 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 Homepage of The Media Show, Radio4's weekly look at the media.. Wednesday 1.30pm. |
|
|
|
Have your say |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
TV Advertising |
|
|
How has the economic downturn affected TV advertising? Even the internet – which has seen such stellar growth in revenues over recent years is beginning to feel the pinch. But in the world of free to air advertiser funded television – which suffered in the last two major economic recessions but came out of both stronger than it went in – there are increasing concerns that revenues lost now might simply not return.
Last night Sir Martin Sorrell – chief executive of WPP the worlds largest advertising conglomerate – told an industry audience in London that long term structural factors posed a real threat to traditional broadcasters. The economy would bounce back he said, but for traditional media companies – especially those in one media – like TV, and one country – like Britain – the game was most probably up.
Steve talks to Rupert Howell ITV’s managing director of brand and commercial, Chris Hayward from media buying agency Zenith Optimedia, and Media consultant Matthew Horsman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That" Answerphone Message |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting Poverty |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments from today's show |
|
|
Ross /Brand/Sachs:
At least Brand had the decency to resign.... that is more than can be said of Ross who should know better.(a far greater suspension wld be better!!) Both are crude comedians who rely on shock rather than brain power ... but I have no objection to that!! But Andrew Sachs did not need to be a part of that or request to be. Patricia Wright
Quite apart from the Radio 2 show debacle, Ross is not entertaining or funny. Sex jokes can be funny but his are repetitive and boring. Definitively not worth £600 K a year - let alone 6 million. Let him go; there is plenty of better and better value talent out there.
For goodness sakes.....I am so fed up with hearing about Ross & Brand .... the fault should lie with whoever made the decision the air the show. Ross & Brand were stupid to make the calls but then the people who genuinely listen to the show would not have batted an eye lid ..... maybe thought they were pushing their luck...but that would have been it really. And the grandaughter doesn't seem to mind telling the 'SUN' newspaper all about her 'private' night with Brand.....need I say more.....Just bring Wossi back as Friday nights & Saturday mornings are not the same without him.
I am writing as I find the Ross/Brand situation completely beyond reasonable comprehension. Whilst I appreciate that the comments were indeed contentious, there were in fact in context with the programme style and in context with the whole of the series of programmes from both Brand and Ross have produced over the years. Both have trodden a fine line and I would say an absence of any previous warnings should fall in their favour as they will simply keep pushing the boundaries.I fail to see how the (BBCs) Little Britain Team avoided any similar tirades of our middle classes when I found the content of this series the most offensive content of modern times. Somehow we have thought that due to the personal nature of the comments of Brand & Ross that it is the worst kind of offence when I see the exploitation of the broadest spectrum of our society. Why did the BBC say "Comedy is a subjective medium, and the Little Britain characters have been deliberately magnified to cartoonish proportions then, but now says it needs to be firmer on excesses? For the 37,500 [<0.0006% of the country] complaints to be representative of the actual feelings on this matter is a joke, a mobilised middle England is not actually the reason to create such a brouhaha, especially at the expense of cutting edge comedians or BBC executives who feel it necessary to fall on their swords for what amounts to narrow minded individuals ranting about what they consider to be inappropriate.I do believe that if Mr Sachs was offended, or indeed his granddaughter, then its up to Brand & Ross to make equally public reparations for their actions & which I believe they have both done and Mr Sachs has accepted their apology and expressed his appreciation for it. This should be the end of the matter and nothing more should be said.The loss of the broadcasters, whether that is indefinitely or for 12 weeks is at a huge creative loss to appease a load of bandwagon jumpers who probably didn't hear the content in the first place.
Richard Gascoigne
Can no one keep a level head anymore? Has anyone bothered to listen to the clip of the phonecall before they make a judgement based on hearsay? Does anyone realise that Georgina Baillie (Andrew Sachs' granddaughter)was apparently BOASTING about it on her website and had a link to a clip of it on Youtube! Until she realised she could get some good exposure from it, she wasn't offended at all!! And Andrew Sachs himself has accepted Ross and Brand's formal apologies with no apparent ill feeling. Yes it was in poor taste - along with an awful lot of other things that slip unnoticed under the public's media induced mob mentallity. If you don't like them don't listen to them but stop demonising them!!
Paul from Wirral
I have listened with dismay as the facts behind the antics of these over-payed "edgey" comedians have unfolded.Their behaviour is akin to the antics of two naughty school boys who have been caught red-handed and hope that their feigned contrition will help them to avoid the consequences of their actions.Unusually for the BBC, it is in the wrong in this instance!I believe that there needs to be a clear and emphatic signal sent to the "shareholder"/fee paying public(probably not the listner in this instance)that this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated.Neither Brand nor Ross is indispensable.Sack both of them with immediate effect and restore some dignity to the BBC as a much loved institution.
G Hutcheson
I agree with their suspension as it is not in doubt about what they did. The editor who failed to realise how offensive the material was should also be suspended/go.It is really important the the BBC deal with this thoroughly and that they take into account the strong feelings and opinions of their license payers and do what they can to salvage the normally great reputation for integrity of the BBC. Can't we do without this youth chasing fashionable indecency?
Cathryn Field
At the very best this skit was ill judged, at the very worst this was an appalling attack on an innocent pensioner and his grandaughter in the name of entertainment. Have these overpaid buffoons really considered what would happen were a member of the public to launch such an unprovoked attack? The managers of these overblown school boys should firmly take it on the chin in addition, since they are just as calpable in letting such drivel lose!Suspension - they would be sacked in the real world! If however you are looking for a suitably onerous punishment - how about community service and a chunk of their much lorded wealth to a charity of Mr Sachs choosing!How will they enjoy having their choice taken from them? Brand and Ross have no one to blame but themsleves for cooking up such an onerous plot - perhaps a good few days cooking up dishes in a soup kitchen may give then pause!! As for their elders and betters - demotion ALL THE WAY!!
Katie Lay
I think some people will seek to ensure these guys and their families get a taste of their own medicine. Pride and ego before the fall. High time too.
Looking at the people who think it was funny for Ross and Brand to humiliate a seventy-eight year old I was struck by the fact that not too many of them look like they pay for TV licences i.e. they're all very young.
Dermot O'Sullivan
I listened to the broadcast on Saturday and shook my head in dismay as Brand and Ross dug themselves ever deeper into their strange hole of somewhat twisted puerile humour on Andrew Sach's answerphone. They were out of order. But they don't deserve to be suspended. Their show was a pre-recorded one. They are hired and loved because of their cutting edge humour, walking that tricky tight-rope between graceful humour and cruelty. Most of the time they both manage to escape with a degree of elegance. On Saturday they did not. But if anyone from the BBC needs to be made a public scapegoat, surely it should be whoever authorised the show to be aired? Had the show been rejected by a BBC censor, none of this dirty laundry would have been made public and some simple private apologies might have sufficed. As it stands I cannot believe that so much fuss has been made of this relatively minor incident. It's front page news. To my mind suspending/firing Ross and Brand will just turn the BBC into an ever blander concoction of homogenised pap. These are your two best radio presenters (in my opinion), people pushing the boundaries, making radio relevant to today's world, not repeating some safe and tedious time-honoured formula to please everyone and thereby nobody. There's going to be moments when they step over the line..it's what gives them that edge...but rather than suspend them, embrace them for their good qualities, for their popularity and massive audience ratings, for the fact that most of the time they're very good at what they do, have a word with them about responsibility, (although the way this incident has strung out will have far exceed anything one might say as regards gravitas), and maybe take a closer look at the censorship procedure for future broadcasts. Thanks for reading.
Justin Goode
In any other profession this would be gross misconduct and grounds for dismissal, why are these two so privileged?
Jules Miller
This was shameful bullying.There is no point in punishing the managers in lieu, it is the bullies heads that should roll. When you pay someone such a great deal of money as is the case of Mr Ross, they start believing in their own publicity, think they are superior and therefore untouchable, the norms of society don't apply to them, well they do. I hope the BBC sacks the pair of them.
A Jukes
I don't listen to Radio 2 very much now, but it seems clear that the BBC management are at least as responsible as Brand and Ross for the outrage the public feels:1. The producer allowed the tasteless comments on Mr. Sachs's g'daughter to go on air even though the programme was pre-recorded. Why hasn't the producer been suspended as well?2. Public calls for the two to be sacked are premature, but the suspension has come too late to satisfy an outraged public.3. Does the BBC have standards for public service broadcasting or not? If it does, why weren't these comments identified straight away as offensive? And, if so, why weren't the performers and the producer suspended long before? A suspension is just that - not a dismissal, but a time for investigation and reflection. 4. Or, are we to assume that the BBC no longer has standards for its broadcasters and producers, but can only react to events?
When things have clearly gone very wrong then the BBC have the good grace to admit it and react quickly. However, the normal reaction of the BBC is to justify its actions and become very defensive. Its time it changed or its days as a publicly funded body are nearing their end.
Pathetic...apart from the discomfort caused to an old man, why such a bloody fuss? are the brits turning into a nation of old ladies? these two aren't what i would call the most fab boys on the comedy block, more like a couple of snortingly stupid adolescents,gigglegiggle...and you're not making it any better by making such a HUGE thing out of it.any of you heard of darfur..or guantanamo??get real chaps.
I think that the fact that Brand and Ross actually DID this is an important consideration - even if it hadn't been broadcast, it was still a very hurtful and insulting way to treat an elderly man who has done no-one any harm. It's a far cry from the sort of joke telephone calls Noel Edmonds used to make; not only is it juvenile and tactless, it's just plain NASTY, and they should be sacked, as should the editor who allowed it to be broadcast.
Angela
Mark Thompson clearly doesn't get it. Making offensive phone calls is wrong whether or not they are broadcast. His statement implies that if the passage had been edited out of the broadcast everything would have been fine. This episode and the BBC's slow and muddled response to it are really worrying for supporters of PSB and the BBC. It's an absolute gift to the BBC's enemies and a once-a-decade piece of self-inflicted toxic damage to the brand (sorry about the pun). It's comparable to the discovery of antifreeze in Austrian wine a couple of decades ago. The damage done to the BBC brand and to support for for the licence fee will be permanent. Next time they mention Lord Reith and public value everyone will burst out laughing.
John Morrison
What does 'suspended' mean? Are Ross and Brand being allowed to lay low on full pay until the fuss dies down, or will they be punished where it really hurts - in the wallet?
Ian Pitch
Poverty UK:
Just caught some of your prorammedid you mention the work of Church Action on Poverty?We have held a local poverty hearings with their support both in Shoreham by sea & Worthing and was extremely moving,helpful, and useful to hear people tell own stories which led on to constructive actions in the community.i personally know of the feelings of isolation & despair felt by those out of work threatened with homelessness and their stories need to be told on the media and i know someone who is out of action at present who has enormous recognised theatrical and artistic gifts who has worked world wide in poor communities with sreet children and who now has experience of being with newly homeless people in London.He has the experience, stories and the talent to tell it or show it if it was on TV.
Jocelyn Underwood
Perhaps the reason that more people are being made homeless is that for many people who are on Social Security the Local Housing benefit ( their rent )is being paid directly to the recipiant ( and then spent on other things) rather than being paid directly to the landlord so that the tenant is not evicted for arrears. This policy of paying the rent money directly to the tenant is a policy which encourages arrears and thus eviction. Up to April 2008 the rent could be paid directly to the landlord and thus the accommodation was secured.
C Martin Brough East Yorks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast |
|
|
The Media Show |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listen again |
|
|
|
Previous Programmes |
|
1 October 2008
Andy Burnham on public service broadcasting
8 October 2008
Michael Grade on ITV
15 October 2008
Future of DAB Radio
22 October 2008
Andy Duncan and Channel 4
29 October 2008
Reporting Poverty
5 November 2008
Stephen Carter
12 November 2008
Lionel Barber and the FT
19 November 2008
Dr Tanya Byron on Kids TV
26 November 2008
Manchester and the Media
3 December 2008
Twitter's role in Mumbai Attacks
10 December 2008
Shannon Matthews and media coverage
17 December 2008
BBC Partnerships and media access to family courts
24 December 2008
Bush and the press and 1968 Apollo broadcast
31 December 2008
The Moralising Media
7 January 2009
Jeremy Hunt, Gaza Reporting and New Talent
14 January 2009
Prince Harry, Gaza, Persian TV and iPlayer
21 January 2009
Ofcom's PSB Review, Ross' return and British News
28 January 2009
Sir Michael Lyons, Hutton Report and New Nation
4 February 2009
Sky, Children and Reality TV and Financial Reporting
11 February 2009
BBC Children's Services, Jade Goody and Journalists' Conscience Clause
18 February 2009
Reporting Trauma, Subeditors and Teletext
25 February 2009
Dawn Airey, Disability on TV and Facebook
4 March 2009
Media and The Miners' Strike and ITV
11 March 2009
The Editors' Codebook, "Crown Jewels" of British Sport and Viviane Reding
18 March 2009
Christopher Meyer, Metro at Ten, Phorn and Impartial Drama
25 March 2009
Future of Journalism, Obama, Radio Caroline | |
Steve Hewlett |
|
Steve Hewlett is a Guardian Columnist and broadcasting consultant. He is visiting Professor of Journalism and Broadcast policy at Salford University and a fellow of the Royal Television Society.
|
Don't miss We want to hear your experiences |
How did it go so wrong? From a moment of foul mouthed buffoonery on Radio 2 – admittedly one featuring the BBC’s most highly paid presenter - that had lain virtually unnoticed for a week, to 18,000 complaints and interventions from David Cameron and even Gordon Brown? Public reaction to the obscene content of the calls left on Actor Andrew Sach’s answering machine is now reflected in mountains of press comment questioning the way BBC bosses have handled matters. 
As recession bites, we might be seeing more stories about poverty than we’ve been used to. But how well or fully does the media cover poverty and perhaps more importantly the people living with it. A report from the Joseph Rowntree foundation has found the media wanting – not just in terms of news in print and on TV but in our television heartland – drama and soaps. 
