The Wright Stuff asks ‘Foxy Knoxy: Would Ya?’ by Stuart Taylor
This week, the internet was darkened by what the Daily Mail likes to call a ‘twitterstorm’ after The Wright Stuff featured a segment in response to the Knox/Sollecito verdict entitled, ‘Foxy Knoxy: Would Ya?’
I think we can all agree that this is a tremendously disgraceful way to frame a debate set in the aftermath of a young woman’s murder, but if Sachsgate has taught us anything, it’s best to investigate the show for ourselves before marching down to Channel 5 with torches and pickaxes. After all, how many people up in arms about The Wright Stuff had actually seen that episode? So, let’s have a look at, then.
Matthew Wright has said that he always hated that the media used the nickname ‘Foxy Knoxy’ to describe Amanda Knox, but that doesn’t stop him using that pseudonym himself consistently throughout the show. In fact, the name ‘Amanda Knox’ doesn’t get mention until about 13 minutes in, by my calculations. In a way, ‘Foxy Knoxy’ sums up everything about the media coverage of the murder: focussed around a young woman who enjoys her sexual freedom, and not around the case of the murdered student. Wright has insisted that this show was handled sensitively and with dignity. Unfortunately his cheeky, laddy introduction leads me to believe otherwise. I almost expected him to wink at the camera and pump his fist provocatively as he asked, ‘would ya?’. Not a good start.
Joining Wright on the show is Liz from Atomic Kitten (I had to Wikipedia her) who puts botox in her armpits (Fun fact: Botox is one of the most poisonous substances on Earth. 1 kg of it could kill everyone on Earth), Christopher Biggins and Kelly Hoppen, who is plugging a C5 show. When Wright announces that their topic for today is, ‘Amanda Knox: Would Ya?’, Liz actually laughs with incredulity, causing Wright to say with a smirk, ‘That’s right, Liz – we’re doing it.’ This is not a great start, I must admit. Despite his horseplay, Wright insists, ‘I’m quite serious about this, because I’m wondering if there’s something in your brain that will make you think twice.’
Before entering the discussion, Wright allows himself a moment of solemnity to remind the audience that a girl was slain at the centre of this situation at that her family still don’t know who the culprit is. At least he’s remembered Meredith Kercher. Wright then sets up a scenario whereby you happen upon a pretty American girl in a bar, share some drinks and end up invited back to hers only to have a moment of recognition – it’s Amanda Knox! Would you still go back with her? He even tells the straight ladies they can substitute in Raffaele Sollecito if they like, giving him bonus points for remembering the other not-guilty party. Well done, Wright. ‘But no one really cares about him, ‘cos he’s just a bloke and an Italian.’ Oh.
He asks Liz first. Liz is horrified by the discussion; I imagine she’s waiting for the ad break so she can make an angry call to her agent. She stammers initially: ‘Of course [I wouldn't] … oh, I find it really awful that we’re even going there.’
Wright retorts with a strange smug look on his face: ‘What’s awful? If you say it’s awful then you are condemning her.’
Now I understand Wright’s retort is designed to stoke up a debate an encourage people to get to the meat of their thoughts, but I can’t help but get angry when I hear stupid arguments. Discomfort at having to discuss whether you’d fuck a woman once wrongly convicted of bloody murder may not actually be linked to the guilt of the suspect. I know Wright knows this and I know he actually wants Liz to clarify her position, but it’s a stupid thing to say. Whenever you use a stupid, ironic bit of rhetoric you run the risk that your audience won’t see the irony.
Biggins chips in: he supposes that she’s going to encounter people who want to know what it’s like to have sex with a serial killer. He says that he loves murder programmes and biopics on serial killers, implicitly suggesting that he would bed Knox for her link to the murder. It’s all a little bit creepy and Wright clarifies on his behalf that Biggins only meant to suggest he’d want to get into her mind and not her pants.
It’s around this point in the programme that Wright begins to assert himself. So far, he’s been a bit cheeky and alluded to the sexual scenario but he has been trying to turn the conversation into one of simple mud-slinging. He repeatedly hammers home that Knox is an innocent woman, incorrectly imprisoned for four years and subject to a horrific media narrative. He now explicitly tries to drop the sex aspect and frame the conversation in a more generalised angle of how badly her character has been sullied and how she can recover. I am reminded of the way some very bland newspaper articles have been turned upside down by an over zealous and disingenuous accompanying headline. I suspect the ‘Would Ya?’ element has been added by the producers and Wright just has to deal with it. He does seem to become more and more insistent on talking about Knox as a person and a character, and for that I give him credit.
Hoppen brings up a good point: she says a lot will depend on what Knox does next. Perhaps if she does something charitable, she’ll be seen as more than a sex-crazed murder suspect. I agree with this, to some degree (though charity work is a bit of a lame example). I mean, in an ideal world, she’d be left alone and the media wouldn’t discuss her ever again as she has literally nothing to do with anything anymore, but that’s not realistic. She will be scrutinised and the media will dissect every little thing she does, until they get bored and find another Chris Jefferies.
Wright says she’ll have to do the talk show circuit to a degree, to clear her name and give her side of the story. Will she, though? If it were me, I’d want everyone to bugger off – every last newspaper, magazine and TV programme that earned a penny from painting me as a raunchy, foxy killer. But that’s me. Maybe actually getting as much money out of them as you can is a better plan. They get into a discussion about the merits of TV/book/movie deals for Knox. Liz believes that some mud sticks too strongly and that people already have Knox’s character cast in their minds; Biggins says money will be too big a temptation to turn down. When Wright tells them that the Knoxes already have an agent working with them to set up book deals, etc, Liz is outraged and says it’s completely disrespectful to the Kercher family. But Wright rebuts: Knox has had four years of her taken away, she’s been villainised as an international pariah – why shouldn’t she fight back? He says he understands the point of view that the money she makes should be given to the Kerchers, but surely she deserves some recompense, he argues.
Biggins chips in with, ‘If she gives money to the Kerches, she’s admitting she’s guilty,’ to which everyone disagrees with the tone of incredulity.
Wright takes some phone calls who mostly agree that Knox needs to recover from the years she’s lost and that the Italian police need to be investigated.
He finishes the segment with what I consider to be a valid and interesting point: If Knox had nothing to do with the murder, then the murder is nothing to do with Knox. Knox’s situation is just another bad situation to arise of this terrible ordeal and how she deals with it can be entirely independent from the Kerchers. I do tend to agree with this, as long as she is respectful to Meredith Kercher in whatever she chooses to do publicly. It may be a cold way of putting it, but she is just ‘someone who didn’t murder Meredith Kercher’, and so am I.
Women Who Applaud This Shit: Would Ya?
So, that’s it really. Having watched the segment in its entirety, I can understand Matthew Wright’s post-show explanation about how one should watch the show before condemning it. The discussion was a reasonable one, all things considered – Wright tried to keep it focussed on Knox’s post-prison recovery and whether the public’s perception of her could every be remedied. They discussed the rights and wrongs of various choices she could make and what would be respectful to the Kerchers, who were never forgotten in the discussion.
But - and this is a real but – all of the above is almost completely annihilated by the way the whole discussion was framed. I’m sorry, but you cannot title the show ‘Foxy Knoxy: Would Ya?’ and introduce the discussion by a hypothetical involving being invited back for a raunchy fuck. It’s just completely inappropriate. Someone should have stood up to whoever made that terrible decision – I’d argue that Wright himself should have had the balls, if he didn’t agree with it. After all, it’s his show and he has to present the topic as it’s given. Would you frame a debate about moving on after a partner’s death as ‘Steve Jobs’s Wife: Would Ya?’. I should hope not.
Related Posts
Recent Posts
Television
Comments
Leave a Reply
© 2012
Never heard of this programme, but will give it a wide berth if this is what it broadcasts. Feel sorry for the “guests” who had to deal with it, but sometimes surely they must object to the idiocy and forget whatever they are promoting and just tell him to bugger off!