There were numerous stories this week that were indubitably newsworthy.
The forcible emptying of the displaced persons’ camps in the Congo is worryingly reminiscent of Rwanda in the 90s. The energy companies’ recently released profits have been eye-watering, and should pose serious questions about profiteering at a time when people are digging deep to fund the cost of living. Barack Obama spent in excess of $3million for his 30-minute ‘infomercial’ ahead of Tuesday’s election, his gamble not to accept federal funding having paid off.
Yet, none of these got anywhere near the coverage that they should have done.
And what was it that blew both Yachtgate, and the unrelenting, increasingly dismal news about the economy off the front pages?
A message left by two television presenters on the answer-phone of an actor best known for a part he played on television some thirty years ago.
Yes, the message was lewd and unpleasant, and embarrassing for those involved. Agreed, it shouldn’t have been part of a broadcast on a national radio programme (but for that, surely the editors are at fault, more so than the comedians?).
None of that explains the phenomenal press presence that it’s achieved.
At the very beginning of the story, and the time of the broadcast – some two weeks ago – two complaints were made, both about the swearing on the show, rather than its content. It was only once the Mail on Sunday reported the story the following weekend that a further 1,585 complaints were made; given the time lapse, presumably by people who either made a special effort to seek out, and listen to, the offending item, or by those who hadn’t heard it at all.
In a perfectly executed example of the theory of the vicious circle, it was the press coverage which fuelled the public opinion that fuelled more coverage. For, once the story had been picked up in other outlets and risen suitably far up the news agenda, completely monopolising that agenda for several days, the number of complaints exceeded 30,000.
This episode may serve as the catalyst which sparks a debate about issues of taste and decency in entertainment broadcasts.
It might get people talking about the remit of the BBC; or who in a chain of command should take responsibility when something goes wrong.
But whatever else the Brand/Ross debacle does, it should serve as a sharp reminder of the immense, opinion-forming power of the press.
