Raw sewage

The row over the revolting conduct of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross in leaving obscene messages on Andrew Sachs’s answering machine appears to have plunged the BBC into a state of corporate shock. Thousands of complaints have poured in, Ofcom has announced an inquiry and both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have condemned the Corporation’s handling of the affair.

It isn’t, of course, just the behaviour of Ross and Brand – surely the least funny, most overrated, of all comedians – that has prompted the outcry. It is the fact that for years the BBC has been getting away with putting out undiluted filth in the guise of entertainment. Only last Sunday – the day the Mail broke the Ross / Brand story – the Telegraph reported the findings of an investigation it had conducted into the use of bad language on television after the so-called “watershed”. The report made exceptionally disturbing reading.

In fairness to the BBC, both ITV and Channel 4 were also criticised. However, it was the mealy-mouthed response of the inevitable “BBC spokesman” to the Telegraph’s criticisms that was so deeply, and predictably, depressing:

“The BBC has robust guidelines in place making clear the most offensive language should not be broadcast before the watershed and needs to be justified by the context.

“Whilst we have a duty to reflect real lives and people, we are very sensitive about what we broadcast when children are most likely to be listening, and receive very few complaints about offensive language.”

I’m far from sure that the BBC’s “duty to reflect real lives and people” gives it carte blanche to broadcast at a relatively early hour the sort of language that would cause most viewers offence if it were used by a visitor to their homes. If its “robust guidelines” are allowing this sort of stuff to be pumped out, then perhaps it should start to reassess just how robust they are.

Sometimes, watching BBC TV or listening to BBC radio feels like being force-fed a diet of raw sewage. People are becoming increasingly angry at coughing up an annual licence fee of £139.50 in straitened times, only to be served up garbage in return. The fact that every so often the BBC produces a sublime documentary by David Attenborough or a first-rate drama series doesn’t excuse it for churning out the mountain of dross exemplified by Ross and Brand.

This morning, Sir John Tusa, former managing director of the BBC’s World Service, appeared on the Today programme and urged the Director General, Mark Thompson, to “get a grip”:

“Mark Thompson has got to stand up. When the Prime Minister is involved and the Leader of the Opposition is involved, the Director General has got to stand up early – soon, today – and personally get a grip of the whole issue and get a report very, very fast.”

Tusa is absolutely right. Thompson should urgently start to show the leadership expected of him, but so far unapparent.

But it’s not just the question of whether or not the DG should sack Brand and Ross (which I believe he should, although I fear he will probably funk it); it’s the whole, wider, issue of declining standards on the BBC.

This public corporation, which at times can still delight and dazzle, is these days too often a conduit for the very basest standards of language, behaviour and attitude. As such, its influence is, sadly, as often baneful as it is inspirational.

The BBC must reform itself, and swiftly, or expect increasing demands that it be reformed.