Next Radio 1 boss

[Jono]

An interesting interview from the Media Guardian today. They seemed particularly interesting in slipping Scott up so he made a comment about the whole 'gay' saga that is in the broadsheets a lot at the moment:

You have a lot of interaction with the public on your Radio 1 show. Are you surprised at how much people will reveal?

I feed off that. We had a guy on this week who had slept with his girlfriend's mum and he wanted his girlfriend back. And in retaliation, the girlfriend had slept with his brother. I couldn't believe these people wanted to come on the air and tell me about this.

You came out in 2001. Were you nervous?

Yes. It was a difficult time. I was quite new at Radio 1 and I didn't know what kind of reaction there would be. I didn't know if it would stop me getting jobs in the future, or if the audience would turn against me. But it was fine. I got a couple of nasty texts, but that's going to happen if you're broadcasting to the whole UK.

You're not the camp stereotype of a gay man in the public eye. Do you wish there had been somebody like you around when you were growing up?

That would have been nice, but it just didn't happen then. Young people might not be exposed to anybody gay apart from people on TV or radio, and when I get correspondence from them saying, "You've really helped me to come out to my mum and dad," that's amazing, but that's as far as it goes for me. I don't see myself as a gay ambassador, but if I'm helping people in some way because I'm not going, "Hiya" and wearing a pink shirt, I like that.

You're friends with Chris Moyles. How do you feel about him being accused of homophobia?

It's ridiculous. Chris is one of the least homophobic people I've met. That "gay" thing [when Moyles used the word "gay" to mean "rubbish"] was an off-the-cuff remark and I didn't find it in the least bit offensive. I know, having spoken to him, he was quite mortified that people would think he was homophobic.

But you were involved in an anti-bullying campaign where you said that to use "gay" as an insult was ...

Yes, but I think on Chris's show it was meant as a joke thing. I've spoken to him and I don't think he would -

BBC press officer: I don't think we want to go into this. It wasn't offensive to you ...

Not to me. I can understand that people would have been offended by it, but I wasn't. That may be because I know him, though.

Was the BBC wrong to back Moyles?

BBC press officer: I'm not sure he can really comment ...

I don't really want to say. I don't really have an opinion.

But by backing him, the BBC is saying using "gay" in a derogatory way is OK.

I think it's been blown out of proportion. Some people even think I'm homophobic. I'll say things and think it's fine, but it sometimes offends people. I'll write back, saying, "Actually, I am gay" and they'll go, "Oh, right, sorry to bother you." Maybe because I'm so comfortable with it, some things I say could be construed as being homophobic but obviously I don't mean that.

You got your first job in hospital radio when you were 12. Did you record your own shows when you were a child?

Oh yeah, I would pretend I was on Radio 1. I used to get really annoyed if my brother went out because I'd have no audience. It was quite obvious from an early age that I wanted to do this.

Er, did you have any friends?

Yeah. I was super-shy, though. I think a lot of radio people are shy - radio enables you to talk to people without having to see them. When I got my first proper radio job at 16, being able to talk to thousands of people was really exciting. TV is more of a challenge because I'm still a bit shy. It's something else to conquer.

I can't believe you're going to be allowing members of the public to show off in a glass box in the middle of Bristol for eight hours for your new TV show.

I'm looking forward to it. The first five weeks of it will be shown online and people will be able to vote for who they want to stay on. I've seen some of the people who have already applied - there are artists, sculptors, people who just want to be famous, singers, dancers...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2245708,00.html

[Hammer]

Handled the interview pretty well I think. The interviewer was just begging him to slip up and slate Moyles or contradict himself.

[DC]

good interview

...but if I'm helping people in some way because I'm not going, "Hiya" and wearing a pink shirt, I like that.

i think above all thats what makes him stand out. the dale winton type can really annoy you even if you aren't homophobic, just be yourself.

[Jono]

What show does he listen to? He's always doing a camp 'ellooo' these days, haha.

Furthermore from the Guardian's blog section some fool tries to make a juicy story out of it:

So Scott Mills doesn't think it's homophobic to use the word "gay" to mean "rubbish", as his Radio 1 colleague Chris Moyles did in 2006. He further doesn't have an opinion on whether the BBC was right to back Moyles in the resulting furore. Moreover, he says Moyles was mortified that people would think he was homophobic. If that's true, I'm yet to hear Moyles apologising for it. Though I may have missed his mea culpa amid the sexist drivel that spews from the self-proclaimed saviour of Radio 1- not to mention the occasional diversion into racism.

That's gay Scott Mills, by the way. And by "gay", I mean homosexual rather than rubbish, though after his statement I guess that would work just as well. By saying that it's fine to use "gay" as a synonym for "rubbish", Mills reveals himself as an idiot. More than that, it makes him a coward and a hypocrite.

While Moyles, Mills and the BBC can hide behind excuses such as it was "an off-the-cuff" remark and "it was meant as a joke", I wonder if the 65% of gay pupils bullied at school would see the funny side?

Mills, in defending his colleague, shames himself - and betrays those gay children who suffer homophobic bullying every day. It's nonsense to dismiss Moyles' remark as throwaway. That makes it worse, not better. It means Moyles doesn't take his responsibility of broadcasting to the nation seriously, doesn't appreciate - or care about - the impact his actions can have and, as he can't or won't filter the thoughts running through his brain before articulating them, isn't a good broadcaster. Not so much a stream of consciousness as a gutter. And Mills provides a fig leaf for Moyles and the BBC to hide behind. He must be so proud.

Such an apologist should fit in just fine at the Corporation. The BBC's track record on positive portrayals of gay people is woeful. In the aftermath of the gay/rubbish incident, the BBC's board of governors said that the word gay "was often now used to mean 'lame' or 'rubbish'. This is a widespread current usage ... among young people". So is the word "****" to mean "idiot" but I can't imagine that becoming acceptable on Radio 1 any time soon. Meanwhile, a 2005 report from Stonewall found that lesbian and gay lives were realistically portrayed for six minutes in 168 hours of primetime programming on BBC1 and BBC2.

Scott Mills says he's doesn't see himself as a gay ambassador. At least that's one thing we agree on.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2008/01/so_scott_mills_doesnt_think.html

Don't forget to leave your thoughts...

[KingTutsWWH]

I thought that was a really good interview with Scott.

I'd like to think it gives a decent insight into Scott's character, as we seem to have a lot of views and opinions in common.

As for the blog... I have a certain amount of experience regarding school bullying, and really can't see how Chris's comments would exacerbate the situation. More likely, as it was light-hearted banter, I truly hope it would create discussion, between students, teachers and parents alike.

I do understand though, that coming out at school must be a terrifying experience.

[Mike]

While Moyles, Mills and the BBC can hide behind excuses such as it was "an off-the-cuff" remark and "it was meant as a joke", I wonder if the 65% of gay pupils bullied at school would see the funny side?

Come on... People who come out whilst still at school have a lot more things to worry about have a lot more problems with people than someone on the radio who we will never meet?!

Gay is quite a common insult nowadays, now that all my mates are cool with we we can all have a laugh about it, at the time if one of them said it i would get upset, but i see these people every day, i spent a lot of time with them. Unlike Chris, who is 70 miles away in a basement.

I find the whole "controversy" over this hilarious.

[Jono]

It fills me with warmness inside looking at how readers have responded to that blog. People see sense, and rather than replying 'Moyles is a fat slob, he's homophobic, this Mills bloke is wrong too' it's generated a good argument against a blogger who has made the situation more homophobic than it was!

[Mike]

Yep, and i have copied my comment on here over aswell.

[Mike]

It fills me with warmness inside looking at how readers have responded to that blog. People see sense, and rather than replying 'Moyles is a fat slob, he's homophobic, this Mills bloke is wrong too' it's generated a good argument against a blogger who has made the situation more homophobic than it was!

BifidusDigestivum

Comment No. 889944

January 24 14:34

Sheffield/gbr

I didn't know Scott Mills was gay. I did know he was rubbish though. There's irony. I don't listen to Radio 1 much (incidentally, when and why did it change from "BBC Radio 1" to "National Radio 1"?), mainly for fear of exposing myself to that foul, odious, slappable-faced, hateworthy sack of lard Moyles.

[Jono]

It's in it's minority though. When I first read the blog it started off very negative, but has a majority of positive comments.

It seemed the Guardian had intended on getting a juicy story out of this interview. They didn't. Instead they looked foolish. The person above this reporter then got annoyed and made a story out of it themselves.

It'll be surprising if the BBC Press Office work with them again.

[Grace]

I think Scott handled that extremely well, I hate it when you can tell in an interview that the journo is just trying to trip people up and make them say stuff they don't mean.

[Hammer]

It's a really shoddy excuse for journalism. Dragging up an old story about a DJ making alleged homophobic comments, and interviewing his gay work colleague in the hope of regurgitating the story.

[DC]

What show does he listen to? He's always doing a camp 'ellooo' these days, haha.

scott mills dear, i knew the camp stuff would tickle your fancy.

[Serin]

i think above all thats what makes him stand out. the dale winton type can really annoy you even if you aren't homophobic, just be yourself.

Ah yes, the old 'be like us and we'll like you' stance. Dale Winton is being himself and if it's annoying, that shouldn't force him to act like a straight man to be liked by the ignorant majority, which is what has happened to Scott.

Gay is quite a common insult nowadays

I often wonder if it would be acceptable for people to use the word 'n*gger' to mean rubbish?

[Jono]

But that word has always meant what it means. Gay hasn't always been exclusive to homosexuality, and it's changed throughout the times. Anyway, the argument has been said and we all have our opinions on it. But I don't believe the gay community are 100% against it, and would say it's more 25:75.

Gareth McLean is one of those homosexuals who clearly finds it offensive, but in turn has gone out and made things more offensive. How he can go around and say Scott's a hypocrite for not making his sexuality known is awful, especially as he is gay himself but makes no mention of this.

No better than Stonewall who, rather than improving things, are making it worse for all and are censoring the media.

[Serin]

But that word has always meant what it means. Gay hasn't always been exclusive to homosexuality, and it's changed throughout the times.

Yes, but what a lot of straight people like you fail to realize is that a lot of gay people use that as an identifying word, as something to feel proud about. Gay to mean homosexual evolved from its original meaning of 'carefree and spirited', it wasn't just decided by homosexuals that they would starting using it to identify themselves, they're almost one and the same thing. When it's used in a derogatory fashion, it isn't very nice to hear. If I went around using 'Catholic' or 'German' in the same way, I'd be annihilated.

But I don't believe the gay community are 100% against it, and would say it's more 25:75.

You can't just estimate that 25% of the gay community dislike the word being used in a derogatory way to try and make you feel better about using it that way!

[DC]

ah sod it all, lets kill some dogs.

Gareth McLean is one of those homosexuals who clearly finds it offensive, but in turn has gone out and made things more offensive. How he can go around and say Scott's a hypocrite for not making his sexuality known is awful, especially as he is gay himself but makes no mention of this.

how could scott make it more 'known'? i imagine it as a personal choice of how much you mention it. scott mentioned that he was shy at school in the article and people on radio tend to be that way too. maybe he feels that article in 2001 said what needed to be said and dosent need to be repeated over and over. it takes more from some than others to come clean about such a big thing. if people are curious then they can find it here and read it, there is no need for him to say it in his show frequently or in any other spotlight he finds himself in. just the comedy hints for all those that already know will do fine, mills dosent need to change a thing.

[augusta92]

I think Scott handled it well...but i also think its important to be able to discuss contentious issues openly.

I have heard a lot of teenagers use the word gay with a negative connotation, so much so, that id say the word now has no clear meaning for anyone!

[Jono]

You can't just estimate that 25% of the gay community dislike the word being used in a derogatory way to try and make you feel better about using it that way!

Not in general, but certainly on the page that above that's the case. No one is correct, no one is incorrect. But I don't think it's fair to say a majority of homosexuals find it offensive either.

I never use it under any circumstances. But it doesn't mean I think it's offensive. It depends totally on what occasion it's used and in what way as to whether I don't like it. To just ignore the term exists as 'rubbish' in society today is some what part of the wacky political correctness world we live in.

What is derogatory is for one man to base an interview around someone's sexuality, and then to belittle someone for not flaunting their sexuality and to tell them how they should act. That is what annoyed me about this particular piece.

[Serin]

...and then to belittle someone for not flaunting their sexuality and to tell them how they should act.

I guess it depends on your individual interpretation of that interview, I certainly didn't gauge that from it at all. Perhaps the interviewer had good intentions with regards to the sexuality dimension of the interview.

As for the 'gay' thing, I'm okay with it if it's in a jovial situation, but used disparagingly and without proper justification it is least appetizing. It has certainly developed as a general underlying disgust with homosexuality but I guess you just have to let these things happen; it's more than just a simple coincidence that a word used to describe a homosexual is now used derogatorily, often by the least brightest and educated of individuals.

[Mike]

At the end of the day, "Gay" is being used right this minute as a derogatory word, there is no point in trying to change that view, in my opinion, as it would be a small amount of people against an army of individuals who know no better.

If you take it as an insult then fine, however i personally feel that there is only a small minority of people who are still offended by it being used in that context. To most people, including myself, it is now classed as simple humour or banter. Times change, the meanings of words evolve, so should we as a generation to avoid being offended by something that is common practice nowadays, it is in my social group anyway.

I have had worse things said to me since i came out, most of which i can look back and laugh at, to this day.

That's my opinion on the whole thing anyway.

*hides the very gay looking pink dictionary & thesaurus at the back of the shelf*

[Lucinda]

I have gay friends (is a common way people begin sentences to make themselves not sound homophobic) but I have friends who are openly and camply gay and friends who would rather not be seen as 'the gay one' and not be labelled that way.

When I was about 14, people used to frequently use the term 'gay' to refer to something that is rubbish or annoying. I never really thought about the use of it until I described something as 'gay' for not working in front of my (closet, but I knew) homosexual friend. I felt so awkward that I have never used that word again in that sense. I think that it isn't really something that adults should use, but I also think that this has been blown way out of proportion and a simple apology from Moyles should have been all that was needed and move on.

It is wrong that they felt the need to base what could have been an interesting and thoughtful interview with Scott on one comment Chris made that long ago. I do read the Guardian, but sometimes it can go too far with its liberal stuff.

[popbitcher]

i thought this argument was finished years ago

[~bex~]

I find it slightly ridiculous that the press are still dragging this up. The way I see it, meanings of words change, and some words can have more than one meaning. I come from an area where "gay" is regularly used as a derogatory term, as well as to mean homosexual, and I have never met anyone who in using the term as an insult is doing so because they think being homosexual is a bad thing (I'm not saying such people don't exist, just that I haven't come across them so can't believe they're too common). It's like the word "tap". A tap can be something water comes out of, or it can also be a small hit - the word has two unrelated meanings and I don't see why the same can't be said for "gay".

Another point I thought of the other day is the word "dumb". Being dumb is a disability - the inability to speak, but it is also a very commonly used derogatory term. However, when it is used in a negative way, I don't see people complaining because it could offend those unable to speak - what is the difference between this and "gay"?

Edit: As for the article, I think the journalist is being very unprofessional, clearly trying to get a huge story out of it where there isn't one. Well done to Scott, for handling it very well, not getting worked up and staying rational.

[DC]

i thought this argument was finished years ago

it's an argument and topic that will go on long after you and i are dead i'm afraid.