Morning:
8°c
WHEN I worked on the Today programme, I once, for a report on the death of Mary Whitehouse, researched how many indignant callers it takes to achieve that staple measure of public outrage, jamming the BBC switchboard. The answer, depending on how long they keep talking, is about 14. I was never able to take tabloid-created BBC taste'n'decency horrors quite so seriously again.
Of course, the affair of Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and Andrew Sachs is no normal media storm. At 27,000 complaints and counting, enough to jam 2,000 BBC switchboards, it's more like Hurricane Katrina. But it's still possible to feel a little sorry for the Corporation and to understand how it got into this mess.
The broadcast was clearly delinquent and offensive. But it equally clearly wasn't delinquent enough to cause public outrage of its own accord. The number of people who complained about it at the time was two. The other 26,998 decided to start getting angry eight days later only after the Mail on Sunday led on the story.
So either the show's listeners didn't find the Ross/Brand show offensive enough to complain about until a tabloid newspaper wound them up. Or (as I rather suspect) the vast majority of complainants didn't even listen to the original broadcast at all. They were reacting to the row, not the show.
What Ross and Brand said was ugly - the humiliation was particularly bad, with the studio audience laughing as Ross told Mr Sachs' answer machine how Brand had "f****d" the actor's granddaughter, Georgina Baillie. But it doesn't seem to have been disputed.
Ms Baillie, a professional exotic dancer, striptease artist, self-proclaimed "satanic slut" and "depraved Jezebel", refuses to deny having sex with Brand. She is so concerned about her grandfather's feelings that she has found comfort in a six-figure deal with a red-top newspaper which has also, no doubt, out of pure solidarity, reprinted her extensive topless modelling portfolio.
This is not, in other words, the killing of Bambi's mother. Everyone here is in showbiz - even Mr Sachs. Yet however hard it is to share Ms Baillie's synthetic anguish at the terrible ordeal Brand has put her through, and however audible the whirr of media orchestration, the BBC has some deadly serious lessons to learn.
The first is the continued failure of its crisis and editorial management. Stifling layers of safety procedures one from each new scandal frustrate genuine creativity, yet signally fail to prevent further disasters. Brand and Ross broke the BBC's producer guidelines but still made it to air.
Tiers of managers fret and plan for every eventuality but so often fall down. The Beeb spent literally decades war-gaming the Queen Mother's death, with special cupboards of black suits, elaborate annual rehearsals, then messed up on the day with Peter Sissons's burgundy tie.
On Brand/Ross, the Corporation could be forgiven for not acting over the show two complaints truly aren't that many but when it became a row, it needed to snap into gear. Immediate and sincere apologies from the pair, plus some sort of disciplinary action, might have stopped it becoming a crisis.
The impulse after this will almost certainly be for further centralisation, further control. But just as the command model has failed in Whitehall, so has it plainly failed in the BBC. The Beeb needs fewer, not more, committees and guidelines. It needs to devolve responsibility, giving managers it trusts real power and clear lines of command.
ITN and Sky have this, and also notably fewer rows, even proportionate to their size. The BBC, though much bigger, can achieve it, too, by adopting a cell structure, with each issue (such as crisis response) and each individual programme (such as Russell Brand's) the ultimate responsibility of a single person. You know what, you could call them an editor. Even in a multimedia world, the programme is still most broadcasting's basic building-block.
Devolution goes quite against recent BBC policy, which has been to share more and more resources in unwieldy conglomerated directorates. That may save money but it also means that no one is ever really in charge.
The second, related, lesson is that the talent should never be in charge. The special toxicity of this scandal is that it involves Jonathan Ross. Both inside and outside the BBC, he has come to symbolise the Corporation's thrall to celebrity.
His £6 million-a-year salary is looking worse value than ever. It's become a lightning-rod for political concerns about the BBC's alleged loss of its public service values and internal concerns about cuts. And Ross's status must have played some part in the fatal decision to broadcast the Sachs material.
The BBC does need to do popular programmes, It does need to be universal. It probably needs even Jonathan Ross but it got the sums wrong with him. He's not worth £6 million, and none of the BBC's competitors was ever going to pay him that. It still seems unlikely he'll follow Brand all the way out of the door - but luckily for us his market value will now prove self-correcting.
The final main lesson is that TV has become too coarse and too stupid. Perhaps the reason only two people complained on the night was that obscenity and witlessness have become common enough to pass without complaint. But a lot of the audience feels alienated. And the national broadcaster has a responsibility to civilised discourse.
Today, as I write this, you can already sense those who want to weaken the Beeb pressing home their advantage. The justice secretary, Jack Straw, that wily old wind-sniffer, has a piece with more than a touch of Schadenfreude - implying that BBC News has soft-pedalled the story, and using the "heads must roll" rhetoric we journalists like to employ against his trade. Ofcom, with ambitions to take the BBC fully under its regulatory wing, will be pleased. Commercial rivals are hovering.
This week's periodic fit of morality will soon be over. But for those of us who treasure the BBC, it can't afford too many more bad calls.
Reader views (25)
The pair absolutely crossed the line in their pursuit of comedy – as a regular listener I was deeply saddened. The aftermath, too, was badly mishandled by the BBC. But I am far more worried by the orchestration of "outrage" that was like something from a pantomime: "we don't like that, do we boys and girls?" by media and politicians with their own agendas.
- Wills, London, England, 01/11/2008 21:28
Report abuse
it is surely a question of morals; if we were to go around greeting each other with 'hey i f***ed your daughter/wife/granddaughter last week, she was great I wore a condom and she wasn't menstruating' is that acceptable? No. Nor is it acceptable for 6 million pounds paid-for-by-the-taxpayer presenters to feed our homes with this purile trash. Get a grip BBC, you have a duty to citizens to provide them with decent entertainment that will be copied on every highstreet in every town, no matter how you dress it up...
- Maria, london, 31/10/2008 11:36
Report abuse
I would say that the bad feelings felt by 27,000 people over the Ross/Brand programme is just the tip of an enormous iceberg in that the people are fed up with the whole of THEIR BBC, It may also be that the country is fed up with the Government, Gordon Brown, Jacqui Smith, banks, building societies, hedge funds, politicians in general, etc., etc. A huge head of disatisfaction is building up about everything. They feel they are not being listened to so they will be kicking up a stink. Now that they have scored a hit with the BBC they will be looking around to strike at anything that upsets them. The Government will get it in the neck around February , 2009.
- Albert Hall, hove england, 30/10/2008 19:30
Report abuse
I am a headteacher and if I had done anyhting like this then I would be toast. Their bosses are the fools who let idiots throw the emotions of real people to the wind. It's not humour it's a lack of brains from the head and brains from the heart.
- Peter, norfolk UK, 30/10/2008 19:01
Report abuse
Christine of Bracknell, UK: I applaud your reasoned comments, most of the sentiments of which I fully share. However I also would add that, seen and admired from the outside, the great majority of the BBC's vast output is of outstanding quality, and it is a great pity that this tawdry - but in perspective minor - episode has tarnished the overall perception of what the Corporation provides.
- Michael.Knight, Geneva ,Switzerland, 30/10/2008 18:41
Report abuse
I do not listen to Radio 2 and now I know why, but I read the transcript in the Standard and was appalled that this could have been cleared to go out. It was deeply offensive and totally disgusting and if this is what our "comedians" have sunk to they deserve all the we can throw at them.
- Vanessa, London, 30/10/2008 17:57
Report abuse
Christine of Bracknell -
I don't need to anything to your post - it says everything that decent listeners and viewers across Britain think.
I think some drastic action is needed to get these media so called stars setting decent standards - perhaps we should all refuse to pay our licence fee - that would make them sit up at the BBC at least!
- Wooram, Alicante, Spain, 30/10/2008 17:45
Report abuse
Even today, days into the row, BBC people still dont grasp that their managers condoned a crime and they dont fully grasp that this programme went right against most peoples' idea of acceptable, let alone, responsible behaviour. And lastly, virtually all licence holders are fed up with their money being used to fund such vile behaviour. The whole affair shames Ross, Brand, the BBC and the whole country.
- Tom, Grantham, England, 30/10/2008 17:32
Report abuse
The fact that only two people apparently complained after the programme actually misses the point. Those who complained subsequently had ample opportunity to check the facts, once alerted to them, by looking at the video/reading the transcript. Furthermore, they are by no means all D Mail readers - what is striking is that they come from across the spectrum. To apply the argument further, if for example, only two people who attended a dog fight complained about it, this does not mean that the dog fight was acceptable, legal, and not cruel. It simply illustrates the fact that those who watched it liked that sort of thing. It does not mean that it is acceptable by normal standards. This leads to another issue: what our young people are being fed by so called role models from the BBC. Isn't the bullying by text and mobile phone amongst teenagers a huge cause for concern? It is highly undesirable to just feed people with more of what the BBC thinks they want, simply to boost ratings, without having some basic standards of integrity and decency. This similar to a political party just following populist policies. It can work for a while, but things move into very grey areas with all sorts of questionable policies being justified simply because it will win votes. To me the BBC has become remote and arrogant - it appears that there is a clique operating who have got carried away with their own self importance, and the people who should be vetting what is broadcast are impotent.
- Christine, Bracknell, UK, 30/10/2008 16:53
Report abuse
Martyn, you obviously don't understand how rich people's tax affairs are conducted.
- David, Bromley, 30/10/2008 16:31
Report abuse
You don't want Ross & Brand, fair enough ! We'll take them ! If they're not racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc., I can't see the problem... Come on it was just a joke, and think about the money BBC, Comic Relief, Children in need, Sport relief earn because of them...
- Charlie, Orléans, France, 30/10/2008 16:10
Report abuse
I find it most strange that more licence payers aren't questioning the BBC paying an outrageous fee of 16 million to one presenter who isn't even that well known outside the UK. He is earning nearly as much as a Hollywood A list actor. Much more than the Prime minister to get it in perspective. He's not even that funny or good a presenter. I find him quite sexist and lewd for a family man. He is being paid out of the public purse so the public have a right to say they don't agree or don't like him. Plus the tax he pays is our money anyway. I would imagine that a large majority of actual licence holders don't really like his humour or even bother watching him or Brand, but we are all being forced to subsidise a niche market for those who this appeals to. He should be on a commercial channel or a subscription channel for those who want to watch him and perhaps then he would be paid what he is acutally worth. Which is a lot less than he is now.
- A, uk, 30/10/2008 15:26
Report abuse
It is interesting to see how those working in the media see this as synthetic froth. It isn't. It is a genuine anger, by ordinary hard working people, about Metropolitan lack of standards and taste. Brand and Ross may appeal to the Ladsmag sub-culture, but it is offensive, bullying and moronic to the vast majority of people. It also raises questions about the License Fee. Should public servants get paid for such trash? Or should it be left to private sector provision? One also gets the distinct impression that this was a cocaine fueled gaff. At a time of economic hardship, people resent their license fee being squanded on peurile toilet humour that is so 1990s.
- Paul Lettan, Old St Pancras, London, 30/10/2008 15:02
Report abuse
Okay a few mistakes were made. But' i'll tell you what! Give me the BBC any day over TF1 or any ofthe other french TV channels. ( and I speak french!!!)
- Andy, France, 30/10/2008 14:59
Report abuse
Andrew you are misguiding your public here.
You say only two people complained after listening to the show, but these were the only people listening !
- Tom Fitzgibbon, Loughborough uk, 30/10/2008 14:30
Report abuse
We, the PUBLIC, fill their inflated wage packets, and we, the paying public are entitled to have a major say not only on how much these halfwits are paid, but also on whether they should be employed, at OUR expense, at all. If the BBC Board doesn't sack these juvenile half wits,then we, the punlic, should have the right to sack the BBC board, pronto.
- L.Taubler, London / UK, 30/10/2008 14:28
Report abuse
I worked for the BBC in the 70s and 80s when it really was something to be treasured. Sorry Mr Gilligan, that is not now the case. Thirty years ago Private Eye lampooned the BBC's motto, altering it to 'Moron Shall Speak Unto Moron.' How true. The public are fed up with paying money into this private club and getting nothing of value in return.
- R Mitchum, London UK, 30/10/2008 14:10
Report abuse
I got very close to complaining about a piece done for the One Show on BBC1 this week. The 'report' just made me fume with anger at what passes for 'investigative/informative' reporting these days - TV or press. I didn't in the end because I felt my complaint would be given the same treatment as Mary Whitehouse. It doesn't make the BBC any more defendable in my view.
- Nora, London, UK, 30/10/2008 14:01
Report abuse
This is a typical ploy to divert our attention in the direction that they want yet again. First they create a furore about house prices dropping and stocks dropping which of course lead to the drop and now they think that they can slink away behind this insignificant incident. They say they were sorry, nothing more is needed. It is not exactly Word War III.
- Josie Meade, Westminster, London England, 30/10/2008 13:46
Report abuse
Oh dear, Andrew, hasn't it occurred to you that the original programme only attracted 2 complaints because most discerning people weren't listening to it? It doesn't make their critcism invalid.
As for the profession of Ms Baillie being relevant, it is highly offensive to suggest that because you are a sexy dancer it somehow changes the situation when you have details of your private life revealed to your grandfather and on national radio.
I admired you for Kelly/Hutton, and all that, but you've got some of this badly wrong mate.
- Ged Williams, Bath, UK, 30/10/2008 13:11
Report abuse
Mr Gilligan, you along with many apologists miss the point.
This reaction is a result of awareness of the disgraceful behaviour of these two presenters spreading virally through new media.
I didnt read any daily mail articles. I heard about the controversy online. Along with many other people who like Ross, we wondered what all the fuss was about and so did our own research into the matter to see what we thought about it. I for one, went straight to you tube and watched the broadcast for myself, as inevitably the offending segments had been posted up for perusal.
I went to watch as a fan of both Ross and sometimes Brand. What I saw was abhorrent, and there is no excuse for it, whenever it is aired, on whatever channel, targetted at whatever audience.
It was indefensible to abuse an elderly man over the phone with obscenities about his granddaughter in this way, and then to joke about whether the shame would kill him. Yet I am stunned how many people are trying to do just that.
However when you look deeper, who is defending it? RodMcKenzie of radio 1, which peddles similar attack dog comedy from Chris Moyles, and Davina McCall who is closely associated with none other than BigBrother, which unleashed Brand in Big brother's appalling Big Mouth.
The people who seem to be defending him are mainly those who make their money from similar controversy.
That and the morally bankrupt who think it was just a bit of a giggle...
- R Andrews, London UK, 30/10/2008 13:00
Report abuse
the media world is a self generating pit of hypocritical non-sense,just like any of our remaining industries,yes men in charge without the backbone to stand up for moral integrity,get the job done with the least amount of effort or attention to detail is the order of the day,so its little suprise things like this happen,the problem is its projected into our homes and not left at a place of work as such .
- Peter, Hartlepool, 30/10/2008 12:50
Report abuse
82 years ago today John Logie Baird made the first television broadcast using a dummy's head - look how far we've come!
- Robert Farmer, Southampton, UK, 30/10/2008 12:12
Report abuse
It also needs to employ experienced producers, how can a young 25 year baby producer, who has probably been given the title without full range of experience needed - to make up for the not huge salary - have the experience to keep in hand such egos.
Find it fascinating.
- Jc, se1, 30/10/2008 11:51
Report abuse
People forget that Ross will be taxed on that £6 million salary, and that equates to 41% of his annual earnings which would be about £2.5 million in tax paid the UK government (who have done enough damage themselves by bailing out greedy financial institutions and using our tax money for that).
So whether or not people agree that Ross' salary is too high, it is at least contributing some of that back.
- Martyn Drake, Woking, UK, 30/10/2008 11:27
Report abuse
