MIND MOVES:Fallout from "offensive" BBC calls identifies public concern over media standards, writes Marie Murray
THE "INAPPROPRIATE and offensive" voice messages left by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross for Andrew Sachs about his granddaughter caused a furore in British broadcasting last week. The BBC, which broadcast the programme, received thousands of complaints.
The issue gathered momentum. That auspicious authority - gold-standard guardian of broadcasting propriety - was found wanting. It had broadcast activities in such poor taste and with such serious implications that there was potential for criminal charges to be instituted against the presenters and those who allowed the programme to be aired.
This was not a "live" error of judgment, the unfortunate act or ill-advised phrase uttered before its implications were realised. This was behaviour that for many people crossed boundaries: an edited programme without apparent editing and an insult to audiences angry at being subjected to and vicariously participant in something they had no wish to associate themselves with.
And they made their distaste known. They wanted to know who had sanctioned the programme. Who permitted its transmission? They did not want to think that the BBC, traditional definer of decorum, was colluding with dumb-down culture to the extent of allowing such material on air.
The situation was commented upon by the prime minister and by the leader of the Conservatives. It occasioned debate in the House of Commons. It occupied front pages in the tabloids. It was a highlight on news channels, in the headlines on news features and the principal topic for television and radio debate.
In that paradoxical way in which the media is increasingly observing itself and reporting on its own activities, the media in this instance maximised examination of itself, fed itself on denigration of itself and queried its own behaviour.
The debacle brought new scrutiny to media standards. Boundaries of acceptability were demarcated. Debate about what constitutes entertainment began. Questions were asked that might otherwise have gone unvoiced. A new discourse opened up, challenging broadcasters to stay within their own guidelines with regard to taste and offensiveness.
The behaviour of the duo, Brand and Ross, touched a nerve for many, for whom the incident seemed to be the catalyst for articulating what many had felt for some time about the erosion of standards in broadcasting.
It conveyed a clear message: that offensive images, language, exchanges and behaviour are unacceptable to the public, which believes there are lines that should not be crossed and that those who traverse them are not invulnerable to dismissal or suspension as a consequence.
A message was conveyed by the British public that freedom of speech is not the freedom to say whatever one wishes to whomever one wishes, in public, in whatever manner one wishes, regardless of the sensibilities of the recipients and the social consequences.
Apologies are required when distress is caused to people. Celebrity is not exempt from censure. The individual has responsibility to the collective. Broadcasters have a responsibility to the public.
Tolerance levels are not infinite. Propriety retains a place in the public domain. Public opinion still has power. The power of that opinion is not to be dismissed.
The nature and extent of public reaction to the Brand and Ross incident took everyone by surprise. It reminded authorities that there are limits to public forbearance and that just because public concerns may lie dormant, they are not dead.
At any moment, usually when least expected, public patience can expire.
The issue of the relationship and interaction between people and the media is an important one. The question of for whom, by whom, on behalf of whom and in the service of whom broadcasters operate is being raised again.
What is its public service remit? Who defines that remit and what rights do licence holders have to influence what they receive in return?
Do broadcasters set a standard for society or do they reflect back the standards society sets for itself?
The questions being asked by our neighbours in Britain are relevant here. How happy are we with current media standards? Do they fulfil what we require? Does media reflect who we are? To what extent do we interact with it, inform and shape it and to what extent does it shape us and how we view the world?
• Clinical psychologist and author Marie Murray is director of the student counselling services in University College Dublin