Auntie gets her knickers in a twist

The BBC crisis may be exploited by manipulative paedophiles as a smokescreen and Beeb-haters as bandwagon jumpers. But they do have a problem and it is one they share with many other media operations: Badly trained journalists who are managed by people who spend too much time watching the hicksville antics of amateur bloggers (ho ho) and others who they see as a threat to their business. 

The BBC has descended to that level and is discovering that credibility is a hugely valuable and hard-won commodity.

Backing up a bit, the error over Savile was mere timidity. They knew only too well that they would get some of the blame for his antics so were on the back foot anyway. On top of that, the absurd adulation of the man was about to be repeated for Christmas. So they dropped the prog. They must have known it would annoy the hell out of the staff and so leak. Which it did. The rest is painful history.

But the fault was effectively just an old rule that guarded journalists for years - if in doubt, leave it out! No big deal in professional terms then.

Now the error of McAlpine is on a different scale - it is a pure lack of professionalism. Frankly, Entwhistle should have suspended and then sacked the two idiots in charge on that day for a failure so elementary that even a junior would be ashamed. They did not test their evidence. What!? No, really. They did not even show the allegor a picture of his Lordship to make sure it was the right man. Let alone give the man a call.

But it gets worse because once the journalists knew that his name was on the web NOT contacting him or showing his picture to Meeshan for confirmation (he would we now know have said 'wrong man') was appalling. And they MUST have known it was out there; they are wired like the rest of us. Even Patten has admitted he knew although he could hardly intervene since that would have been seen as political (this is a Tory allegation remember - "Tory placeman stops Beeb" etc etc). But if he did then Entwhistle probably did and he could/should have intervened and hence perhaps his resignation.

As Dimbley says, the BBC are making their own crisis. And its not just a BBC issue - just rotten journalism of which I suggest there is just too much everywhere (says a sad old hack!). The ITV list of names, everything to do with phone hacking. The list goes on.

The cause? Maybe too much BA in Media Studies and not enough Proficiency in work experience? Says a tired old and ex hack!

Causing offence and where to draw the line

ITS good to be back. Now...

Regularly I read the Guardian Readers' Editor's column and I have done so since the very first – Ian Mayes I think - was appointed many years ago. Today that editor is an old but brief acquaintance from my own Cambridge (newspaper not college) days, Chris Elliott. And today he drew attention to a problem that I think is to a degree specially difficult for the Guardian: Where to draw the line or whether it should be drawn at all.

Now the editor deals first with an area where the Guardian does have rules – good ones – but which are too easily and perhaps too often broken: when to use the f and especially the c word. I shall return to this later but his further points concern a more subtle but more hazardous area which arose most especially in a q and a with Peter Tatchell. I have no desire to repeat the words used – suffice to say that in response to a question about embarrassing moments Mr Tatchell, an honest and open homosexual, made what was a funny but extremely ribald, not to say vaguely disgusting, joke at his own expense.

On another page of that weekly magazine the Guardian reported on the booming sales in vibrators and illustrated it with a series of example devices and a graphic hand drawn sketch – straight out of The Joy of Sex book I think. A reader had taken Mr Elliott to task and he had in turn sounded out, as he often does, his Guardian colleagues. Some 25 responded and half said the paper should be tougher and use less graphic material. For my part I found the Tatchell joke unacceptable as published but the vibrator article socially justified and the sketch frankly quite charming. But I am 69. And therein lies the complaining reader's real issue.

For the Guardian may be a very sophisticated and intelligent newspaper (well I think so!) but it is entering the homes of its readers and is thus generally available to all. It goes into schools too. There is no firewall, no security device, no warnings and no effective parental controls. It is NOT even the internet, you might say. It does serve a specific audience who may well be seen to be, and by survey shown, as more urbane, better educated and more liberal (small L!) but they have children. And the Guardian's interest in these 'young readers' is shown b y their education posters and the like.

The Guardian's rules on the f and c words and similar matter is simple – if it is made necessary as the the result of reporting things said, events unfolding, if evidential or otherwise critical to the public understanding of a report the words should not be obscured but used as presented. This does not however explain or excuse their gratuitous use by columnists or in other writing. But if you quote from, say D H Lawrence, then the f and c words in particular may well be used to ensure appreciation of what is written and what response it may have caused. Does anyone however need me here to use fuck and cunt to make this clearer? I think not.

I paraphrase but that's the gist of the rules. It may or may not explain why the use of such words in the Guardian should have grown so steadily over the years. If life imitates 'art', or the media in this case, the answer is obvious. More use means more imitation and higher social acceptance.

Another argument is that ordinary people say these things in their ordinary lives. But this is weak argument. These same people say a lot too that is gibberish and does not deserve of repetition. Because a word is coinage in a playground should not elevate it to the columns of the Guardian, thought it may justify its sparing use on stage or in front of the camera.

And so the Mr Tatchell's crudely scatological joke. It was a q and a so we had the simple question, “What was your most embarrassing moment?” He responded that it was “mistaking a sachet of shampoo for lube when having sex.” Didn't we laugh! But there was another line and here lies the problem: “His bum was blowing bubbles for hours”, he said. Too much detail mewonders?

Well here's the thing. The editor might say that without the second line Tatchell's sexuality is unclear. True but it is not relevant to the embarrassment factor. It would have been the same essential outcome whatever his orientation. But the readers are GUARDIAN readers. We can safely assume that in excess of 95% will KNOW Peter Tatchell is gay (and the other 5% need not be woken!). So here comes the problem – is that second line not gratuitous?

Sop, thinking I am 69 and may be a bit out of date I asked the Guardian reading mother of two girls, 14 and 12. She agreed and will from what she said be writing to the Guardian Readers Editor herself she said,.

So what test can be sued in such a context. Let us remember that the Guardian does have an intelligent and sophisticated readership that it cannot offer to condescend to. It will, inevitably deal in the social and cultural natters of our modern world and thus be exposed to this very material. Can it be tested to achieve what I shall call “the chattering classes breakfast table test”? Yes, and fairly easily.

If material is MOSRT likely to be heard only in the men's locker room, at the bar in some other largely adult and robust location it needs to be examined for its suitability for the CHILDRENH of intelligent readers. If it does fall into this category the second stage is how much detail do we need to maintain credibility and be honest to the contributor? If we apply this to the Tachell response we can easily decide that line one is OK. It does not invoke unwanted ribaldry7, just amusement at a predicament that could be 'shared'. If by that edit Mr Tatchell was offended at the removal of his avowed orientation then a slight edit by agreement would suffice. He could have said “when having sex with my male partner, boy friend” or whatever set the right tone.

You see the problem is not juts that this might be the sort of joke told to an audience at the Apollo. It is that that audience paid, chose and know what to expect – the Guardian lies about, unguarded you might say.

I say less f and c, less gratuitous use of slovenly English and a bit more concern for the children of the chattering classes. Please? Blimey I sound like Mrs Whitehouse!