important to remember that we are all human, we are all fallible and we all have biases that can shape our interpretation of a situation. I read an exchange over this matter between Dara O'Briain and Gina Yashere. Gina's posts were understandably angry and allowed no room for nuance. She seemed pretty certain that Danny Baker had racist intent. O'Briain was questioning whether, considering his pretty immediate retraction and apology, he deserved sacking. I would fully support that Yashere's life experiences should give her voice priority in this kind of situation, but it needs to be said that, despite the societal power differentials of the two contributors, both are just as likely to have their opinions framed by their own experiences. Each of us have our own confirmation biases and each of us needs to challenge ourselves and consider how much of ourselves we are bringing to our understanding of a situation.

As others on Twitter pointed out, presumably in her anger, Gina gave creedence to another poster's suggestion that Baker being a Millwall fan gives some indication that his post was more likely to be racist than insensitive. This is obviously silly stereotyping. I don't mention her support of it it to denigrate Yashere, but instead to point out that whilst she as someone who has been on the receiving end of racism, is going to have more sensitivity to suggestion of racism, she has never been a Millwall fan and has less sensitivity to the prejudices around the labelling of people from Baker's background. Whilst there is obviously no parallel in the impact that these two prejudices have on individual's life opportunities, I mention it to indicate that we all have our individual antennae tuned by our own experiences and that our attempts at communicating with each other is going to be impacted by the resulting interference. An understanding of this seems essential if we are to try to predict the responses, and interpret the motives of others. Danny Baker's post was severely lacking in this, but so were those of many who responded to him. It would seem that more consideration in our statements and less certainty in our responses may make the foundations of the social media tower of Babel less likely to crumble, but then, I'm a white middle class bloke with too much liberal arts education and a couple of scotches inside me, so I would think that.

You took time to write so I took time to read.

I empathised and felt what you said. The concept of 'white man's privilege is something else which concerns me as it suggests that somehow there are areas of contention in society that I have no right to express any thought towards and should surrender my emotions to a constructed way of thinking.

It's as if the age old phrase 'you have no idea' will apply to me in all areas where I have no cultural alignment with the victim. So I will tell a little story and keep it brief as not be boring.

When I was 11 years old I was allowed out one night before we went on holiday. The decision was obviously made late and none of my mates were around. I was walking through Queen's Park and, seeing a group of kids playing footie, joined in. There was an adult there- one of the kid's Dad by memory.

It was 1980- different culture, different values. We only remember things of significance from our childhoods and this was one.

Not long after I joined in a black kid came walking nearby. The Dad, without provocation, launched into a tirade of racist abuse. I don't remember what he said but what I do remember was the incident and how I was so shocked and frozen by his outburst.

38 years later, last year, I was walking through the park near that same spot. I arrived home shortly afterwards and began to weep. I remembered the incident and, being a creature built on emotion, felt what that boy must felt. It hurt, it unbalanced me. I think I must have sank a few glasses that evening after that.

Just because I am white and belong to the majority does not mean I have no understanding, empathy, or sensory perception of someone else's experience- and that night last summer proved it.

Still, my first port of call is to let my outrage settle. My frustration with modern society is that outrage is where it all ends rather than where it starts. We see this in politics which is the snapshot of the iceberg's tip. Being an environmentalist with strong socialist leanings I found myself defending UKIP 'leavers' in the last few years more than challenging them simply because what is at the heart of a person cannot always be determined by the exacting identity with which we seem to be called to place upon their actions.

In the most enlightened society of our nations history we have chosen to embark upon a race to the peak of righteousness and in doing so have forged a more divisive community of beings than ever before. And now I see why this episode bothers me so much.

Outrage is not an end product. Understanding, rationalising, acting justly and loving mercy is. It leads to progress and resolution.

Anyway, like you, I've had a few glasses. But I know I'll stand by what I've put here come the morrow.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It’s a bit more simple than delving too deeply into all the connotations.

1. The BBC have been plagued by controversy. Paedophile scandals. Sexual harassment. Pay inequality. etc. etc.

2. If you’re employed by the BBC you are now expected to uphold a standard of judgement that puts you on a bit of a public pedestal - every employee of the corporation knows this.

3. DB’s intent is irrelevant really, the question was did he exercise the appropriate level of judgement in the representation of his employer? The answer they felt was no.

Personally, I would have thought suspending him for a period of time to reflect on that judgement would have been appropriate.

The question for me had I been a BBC boss wouldn’t have been ‘did he intend that to be racist’, my question would have been’should he have had the judgement to consider it could be’.

 

[BN9 BHA]

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Hanlan's Razor states that you should "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Try applying it to Baker's offensive tweet and then Farage's 'Breaking Point' poster. The BBC is happy to give airtime to the originators of one of these but has banned the other.

 

[Spicy]

Unless he's deleted it I have no idea which post you are talking about.

He tweeted a picture of a couple coming out of a building with a chimpanzee in a suit and the headline was "Royal Baby leaves hospital". I am not over politically correct but did think Baker tweeting it was unacceptable.

 

[Spicy]

View attachment 109416

We need a headline "Utter **** before he was sacked".

 

[tedebear]

He tweeted a picture of a couple coming out of a building with a chimpanzee in a suit and the headline was "Royal Baby leaves hospital". I am not over politically correct but did think Baker tweeting it was unacceptable.

This! very very silly boy...No matter your tolerance any link between Megan and a chimpanzee is just asking for trouble....to take it down meant he also realised this...

 

[Spicy]

Stupid enough to think people would believe ‘I didn’t even know the royal baby had been board’ though

Exactly and it was hardly low key.

 

[Stato]

Stupid enough to think people would believe ‘I didn’t even know the royal baby had been board’ though

He didn't say that. He said that he knew a royal baby had been born, but hadn't paid any attention to who the parents were. Once followers on Twitter pointed out the facts and the potential connotation of his post, he was horrified at his mistake, immediately deleted and apologised. He has admitted that he was stupid and said that he deserved to lose his job. Let's not make things worse by further condemning him for things that we think were said, but weren't.

 

[Springal]

He didn't say that. He said that he knew a royal baby had been born, but hadn't paid any attention to who the parents were. Once followers on Twitter pointed out the facts and the potential connotation of his post, he was horrified at his mistake, immediately deleted and apologised. He has admitted that he was stupid and said that he deserved to lose his job. Let's not make things worse by further condemning him for things that we think were said, but weren't.

That is an even worse excuse. I’m surprised he didn’t just say his phone was in his pocket and sent it to Twitter by accident

 

[Stato]

Outrage is not an end product. Understanding, rationalising, acting justly and loving mercy is. It leads to progress and resolution.

Anyway, like you, I've had a few glasses. But I know I'll stand by what I've put here come the morrow.

An obviously heartfelt post. Drunk or sober, we should all stand by your conclusion. Very well put.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Interesting point about confirmation bias. A lot of us look at this situation with a perspective of what can be referred to as white privilege. It is far easier for me as a white man to miss or dismiss racist connotation than it is for someone who has lived racial prejudice their entire life. Should I say 'nothing to see here', I can, if I choose, walk away and not give the subject another thought until the next time a social media furore arises. Black people don't get to walk away. The voices of those who have experienced deliberate or subconscious prejudice have to be listened to by those of us lucky enough not to have experienced it.

However, it is important to remember that we are all human, we are all fallible and we all have biases that can shape our interpretation of a situation. I read an exchange over this matter between Dara O'Briain and Gina Yashere. Gina's posts were understandably angry and allowed no room for nuance. She seemed pretty certain that Danny Baker had racist intent. O'Briain was questioning whether, considering his pretty immediate retraction and apology, he deserved sacking. I would fully support that Yashere's life experiences should give her voice priority in this kind of situation, but it needs to be said that, despite the societal power differentials of the two contributors, both are just as likely to have their opinions framed by their own experiences. Each of us have our own confirmation biases and each of us needs to challenge ourselves and consider how much of ourselves we are bringing to our understanding of a situation.

As others on Twitter pointed out, presumably in her anger, Gina gave creedence to another poster's suggestion that Baker being a Millwall fan gives some indication that his post was more likely to be racist than insensitive. This is obviously silly stereotyping. I don't mention her support of it it to denigrate Yashere, but instead to point out that whilst she as someone who has been on the receiving end of racism, is going to have more sensitivity to suggestion of racism, she has never been a Millwall fan and has less sensitivity to the prejudices around the labelling of people from Baker's background. Whilst there is obviously no parallel in the impact that these two prejudices have on individual's life opportunities, I mention it to indicate that we all have our individual antennae tuned by our own experiences and that our attempts at communicating with each other is going to be impacted by the resulting interference. An understanding of this seems essential if we are to try to predict the responses, and interpret the motives of others. Danny Baker's post was severely lacking in this, but so were those of many who responded to him. It would seem that more consideration in our statements and less certainty in our responses may make the foundations of the social media tower of Babel less likely to crumble, but then, I'm a white middle class bloke with too much liberal arts education and a couple of scotches inside me, so I would think that.

Brilliant post.

When I was doing my PhD I was a firebrand lefty, and my supervisor, a former communist, mocked me regularly. One thing he tought me was to never say "you are only saying that because you are/think" etc. "You're only saying that because you are a thick tory wanker" was always lurking behind my teeth. This is because the other person can come back with "and you're only saying that because you etc etc". He called it arguing motive. As part of my science training it has been a godsend (irony intended) to be aware of this and mitigate against it. But of course it applies to our daily lives too, and we do it because over our evolution it has had value. In fact, lazy stereotyping is a convenient form of pattern recognition that has meant that when we see something that looks like a bit of a sabre tooth tiger we dive for cover. It matters not that nine times out of ten it is the fur lined hem of the missus, because one time out of ten it will be the tiger, and the lazy stereotyping means you live. However, like so many of our inherited behaviours, it may actually play a negative role in our modern society. So, if you get the urge to nip round the neighbours', hit him over he head with a lump of wood and make off with his hot young wife slung over your shoulder, think again.

 

[Stato]

That is an even worse excuse. I’m surprised he didn’t just say his phone was in his pocket and sent it to Twitter by accident

But it's not a worse excuse is it? It would be ridiculous to argue that he didn't know the royal baby had been born when he had posted something about the royal baby being born. It's not ridiculous to say that he hadn't paid much attention to the circumstances before posting. He has given a full explanation, apology and mea culpa on his Twitter page. He caused this, but he has now tried to make things better. Let's let him try.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Well radio 5 was somewhat dull this morning. Need to find another channel for my Saturday drives now. Still, at least the faceless suit in charge got a head on the block, so not all bad.

 

[Bodian]

Stupid enough to think people would believe ‘I didn’t even know the royal baby had been board’ though

Not everyone has the same priorities and interests though. I do watch the bits of news I'm interested in, sometimes quite avidly, but a lot of fluff and gumph that I'm not interested in just goes over my head. I'm obviously not in the media like Danny Baker - but honestly, what with work, the amazing football during the week, not really being interested in what the royal family are up to and so on, I hadn't really taken in that a royal baby had been born until someone told me that Danny Baker had been sacked. So it's not that daft an excuse.

And what I find hard to fully get to grips with is that everything has to seemingly revolve around race, which actually means you are more likely to categorise people by their race than if there wasn't this obsession. It's only because everyone keeps on about Meghan Markle being of 'mixed race' that I was aware that she was of mixed race - it wasn't something that immediately jumped out at me when I first saw her. Like Chris Hughton - I always get caught out when there's some article about him being one of the few black managers in football, because it's just not something I associate with him. I always think of him as our manager, and a thoroughly decent chap. I just don't think of him being black, unless someone else brings it up. Which then merely raises the race issue, which wasn't there until it was highlighted.

That is, if I hadn't been told by the media that Markle was of mixed race, it would not have been on my radar at all. If Hughton wasn't referred to as a 'black manager', then maybe people wouldn't think of him as a 'black manager', just 'Brighton's manager'. This is surely what equality is meant to be? By raising it all the time, the media are just then defining people by their race themselves?