At the BBC Editor’s blog Rod McKenzie asks if the Ross and Brand case is an open and shut case?
When we started covering the story on Newsbeat — the audience response was running two-to-one in Ross’s and Brand’s favour — now it’s swelled to six-to-one.
His point is that the younger audiences his broadcasts serve don’t share the moral outrage of older audiences. And in drawing attention to that difference of opinion Rod frames the issue as one of audience outrage and approval, with the implication that there is no ‘moral’ position here, it’s all relative. It isn’t.
If a senior exec doesn’t feel this is an ‘open and shut’ case then there really is a broad editorial ‘cultural’ issue to be addressed. The debate for Rod is how his adherence to the code works in contrast to the expectations of his audience.
For Brand and Ross were clearly in breach of the broadcasting code and the BBC’s own guidelines. These codes are designed to protect the public. Not in the sense of guarding their ears and eyes, but to offer them protection. It is designed to protect elderly actors and their grandchildren from on-air humiliation and bullying.
This is not a clash of generations. We might well decide as a society that we are happy to unleash the Brands and Rosses of the world to pick on whomsoever they choose. But we haven’t yet.
And if Radio 1 listeners feel so strongly, perhaps they’d like to get together to campaign for the code to be changed.
I’m 21 and i agree with this article.…The media should take into a account the younger generations opinion on this issue. Jonathan Ross and Russel Brand are my favourite comics in the media today, although i agree that the other day’s actions were inappropriate, i do not agree with the word “abuse” that is often used! The way i look at it is Jonathan said something that he would find funny ( clearly other people would to) and you could tell that he regretted it immediatley, if he would have faltered straight away he would have betrayed his cheeky chappie image and as for Russel we all know that he just breathed in and carried on. I can’t believe that they intended to cause such uproar and let’s face it …the media has been looking for an oportunity to grab jonathan ever since the 18 million contract.….. which is bang out of order.….….PUBLIC APOLOGY that is all that should happen.
And it was U.K. media policy types who said the U.S. people were prudish over the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl half-time show!
A few further thoughts…
… I didn’t mean to suggest that anyone who is offended by the Brand / Ross calls is prudish…just that people who were offended by the Janet Jackson episode were unfairly labeled as such.
Reasonable people will disagree…
And — what about this one?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/feb/25/uk.media
That was never aired because — in C4’s opinion — it violated the broadcast code… what a shame…