Have we got bad language for you?
Bad or offensive language (as opposed to the politically, socially, legally or even factually contentious variety) isn't usually at the forefront of Current Affairs' concerns.
Certainly not in the way it is for, say, comedy, drama or entertainment. Panorama's historically robust attitude to the subject is best typified by Richard Dimbleby here in 1965 in a clip uncovered by a fellow blogger.
But the fall-out from the Ross-Brand affair has had a wider impact on what the BBC does. There's been a tightening of pre-transmission "compliance procedures" for all programmes, and e-mails have been sent to all staff asking them to formally confirm they accept BBC editorial guidelines around which this compliance is focused.
The compliance teams themselves are currently being "audited," and an internal Special Task Force examining where "the appropriate boundaries of taste and generally accepted standards should lie across all BBC output" will report in the spring. Blimey.
The BBC is overreacting, complain some. They say it's being too sensitive to criticism from any quarter - this, for example, from Jeremy Clarkson, who's not averse to a little controversy himself. Others feel the BBC has been hopelessly compromised by its association with the likes of Jonathan Ross and needs to re-embrace its traditional, mainstream audience.
So it seemed a legitimate matter of public interest for Panorama to investigate - was the furore generated by Ross-Brand affair a flash-in-the-pan or a glimpse of wider unease about broadcasting standards?
We asked the comedian and broadcaster Frank Skinner to present it - partly because it's his job to decide where he draws the line with his own comedy and partly because he had written thoughtfully about whether swearing had gone too far and had experimented with taking it out of his own act.
We've carried authored or part-authored pieces on the programme before for example, the author Bill Bryson looked at litter in the UK last year but of course there will still be complaints. Frank himself responded to these, slightly tongue-in-cheek, in a newspaper column last week.
The bigger problem with this issue was in the nuts and bolts. Aside from the views above, there are few statistics to help objectively measure it. On swearing, for example, the last major attempt to count the amount on the main terrestrial channels was carried out by Ofcom and the BBC nearly six years ago. That pointed to a sixteen-fold increase in the use of the most serious swear words over the previous decade.
Since then, nothing - even at a time when new digital channels have proliferated and pressures to appeal to a younger audience, distracted by the internet, have risen. Polling audience views is hazardous too. We were limited to discussing swearing after being told that any polling on "offensive material" would need a full breakdown of all the areas that might cover - from sexism to violence to religious offence.
The results of our polling on swearing and offensive language did suggest, however, that the audience was concerned broadcasters hadn't been listening to their views on the subject.
The feeling was that swearing had increased since that last survey in 2003 and that the amount was currently too high. So how will the BBC and other broadcasters actually deal with this audience perception?
Interviewed in the programme, Channel 4 seemed happy to carry on as before - arguing it plays well to their core audience. ITV said they would rein in their own use of swearing as the all-important advertisers saw it as a "family channel" and the BBC would "think harder about the use and purpose" of language.
Whether the Corporation will actually step in to censor material, as of yore - for example, with the ever-risqué George Formby - will be thoroughly monitored. And Panorama may yet resort to the Dimbleby swear-box again.
Tom Giles is deputy editor of Panorama.