Graham Linehan points out the absolute turdness of Jack Whitehall

[Neil]

...and then @Glinner folds when confronted by Whitehall, it seems.  GoldenTony mentioned this last night, and apparently some twitters have been deleted.  Here's what's left though:

@Glinner never been upset by twitter now I have, i think you've created my favourite comedy ever! I'm going to have to get very drunk now!

@Glinner it's fine feel like I've got a school report from the teacher I look up to! I will try harder. Your still one of my heroes!!

His twitter feed uses a lot of exclamation marks!!  Linehan does seem to have deleted the offending twitter, and apologised, and is now on his usual blocking frenzy when anyone points out that, for instance, he's a hypocrite when he has moaned about the press not criticising the press itself.  I wonder how many people he's actually blocked, and I wonder if it's yet reached the point where it's a greater number than the amount of people who follow him.

The truth? I did not mean to post his picture. Attached it, thought better of it, rewrote tweet, forgot to remove photo. Apologies to him

Because it's hurtful and not right for someone like me to slag young guy starting in same business. RT @untoku: why apologize for honesty?

There you go. Probably just a bad night. Anyway, bye! RT @kateweb: Have seen him be better in a room of 50 people, without all the front.

One of these guys just asked him "Why apologise for honesty?" and was then threatened with being blocked:

@untoku @rodneyedwards why did you deliberately ignore the tweet where I explained why I did it? Hoping for a block, you two?

@jackwhitehall well, if you'll check out my later tweets, you'll see how it happened. Sorry again.

@jackwhitehall very understanding of you. Please don't take it to heart. We all have our off nights, and tonight may well have been mine.

Anyway, it's the "same business" comments that irritate me, and it's an attitude that Robert Florence displayed recently too.  'Comedy should attack everything... except other comedians.'  Pathetic.  Also, Linehan frames it in a paternalistic way, when actually, he's just embarrased at having to justify his remarks.  He's clearly out-spoken, which is a good thing, and he was similarily blunt about Daniel Kitson years ago on Stewart Lee's Resonance FM show.  He could actually use his position to exert some influence by pointing out Whitehall's many flaws, but no, he's too busy being a complete dick to his fans, and quickly goes back into showbiz luvvie mode the minute he's even remotely challenged.

In fairness, though, it is awkward when you make snarky comments on Twitter, and then they get seen and challenged by the people who they refer to.  It's something that you have to bear in mind at all time, and so there's a level of accountability there that feels unique, simply because of the amount of people on it.

[biggytitbo]

It's basic politeness really.  Although it's easy to forget, Twitter's a very public forum and their exchanges are read by 10s of thousands of people. Hardly surprising he felt a bit embaressed by it when everyone started piling on.

[Gradual Decline]

Neil - don't know if you are aware of this report from a recent Culture Show...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jfyy_qMg2o

Feels like the same old, same old from Graham.

[biggytitbo]

If they were both on a char show and Linehan turned round and said "Jack, you're shit", I'm sure some people would find that hilarious, although most of the studio audience, the guests and people watching at home would find it a bit unpleasant and uncomfortable and it'd sour the mood of the whole thing. I don't think that should be any different because everyone sat behind keyboards rather than face to face, even though its incredibly tempting for it to be...

[Little Hoover]

Jack Whitehall's wiki page cites Stewart Lee as one of his influences, and Graham Linehan is now apparently one of his hero's.

I just don't understand how you can enjoy Lee's stand-up or Father Ted and come away inspired to write material like Jack Whitehall does, he really comes across as someone more concerned with his haircut and impressing women than making good comedy. How do you get enjoyment out of those things and then produce a comedy lab prank show pilot he did?

Still he at least comes across as less of a hypocrite than Linehan out of this, but then he did publicly tweet the number of someone who prank called him the other day, so fuck him.

[The Cloud of Unknowing]

If they were both on a char show

The Daily Show? 

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

Whitehall is just a talentless boy coasting on his familial connections. There will always be people like him. It's pointless getting annoyed about him. Nobody will remember him in two years time.

I do think that Graham Linehan is sort of mentally ill though.

[Little Hoover]

Whitehall is just a talentless boy coasting on his familial connections. There will always be people like him. It's pointless getting annoyed about him. Nobody will remember him in two years time..

Well I wish I could share your optimism, but channel 4 have been pushing him for years now.

[Ronnie the Raincoat]

I wrote a silly message that mentioned Reece Shearsmith on Twitter, saying he used to be sexy as well as funny and that I preferred Jeremy and Mark anyway.  An absolutely childish and somewhat joking comment, naturally.  I didn't even @him, and yet, the next day, he'd @ed me saying, "Thanks a lot.  Charming".  I @ed him  back going, "How the hell did you even read that tweet?  Do you search your own name?"  He said Mark and Jeremy had told him, which I don't believe because if that was true, it would be beyond petty.

It must drives slebs to insanity to hear- to even look for- every silly thinking-aloud thought that made its way online.  I can see why someone would be defensive or delete their tweets to avoid a shitstorm.  Someone told me you can set up alerts for your own name- why would anyone in their right mind do that?

That was the first time I've really understood the way people interact with Twitter.  It had never occurred to me that Reece would read that childish tweet.  I didn't delete it and he was fairly gracious about it.  A few years ago, if Reece Shearsmith had contacted me in any way, I'd have exploded in joy.  It's odd how now, via that medium, I didn't feel excited.  Odd and a bit sad.

Linehan is someone I avoid on there, largely because of his inability to take criticism, or, it seems, to give it without being a coward.  If was afraid of being challenged he should have known better, since he uses Twitter a lot.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

Linehan wants the praise but not the criticism. Unfortunately that's not how human interaction works, unless you're an absolute monarch. If he doesn't understand that then there really is something wrong with him.

[Neil]

Neil - don't know if you are aware of this report from a recent Culture Show...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jfyy_qMg2o

Feels like the same old, same old from Graham.

Thanks for that.  It's slightly confusing, isn't it?  Guy Walters bemoans the lack of quality debate online, then uses the same terms about Assange and "trolls".  He finds it annoying that his blog got him called "an aggrandising pillock", yet we can see that he calls Assange a 'big, self-aggrandising pillock' in the blog.  Then he says that he gets called a moron, before calling "trolls" a "tide of morons." 

So the issue, again, is purportedly one of accountabillity - and yet he finds that, as I've commented on here before in these debates, people are increasingly accountable now, due to social networking.  While there are a lot of people who do value, and need anonymity, there are also a lot who don't give a shit.  So, Walters looks bloody ridiculous when he goes on some supersleuth trail to track down someone who is posting under his own surname, and has made his mobile phone number widely and openly available.

"So who are these people... it seems to me their only role in life is to annoy people, and lower the tone of debate" cut to:  James Dellingpole.

It's basically just a load of whining about the fact that they have to take negative comments if they want positive ones, dressed up as a desire for debate.  I do agree, in principle, with some of the arguments, but I'm starting to see the whole 'they're not accountable' arguments as a massive smoke-screen.  It's just a way of lowering the status of people, to take the sting out of what they have to say.  Someone disagrees with you, and finds your point of view highly objectionable?  Oh, then they're part of the 'green ink' brigade!

[Fuerzke]

I think it is understandable why he acted that way.
It is the same as talking behind the back of others, even if you truely think what you said -mostly we tend to exaggerate- we don't want to tell others the negative things we think about them, the same way we tell a third party.
That is in part because we are cowards, in part because of tact and in part because we think a little more carefully, when we confront someone directly instead of just drowning in the sea of negativity, that we sometimes create around things we vaguely dislike.
For example we often find someone we don't like physically unattractive, because we dont like that person

Maybe he  just reacted that way because of the media, or he regrets hurting someone, because what whitehall wrote could be true.

Neil you are right in saying he comedians should attack everyone, but it seems to me that he just felt bad for attacking someone younger (and without talent)

[HodgerMccodger]

What did he say about Daniel Kitson on the Stewart Lee show?

I think if he was making a considered criticism of his material he probably wouldn't have felt so guilty- and I don't think it is really about not criticizing other comedians.

I think this issue is interesting in relation to other discussions on "comedy punching down", disapproval of the anonymous bullying of sites like DSMO, and the phenomena of shows like X-factor and the attitude that being rude to people, especially vulnerable people, can be seen applauded as honesty or entertainment. People are in a public situation, where the subject of attack is likely to be exposed to the attack, and manage to act in a way which they would feel guilty about- if they had to consider the effect they were having on the person.- because it is online, or they are anonymous, or they are part of a crowd, or they get the approval of a crowd.

[2 Light Ales Please]

I do agree, in principle, with some of the arguments, but I'm starting to see the whole 'they're not accountable' arguments as a massive smoke-screen.  It's just a way of lowering the status of people, to take the sting out of what they have to say.  Someone disagrees with you, and finds your point of view highly objectionable?  Oh, then they're part of the 'green ink' brigade!

While I agree with you - that we have to be able to take the good with the bad - I got the impression that that clip was more about the "fuck off and die" or "I hope you get raped and it changes your opinion of things" kind of comments, which are never helpful.

That said, I thought the whole ringing the guy up business was incredibly petty and childish.

Personally, if I say something, online or not, it's because I believe it and I'm happy to defend my comments and accept contrary views.  I don't really mind being criticised and I appreciate my right to criticise someone else if they do something I don't agree with.

[Little Hoover]

What did he say about Daniel Kitson on the Stewart Lee show?

I'm not sure which one it would have been about, but he described one of his "story" shows as being very boring.

[Neil]

I'm not sure which one it would have been about, but he described one of his "story" shows as being very boring.

It got a bit more pointed than that.  This guy remembers:

Yes I went through those resonance shows a little while ago, really fascinating stuff and great music such a shame they're such low bit rate. Linehan also comments that Kitson's latest show isn't funny and his friends are just telling him it is to be polite. He does to be fair seem to regret this instantly, but it was quite shocking considering his attitude to criticism on his blog.

[Little Hoover]

Oh that cunt.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Because it's hurtful and not right for someone like me to slag young guy starting in same business

'Starting'

You only have to watch him for a minute to realise that the guy has been honing his stand-up routine since he was a foetus, like some fucking scary coked up real life version of Rupert Pupkin.

Anyway, it's perfectly fine for anyone in the world to slag an unfunny cynical little druggy cunt.

[Harpo Speaks]

That said, I thought the whole ringing the guy up business was incredibly petty and childish.

What got me is that he does a mocking 'uh-oh, he's posted his real surname and left a net trail' type comment in a way that suggested the guy was stupid for revealing his personal data online. But yet that's what he was arguing in favour of!

[Onionlimit]

What got me is that he does a mocking 'uh-oh, he's posted his real surname and left a net trail' type comment in a way that suggested the guy was stupid for revealing his personal data online. But yet that's what he was arguing in favour of!

Yeah, and I don't like the suggestion that that's how you should react.  If someone says something about you behind your back in real life, you'd probably just ignore it. I  imagine very few people would attempt to find out who that person is, look up records and find out where they live/ their phone number.  So why is the Internet different?  It is extremely petty and isn't going to lead to any sort of sensible debate, just an exchange of insults. 

I follow Linehan on Twitter but I didn't see the original comments or the context in which they were in (though 140 characters can understandably make contextualising comments difficult in some cases).  I think it's fine to criticise someone if you have something to back it up with.  I also don't see why comedians should all be expected to be pally.  Is every doctor, bus driver, lawyer, etc complimentary about EVERYONE else in their profession?  I can accept it's more public with comedians and there is a level of tactfulness involved, but surely saying you didn't like a particular routine, or indeed an entire act, is fine as long as you justify it. 

[madhair60]

The only good Twitter account is Andrew WK's.  Everything else is boring shit, hate Twitter.  Just a glorified advertising/wanking platform[nb]Anyone own a wanking platform?  You could order them out the back of C&VG way back.  Like a sort of elevated walkway with black silk curtains; you strode up and down it, tugging your pud.  Sort of a burlesque treat.[/nb]

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Ben Goldacre's is really good. Except there's actually so much good stuff it's like being buried under an avalanche of useful or entertaining bits and pieces. Claustrophobic but undeniably informative and amusing.

[waste of chops]

I follow Linehan on Twitter but I didn't see the original comments or the context in which they were in (though 140 characters can understandably make contextualising comments difficult in some cases).

The original tweet was "Watching the worst comedian ever. Some of you know who I'm talking about" along with a link to a photo of Jack Whitehall on the telly. I don't think there was any other context (apart from the fact he was clearly in on a Saturday night watching Stand Up For the Week); he just felt like telling the world that he hates Jack Whitehall.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Hahahaha. That makes his comment, 'it isn't fair to pick on someone starting out in the business' seem even more weasely. Particularly as he turned it around to himself taking the moral highground.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

The comedy world would be far healthier if comics did slag each other off in public, like people do in practically every other branch of the arts. The only reason comics don't is they're scared of missing out on work if they offend someone.

[Tiny Poster]

Wonder if Linehan's retraction has anything to do with the fact that they're both appearing on the Twitter Joke Trial benefit bill at the Bloomsbury Theatre next month?

[bitesize]

^ heh, glinner has just twittered:"Pls come to the #twitterjoketrial gig and see (amongst others) me, @stephenfry and the lovely, forgiving @jackwhitehall"

coward!

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Not that I for a second wish to be, but if I were Jack Whitehall I'd find it more difficult to appear with a man who is two-faced and spineless who I know deep down doesn't like me than someone who was quite honest about hating me.

[Lfbarfe]

Not that I for a second wish to be, but if I were Jack Whitehall I'd find it more difficult to appear with a man who is two-faced and spineless who I know deep down doesn't like me than someone who was quite honest about hating me.

You have principles, though.

[HodgerMccodger]

I saw Jack Whitehall on the Buzzcocks the other day, he was fairly cruel to someone from the Saturdays and told an anecdote about one of his friends telling James Blunt he was shit. Maybe this event will cause him to reflect on his own material and career path