Question Author
Naomi - ////he should have adjusted his approach. //
Why? If that really is his opinion (and I suspect he was deliberately controversial here) under pressure he's been obliged to apologise - but it's still his opinion so the apology is simply making the 'right' noises in order to placate the humourless complainers - which makes the whole thing even more farcical. I get fed up with people demanding others adjust their approach just to suit anyone who doesn't approve of it. //
Since we don't have enough information to ascertain whether the presenter was expressing his own opinion, or being provocative in purpose, I think my view is a valid one.
I think it is a particularly poor defence to offend someone, and then blame the offended person for lacking either a sense of humour, or the ability to understand that the speaker was simply being provocative to get a reaction.
It smacks of the 'I believe in plain speaking...' brigade, which they think gives them carte blanche to be rude to people.
If you are a professional agitator, someone like Frankie Boyle, then everyone knows where your attitudes come from, and can react accordingly.
If you are the man in the pub, you can be challenged, or ignored.
But some people with a public platform fall between these two perameters - and local radio presenters are right in the middle - known enough to be listened to, not so well known that people know if they are joking or not.
If you are going to say something on radio, and you are being seriously ironic, then flag it accordingly, and if you are genuinely possessed of offensive opinions and attitudes, then take the consequences.