John Stonborough F.C.I.P.R.

Once more into the breach of ethics

In one of those blokish ho-ho moments in the newsroom, reporters nudge each other and say ‘never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?’ They might even add a knowing wink. But a story collapsing can be catastrophic, especially for a TV programme with minutes to transmission.

When it happens, there is nothing for it, but for these brave men and women to gather in a huddle. If you listen carefully you can hear phrases like ‘what else have we got? Or, ‘will they sue’ rising from the scrum. Then, provided the answer is negative to these and other searching questions, the editor will jump up and cry “God for England, Harry and St George, let’s run it anyway!”. Relief and hugs fill the Edit suite and its coffees all round.

Well, I have this vision of the Tonight with Trevor Macdonald team acting out a Henry V moment when their Monday programme began to unravel and they faced the abyss (ITV1 8pm September 25th).

The story was billed as being about ‘partners’ hiding the true state of their financial indebtedness from their ‘partners’. These partners looked much like husbands and wives to me, only fatter.

At the heart of all that blubbing, was a sad tale about a slim lady whose husband killed himself two years ago, unable to reveal to her - so we were told - that he had run up debts of £140,000 on 22 credit cards. Yes £140,000 on 22 credit cards!

In case you are suffering from deja view, the very same story was on Panorama and in the Guardian in July.

Martin (Money Saving Expert, 34-year-old ultra specialized journalist ….in constant media demand, including his own ITV1 series ‘Make Me Rich’) Lewis was the reporter and as patronisingly agitated as ever. .He’s a sort of calculator wrestling Steve Irwin

Martin entoned how this ill-fated bloke earned just £15,000 a year and had had to borrow money for his wife’s operation. Things had gone from bad to worse, using one card to pay off the next etc; assisted by the egregious banks; who demanded a repayment on one card, while upping his limit on another; (At this point the viewer is meant to think there is no depth to their knavery); and all the while this man kept his misfortune from his dear wife. You get the picture? QED the banks killed him.

Well, not so fast! I do not wish to rubbish the wife’s obvious grief at her loss, the man is dead. But, surely she must have known something was amiss? They were enjoying a comfy middle class existence, with, I understand, the odd trip to France, maybe to pick up some booze and few fags? All on his measly income? Come-on.

What about his prior bankruptcy and his appearance in connection with a faked signature on a mortgage document at Bristol Crown Court and even his severe diabetes? All this is in the public domain, waiting for a researcher on Panorama or Tonight with Trevor to uncover. If they knew, why were we not told and if they didn’t, you have to ask why not?

Why didn’t they talk to his first wife? She wrote to the Daily Mail about it and copies were given to the Granada programme. Why didn’t they hold the item until they had double checked both wives’ stories and then quietly dropped it. Surely it wasn’t anything to do with letting those awkward facts spoil a good story? Surely it wasn’t because they had nothing to fill the black hole.

Advice to Sir Trevor: You have had a cracking career, Sir, and you are much respected – but if you are going to take the cash for topping and tailing a programme, you might want to keep a closer eye on the content that’s going out with your name on it. The public trust you.

Hyperbully

I was a policeman once. Not a lot of people know that!
I spent three years patrolling some of the rougher parts of north London. I was in my early twenties and one mantra I used a lot, as some miscreant got bundled into the back of the N division J4 (Black Mariah) van, was ‘you are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so. Anything that you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you’ .
That old police caution came to mind when a water industry chief complained the other day, that a tabloid hack had got quite stroppy with him, because he wouldn’t say ‘taps will run dry.’

Can you blame him. He didn’t want to commit himself to such a definite statement; probably because despite the drought here in the south-east, it wasn’t true. But that wasn’t what the reporter wanted to hear. So he turned nasty and coerced, hectored, and generally bullied the unfortunate spokesman.

Clients often complain about being made to utter hyperboles and it happens in pre recorded TV interviews too.
‘That was a bit long’ says the producer during a pause in the recording, ‘could you just say, I think this is the worst case of (insert topic) I have ever seen, it’s the end of civilisation as we know it’. And if you don’t get it right, they make you do it again and again until you do.
You see, you are only there to give credence to a story they may have already scripted. They have an interview with X saying one thing, your job is to say precisely what the reporter told his or her editor that you are going to say in reply.

Have you noticed how many scare and panic stories just follow the weather? We have had the taps running dry story all summer and any moment I expect a flood scare as the autumn equinox (yesterday) heralds October’s storms. Droughts will be forgotten till next year.

A real lack Ofcom-mon sense

I like double takes! The best are in cartoons. Tom is running purposefully on some mission when he spots Jerry (doing something cheeky) out of the corner of his eye. His head whips back and forth twice and he screeches to a stop mid stride, as his legs go furiously into reverse. It gets a laugh every time.
Well I did a Tom and Jerry “double take” recently. I was sitting on a plane going on holiday. With the restrictions you can’t take too much, so for light reading I tucked the Aug 21 edition of the Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin (67) into my regulation no liquids, no guns, no nail clippers, travel bag.

The report which caught my eye was about Boomerang TV broadcasting Tom and Jerry cartoons with scenes involving smoking. A viewer had complained. Yes just one - but listen to this.

“Following the recent complaint, Turner Broadcasting (owner of the kids channel Boomerang) conducted an extensive review to assess the volume and context of smoking and proposed editing any scenes where smoking appeared to be condoned, acceptable, glamourised or encourage imitation.”

Can this be serious? They propose reworking what are indisputably works of art, often nearly half a century old, made for all age-groups, shown in every cinema, to satisfy a complaint from just one viewer. Quite apart from the cost and expertise required in defacing 25 frames per second. It is wrong.

Think about it for a moment. Where does it stop? We have already had a movement (successful I believe) to extinguish Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s cigar. What about Popeye’s pipe - come to think of it, I think Popeye is a pretty disagreeable name - maybe the poor chap had some iodine deficiency which caused his eyes to bulge and hence the epithet.

Rule 1.10 of the Broadcasting Code says smoking (and other drugs including Alcohol) must not be featured in programmes made primarily for children or broadcast before the watershed.

Fair enough, sounds like good common sense, but how about a bit of Ofcommon sense over this. Their response to Turner’s vandalism - a fusion of PC and PR - is to say, get your sticky hands off those cartoons. Either don’t broadcast them or if you have to, then put a health warning at the start. How about “This Cartoon Classic contains scenes of smoking.” That’s All Folks!