IT WAS a prank too far that has raised public hackles like few controversies before it. The row over the comments broadcast by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross has attracted the highest number of complaints in radio broadcasting history, with more than 30,000 representations sent to the BBC.
The saga has also garnered among the highest number of complaints of any broadcast. Only the televised showing of Jerry Springer: The Opera, which attracted more than 47,000 complaints, and the Celebrity Big Brother race row, which attracted about 45
,000, surpass it to date.
But as the furore claimed its second scalp last night, with Radio 2 Controller Lesley Douglas falling on her sword the day after Brand quit, questions are starting to circulate concerning the motivations behind the torrent of public outrage, and the media coverage of an incident that for days went unreported after the event.
Sir Christopher Bland, a former chairman of the board of governors of the BBC, said yesterday he believed the reporting was over the top.
"That this has led the news for four days in a row is disproportionate. You have parliamentarians trampling all over it. By the end of the week, we'll be thoroughly sick of it, and a more worthwhile and important story will emerge. In terms of the magnitude of the crime, how big is it? Broadcasters make mistakes.
"They should apologise as quickly as possible so as to ensure they do not occur again."
Of the myriad reasons behind the response to the row, some are arguing that the scale of complaints show the British public is fatigued with a general rudeness that has been allowed to prosper without check or balance.
Others, however, suggest many of the complainants may not be genuinely outraged, but rather "whipped up" by certain parties.
The accusation of BBC bashing has also reared its head, while others have suggested the week's main story thrives as a diversion from the reams of coverage surrounding the economy.
Comic and actor, Steve Coogan, said the tone of the remarks was in poor taste. "Comedy is about how you couch things," he said. "But it was very mean spirited what they did and I was angry when I saw it."
One veteran stand-up comedian told The Scotsman that, in recent years, comedy material has often been gratuitously offensive.
"Look at the Amnesty International show earlier this year, where we had Jonathan Ross talking about his testicles, and Frank Skinner making jokes about sexual positions and urinating.
"That material's not shocking in itself, but the fact it's on a charity show that used to have the likes of Peter Cook and John Cleese shows how a lot of modern comedians believe smut is almost a get-out-of -jail-free card."
A survey revealed yesterday that a quarter of Brits plan to boycott Ross and Brand's future broadcasts over the scandal. Two thirds of those questioned said it was right Ross was suspended, and seven out of ten thought Brand did the right thing in resigning, according to the poll of 5,000 people by www.onepoll.com.
But one media analyst has questioned whether the public is truly upset with the remarks, suggesting the protestation could have been spurred on by critical press coverage.
Graham Lovelace, a former senior editor at the BBC, said Ross's £6 million salary was a "lightning rod" for the complaints, but added: "I'm not saying people who complained weren't offended, but the opportunity is there for groups such as newspapers to encourage public participation. The media is a two-way relationship between the providers and the public."
Alexi Duggins, a writer with Time Out, the entertainment magazine, agreed. He said: "I think you do need to listen to the show to be disgusted. My suspicion is that the 30,000ish complaints are made up of a lot of people with a similar approach."
Another factor which the BBC itself has brought to light is the notion of a generation gap, with the racy material of both Brand and Ross popular among predominantly young audiences, but according to a series of interviews carried out for Tuesday's Ten O'Clock News (before Ross was suspended and Brand resigned), the audiences of an Alan Titchmarch show and Never Mind The Buzzcocks show a polarity of opinion. "It's disgusting, absolutely disgusting," said one elderly woman. "Jonathan Ross has got a mouth like a sewer."
"The amount of money they get to talk like that to somebody, it's disgraceful," said another.
All but one of the younger interviewees, meanwhile, took the opposite stance. "I think he should be able to say what he thinks," said one girl of Ross. "I think people should lighten up."
Another said: "I think it's been blown out of all proportion. It started off as a joke, went a bit too far, and an apology would suffice."
Mr Lovelace reflected: "The younger generation have expressed incredulity towards what has happened. There's definitely a generational divide on the story."
Martin Moore, director of the Media Standards Trust, an independent, not for profit organisation that promotes high standards in news on behalf of the public, pointed out there were only two complaints after the original broadcast on 18 October, with the rest coming after a Sunday newspaper ran with the story eight days later.
He added it is only because the incident happened under the auspices of the BBC that there was "blanket front-page coverage … statements by the leaders of both main political parties, the suspension of both presenters, resignation of one, an official inquiry, and the potential of a significant fine".
Others have said the furore over the broadcast stems from gloomy financial news that has so dominated the headlines in recent weeks and months.
Mr Duggins added: "I suspect that part of the reason the media is so keen to talk about this is as a break from all the credit-crunch business. Poor old Brand, eh? Redundant in the middle of a recession."
A genuine outburst of rage, or a storm in a teacup?Is the extensive coverage of, and reaction to the Russell Brand / Jonathan Ross controversy warranted?
No
Graham Lovelace, media analyst and former senior editor and journalist at the BBCEVERY now and then, we have an issue that seems to bubble out of nowhere and become a controversy. We live in a time of media fragmentation, and occasionally, a story becomes a conversation point for the entire nation. The degree of comment and complaint grows each time. It shows we are all watching the same content in different ways and at different times.
Mass media encourages people to voice their opinions. Nowadays, all it takes is for someone to send a quick email. That was not the case in the days when someone had to go and get an envelope and a stamp.
I think also in some ways, what has happened could be a reaction to the economic and banking problems we have been experiencing in recent weeks – the story of the celebrities going too far is a diversion from that.
It's very difficult to say whether the majority of those people who have complained are genuinely offended or not.
Interest groups can build a campaign very quickly and whip up anger and froth when, 20 years ago, that response would have been unheard of.
Yes
Kate Copstick, The Scotsman's comedy critic and writerIN my time as a Scotsman critic I have seen and heard some deeply unfunny things. But an almost pathologically egotistical manchild with a comedy speech impediment (in more ways than one, we now discover) and Fashion Tourette's Syndrome, whose puerile, sniggering obsession with "doing it", shouting, "He f****d your grand daughter!" onto the answering machine of a minor National Treasure, has to be one of the least funny.
There has been talk that there was no real furore until the Mail on Sunday created one. But not everyone listens to Radio 2. That cannot disenfranchise them from having a say – outraged or not – about something that happens there. We never knew about Watergate until the press told us. That is rather what the press is for, is it not?
The outpouring of upset might be unwarranted were it directed simply at two rude boys and a pathetic, juvenile prank played on an old man.
But this was £6,200,000 worth (I use the word loosely) of bad boy. Paid for by us. On airspace and through equipment paid for by us.
Some say it is an over reaction for 30,000 Brits to take their outrage and wave it about.
But I worry more that it takes 30,000 people to persuade The Six Million Quid Man that bellowing "he f****d your grand daughter" down the phone to anyone's granddad, let alone on BBC Radio 2 is, acceptable, never mind remotely entertaining.
