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 the facts getting in the way can be catastrophic if its going to kill the story. Especially so in TV when there’s a large gap to fill, just minutes before transmission.

There is nothing for it in these dire times but for brave men and women to gather round in a huddle. If you listen carefully you can hear phrases like ‘what else have we got? Or, ‘will they sue etc’ 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, lets 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 just such a Henry V moment as they faced the abyss last Monday night (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 blubber confessing, was a story about a lady whose husband killed himself two years ago, unable to reveal to her that he had run up debts of £130,000 on 22 credit cards. Yes £130,000 on 22 credit cards!

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 presenter and as patronizing and agitated as ever. He’s a sort of calculator wrestling Steve Irwin.

He explained how this ill-fated bloke earned just £15,000 a year but 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 repayment on one card, while upping his limit on another. (is there no depth to their knavery and shame?). And all the while this man kept his misfortune from his dear wife. You get the picture? QED The banks killed him.

Not so fast! In case you are wondering if you had a similar Kleenex moment recently, the same story was on Panorama in July and in the Guardian..

But lets keep the Bard’s metaphors alive a little longer – all that glisters is not gold. 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 some booze and few fags? All on his measly income?

And then there was his 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. And if they didn’t. You have to ask why? 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 weren’t we told, or why didn’t they drop the item until they had checked it out far more carefully.

A note to Trevor, you have had a cracking career 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 an eye on the content, or you are doing your fans a very great disservice. They trust what you are telling them is the truth and not just a convenient selection.

A real lack Ofcom-mon sense

I like double takes – you know the ones. 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!