The BBC now acknowledges that Barbara Plett's words about crying for Arafat were a misjudgment - and so, apparently, does she.
In the Guardian, Ian Mayes says Charlie Brooker's 'assassination' call - despite some mitigation provided by its context (appearing as it did in the Guide) - was indefensible.
(Just by the way... A fair number of UK bloggers have expressed the view that it was eminently defensible. Strange to relate, however, they do not actually defend it - not, at any rate, by a reasoned argument. Their defence amounts to the charge of humourlessness against those who didn't find it funny: 'We're fun people, see, not like you lot.' Excuse me if I'm not bowled over. Anything can be funny, in principle. But it depends on context: both the context of the potentially funny, potentially offensive, remarks within the rest of what is being said by the person making those remarks, and the social and political context in which he or she is making them. Anyone who denies this should put themselves to the task of explaining their present thinking about openly racist humour; or to trying to carry off a joke about, say, those dying in Sudan. I argued that in the present climate - and I won't insult anyone's intelligence by citing recent or indeed very recent cases - incitement to murder is not an ideal topic for light-minded humour. It needs care and skill to bring it off. Charlie Brooker's piece failed in both. Ain't seen too much by way of an actual counter-argument on this from you fun people.)