As of 23rd January 2009 Jonathan Ross' 12 week stint in the wilderness will be officially over as his Friday night talk show returns to the BBC. That is 3 months since the tabloid furore that surrounded his suspension, and Russell Brand's resignation, following lewd messages the pair left on Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sach's answerphone.
The show, like Brand's recent series of Ponderland, will undoubtedly attract an inflated number of viewers and the presenter's ailing bank balance will soon be resuscitated. Within a few days the only telltale sign that anything happened at all will be the popping aneurisms of a small handful of Daily Mail readers. So what, if anything, have we as a viewing nation learnt from this bloated circus of events?
'Manuel-gate'
Back on 18th October 2008 a prerecorded Radio 2 broadcast went out featuring Ross and Brand leaving messages for Andrew Sachs, who had been due to appear as a guest on the show, informing him that Brand had slept with his granddaughter. 400,000 people listened to the show; 2 complained.
On 26th October 2008 the Mail on Sunday retrospectively pounced on the incident, inciting its readers to burn with outrage on an apocalyptic scale. The sentiment spread through the media like a plague, eclipsing the U.S. elections and the economic meltdown and provoking Gordon Brown along with several other MPs to condemn Ross, Brand, and the BBC.
Fallout
Before the month was out Radio 2 Controller Lesley Douglas handed in her resignation and Russell Brand was similarly ousted. Jonathan Ross was handed his 12 week suspension and the BBC found itself under a hail of criticism and red tape. Another direct result of the Mail's intervention was that neither Andrew Sachs, nor his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie, were able to let the embarrassment subside. Instead their photographs, along with intimate details from their lives, were plastered across the tabloids for weeks on end.
Freedom of Speech
Had it simply been the Mail of Sunday that riled itself up the whole debacle would have been contained. It was the 38,000 members of the public who followed suit and complained to the BBC, Ofcom, or anyone who'd listen, that blew the whole thing into the media circus it became. That is 38,000 people who were not complaining about something they heard, but who were complaining about something they read about over a week after it happened.
The United Kingdom has more caveats to European Human Rights Act than most jurisdictions - most obviously regarding the incitement to racial and religious hatred. In today's political climate perhaps that isn't necessarily a bad thing. However surely not even the Daily Mail and its loyal legion of supporters can justify the need to censor jocular, albeit mildly offensive, remarks made on a late night radio show?
What the incident also demonstrates is that when the British public speak en masse they are heard and listened to. Just think what could be achieved if we clamoured for something worth fighting for, instead of only finding our collective larynx when the television outrages us or we want to hunt a fox or two.
Lessons?
No doubt there will be a muffled outcry on Friday night when the BBC's prodigal son makes his comeback. There will be a few editorials in the weekend papers but beyond that the whole sordid mess will be forgotten about. That is until the next 'Manuel-gate', or the next Celebrity Big Brother or the next Brasseye comes along, and it will all begin again.
One final question begs to be asked. What kind of radiant, glorious spring would we be in for if the Daily Mail was suspended without pay for 12 weeks?
Rowan Darby - Rowan Darby is a writer and journalist who hovers somewhere indefinite between London and the South West of England. He attended ...
Join the Conversation