Never let it be said that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is unprepared to be criticised on its own airwaves. For a week now, the Russell Brand-Jonathan Ross debacle has played out on ´óÏó´«Ã½ news programmes and discussion programmes. When the director-general faced the cameras, his toughest interviews were with ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists and presenters. Even those politicians who have signed a critical early-day motion in Parliament, have been quick to compliment ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage of what some news outlets have called "The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scandal".
If you have been on holiday on Mars for the past two weeks, you may find of the prank calls incident helpful. Needless to day, it's a ´óÏó´«Ã½ news timeline.
We'll be debating some of the questions at issue in the media storm around the Russell Brand Show. We'll be focusing on some of the more directly moral issues, but there are many others too, including concerns about editorial oversight. Here are some of the issues that have been raised by various voices in this debate:
1. How did this programme get broadcast in the first place? The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has one of the strongest systems of editorial oversight in existence. This programme, containing offensive and obscene content, was pre-recorded. Making obscene phone-calls is a criminal offence under the Telecommunications Act (1984) and the Malicious Communications Act (1988). It looks unlikely that Andrew Sachs would wish to pursue any legal redress, but he maintains that he was subsequently given an undertaking that the programme would not be broadcast. Beyond its 25-year old producer, it should have been referred up to a senior producer and other levels of management. Lesley Douglas, the head of Radio 2, has resigned. But questions still remain to be answered by the continuing ´óÏó´«Ã½ investigation. Which executive approved this programme for broadcast? Some commentators have suggested that the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s editorial guidelines should be revised as a consequence of this affair; but, from what we currently know, it appears that the issue is not the guidelines but a failure to follow those guidelines by a small number of ´óÏó´«Ã½ staff. Were senior managers slow to act in the face of growing public concern, or were they being appropriately careful not to over-react in the face of only two complaints that followed the transmission of the programme?
2. Is this a credit-crunch story in disguise? Jonathan Ross is said to earn £6m annually for three ´óÏó´«Ã½ programmes (two weekly television shows and one weekly radio show). Russell Brand is also a high-earning entertainer, with the potential for even more earnings as a Hollywood actor. Is some of the outpouring of anger at these performers partly motivated by resentment that they are earning so much money?
3. Jonathan Ross was a guest on the Russell Brand Show. He is also a ´óÏó´«Ã½ employee with a contractual obligation not to bring the corporation into disrepute. But a guest on a pre-recorded programme does not take decisions about editing and transmission of material. He has been suspended for three months, which represents a loss of earnings in excess of £1m. Is this a sufficient penalty? Will the viewing and listening public welcome him back into their homes in January? Russell Brand has resigned from the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
4. Ross and Brand engaged in a kind of improvisational comedy on the show. They played off each other, without a safety net. They are edgy, verbal, creative comic performers who engage in high-risk comedy. This is what they do for a living; this is the key to their success. Sometimes a joke goes too far, as it clearly did in this case. But in the context of a pre-recorded programme, they were also clearly avoiding self-censorship, perhaps assuming that their words would be approved for compliance with ´óÏó´«Ã½ regulations by content managers. If this programme had been broadcast live, they would merit more condemnation; which is another way of saying, their responsibilities are more limited in the context of a pre-recorded programme.
5. Why did the Brand-Ross debacle lead so many news programmes for so many days? What does this concentrated coverage say about news values? Were editors bored with yet another credit crunch story? Was the displacement of a quarter of a million people in Congo not sexy enough to be a lead story?
6. Was this a manufactured media storm promoted by opponents of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ licence fee?
7. When the dust settles on this dispute, how will it change the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s relationship with its audience? Will we significantly rewrite rules on taste and decency? Will we tighten controls on high-wire comedy, banning more words and circumscribing more subjects as out of bounds? Is there a danger that puritanical approaches to broadcasting could, in the future, call a halt to creativity in comedy and drama?