Putting Presenters in the Stocks

[By Kate Dobinson - First published in ForgePress Friday 7 November.]




It seems that the stocks are back in fashion. Yet the two red faces suspended over the low wooden beam are prompting far more people to pick up a bumper pack of rotten tomatoes than they would have done for your standard 13th century thief.

Jonathan Ross, whose floppy locks provide a far better frame than any circular head hole, has been sitting alongside Russell Brand and his own tumultuous mane in what is now the centre of a huge public outcry. In the past two weeks the comedy heroes have dissipated into a pair of verminous villains.

The situation has quickly cemented itself with somewhat disastrous effect and has proved to be more than just an embarrassing blunder for the BBC. On Saturday, October 18, Ross accompanied Brand on his late night Radio Two programme to interview Andrew Sachs, who played Manuel in Fawlty Towers.

Multiple answer phone messages regarding the actor’s granddaughter Georgina Baillie were left on Sachs’ answer phone. The duo made explicit reference to her supposed sexual involvement with Brand himself. Senior BBC executives had made no attempt to censor the material before it had been aired and so the show was deemed appropriate by the BBC to broadcast as had been planned.

Just two complaints were made upon its immediate transmission. On Sunday, October 19, The Mail on Sunday ran the story and from then on its news coverage of that infamous radio "joke" has steadily built as tantamount to a tireless campaign effort. Subsequently it has stirred over 37,000 complaints to the BBC.

Evidently, the stocks that we associate with seemingly medieval history did not have access to full and polemical media coverage in order to boost their public turnout like we do now.
The logistics of debate and controversy surrounding this situation call into question some extremely grey areas. Brand and Ross, as two of the most popular and charismatic television personalities in the country, are sitting astride a huge proverbial bonfire. It is fair to enquire above the roar of the media lions whether the pair were actually the ones to light the match themselves.

The involvement of The Daily Mail has managed to split public opinion: whilst the paper was heralded by third year Biological Sciences student Rebecca Hughes as "morally obligated to inform the British public of verbal attacks on innocent people", first year Maths student David Burgess feels that the coverage represents "crass sensationalism".

Clearly there is opinion to suggest that The Daily Mail has taken the subject too far and that the sensationalist model of the national press is an ever present and negative force. Ross has been suspended and Brand has resigned.

As an added effect, it may come as no surprise that the possible fine that may be awaiting the BBC is said to impact upon the taxpayer, who will have to dig deeper than their £140 television licence currently demands. Undoubtedly, the backlash may be attributed not necessarily to any particular horror at what Brand and Ross said, but how much it is going to cost the public.

We may be able to grasp tangible effect in terms of our money, but then equally important is the question of exactly how fair the journalistic treatment of the subject has been. It is far from easy to gauge just how far a newspaper should sink their teeth into something before it appears too pugnacious.

Ben Davies, a first year English Literature student, said: "It’s a newspaper; why shouldn’t they have reported on what Brand said? I personally thought it was very funny but I don’t see how it’s The Daily Mail’s fault if people then choose to complain having read their report."
Although a reasonable claim, just how far were the Daily Mail headlines an interference and exploitation of a "joke gone wrong", rather than a necessary news source? James Gunstall, a third year Medicine student, said: "By all means, run the story, but it didn’t have to be so scathing. Yes they made a few daft comments, but if they had never run the story then nobody would have batted an eyelid."

Indeed, if the role of the press is under critique then the public involvement and response should be too. It is certainly plausible to suggest that had The Daily Mail refrained from its shock tactics, then the 37,000 worth of complaints that hit the BBC may not have surfaced at all. This does point to the possibility that many of the complaints may have been made by people who had not even been listening to the show.

Daisy Smith, a second year Dentistry student, said: "The public are too easily led by what they read and probably started complaining when they were told it was to be a big scandal. Russell Brand is always being outrageous. I bet that those people who complained needed the seed of doubt to be planted in their minds for them, before they decided ‘yep, that is wrong.’"

Plainly there is an old fashioned undercurrent or thirst for spectacle and drama here. Whether it was displayed by Brand and Ross initially, or was injected by the papers as a tool to sell a few more copies, people simply can’t resist it.

Concurrently, the graphic language was used as a means of comedy. It is a matter of personal taste and as Helen Dimitrou, a first year Geography student says, it was "just not funny at all." Both brand and Ross are particularly idiosyncratic performers whose comedy routines are, like any comedy, highly subjective.

Presumably the standard description of Brand’s show as an ‘edgier’ form of comedy meant that the censorship of the BBC was working purely in relation to the kind of material Brand usually produces. However the BBC has been reprimanded for failing to veto the proposed show and is under intense spotlight.

But is it easy to judge when the comedy stops being funny? And how can we measure? Earlier this week Jeremy Clarkson was being defended by the BBC, as he joked about the frequency with which prostitutes may be murdered by truck drivers on Top Gear. The BBC claimed that viewers would have "clear expectations of Clarkson’s frequently provocative on-screen persona" and so would not be offended.

It could not be suggested that this may not have been said of Brand and Ross. There has been no explanation from the BBC as to what constitutes "provocative" and so it is impossible to glean from the powers that be exactly how to judge what is right and wrong if they are not entirely sure either.

In order to draw succinct conclusions about this subject, it is wise to remember what Andrew Sachs himself was quoted as saying last week: "I am not going to take it anywhere. I’m not out for revenge." With no revenger, the denouement to this drama has only half its plot. Should we care if Sachs doesn’t care? It is evident that the power of the press to ensconce the public in its theatre will always be successful. So are Brand and Ross in the wrong? The only answer is to look at the grey cloud before you take a black and white picture.