Cina Aissa

cinnaramone@yahoo.co.uk

Faulty Powers
Or
The Morning After Scandal

1
 On 18th October 2008, during the Russell Brand show on Radio 2 , a programme co-hosted by

Jonathan Ross, a series of phone calls were made to Andrew Sachs. Sachs, a 78 years old actor, is

known for having played Manuel in Fawlty Towers (UK, 1975). The phone call, which was originally

scheduled as an interview of the actor, turned into a prank call when Sachs did not answer and a

message was left instead. In this message, Brand sought to explain who he was via allusions to

Sachs’grand daughter, whom he claimed to have had intercourse with. At this point, Ross jumped in

and shouted that Brand had “f*****” his grand daughter. After this first message, the innuendos were

dropped and a number of pseudo-apologetic messages were left seeking to apologise for what was

said previously but comically making things worse. Among the jokes was the suggestion that the

actor might want to kill himself as a result of his grand daughter’s lifestyle.

For the following month, these messages were at the centre of a controversy that occupied the

Media space, turning into a veritable civil war of words where opinions, politics and scandal mixed

dangerously across the spectrum from tabloids to broadsheets.

In this essay, the ‘Sachsgate’ will be used as a case study and the ethical problems raised by it will

be discussed. Could the OFCOM regulation and the BBC in-house production guidelines have

prevented this storm in a teacup?

A) What made the ‘Sachsgate’ such a compelling story?

The newsworthiness of the story became apparent in the first few days when it was dubbed the

‘Sachsgate’, tagging the ‘gate’ at the end of the Sachs made the story as big as the ‘Watergate’, a

scandal that involved Richard Nixon, the US president in 1974. In terms of news value, the public’s

interest in the story was guaranteed from the start. After all, it ticked all the right boxes for

“sensational stories have high news value” (Palmer, 2000:82). First it’s a story about elites, Jonathan

Ross, an established TV and radio presenter, Russell Brand, a younger TV and radio presenter who

started up as a stand-up comedian. The story also includes famous actor Andrew Sachs . The

2
unexpected came in with the revelation that Brand had had sexual intercourse with Sachs’

granddaughter, Georgina Baillie, a dancer with the group “Satanic Sluts”. Baillie became famous for

the combination of being related to Sachs, having had intercourse with Brand and being part of the

controversially named dance group. The newsworthiness of the story appealed to the “ interest and

curiosity that are thought to be universal[…]: interest in other people’s lives, curiosity about famous

people, interest in deviation from cultural norms,, perhaps especially with respect to sexuality […]”

(Palmer, 2000: 83). The consonance of the names of those involved meant that a multitude of

headlines could be written and that the story could be dramatised at wish. Sachs could get them all

sacked, Baillie confirmed what we always suspected about the French and their descendents. Ross,

the dethroned king of presenters with his fancy sense of dress and his six-figure salary had people

queuing to desecrate his name and spit at his picture. Brand, a self-confessed product of controversy,

a womaniser and an extravagant-dresser, with his former drug and sex addiction, embodies the

perfect story “[…] through the constant renewal of information.” (Palmer 2000:96). The continuity of

the Sachsgate was also possible thanks to more details being revealed by the Daily Mail. Indeed even

though the show was originally broadcast on 18th October 2008, the Daily Mail still reports regularly

about the 2 presenters. Here, it is important to note that the complaints to OFCOM rose from 2 the

day of the broadcast to 42 000 ten days later after extensive coverage of the story by the Daily Mail.

The news value of a story depends “upon the motives of news sources.” (Palmer 2000: 96) Finally,

the Sachsgate revealed an array of opinions across the board and raised political questions where the

foundations of the BBC were once again shaken and its use challenged for its licence fee.

B) What are the ethical problems raised by it?

Thus the “Sachsgate” with its multitude of angles and participants ignited a strong debate and turned

the media sphere into a living room war where everybody could have their say whether they were a

Daily Mail reader, a Faulty Towers fan, a radio 2 listener, a licence fee payer or a colleague of Ross

and Brand. The potential for this crisis was that it fitted well across a range of media publications

3
from broadsheets to celebrity and gossip magazines. The range of opinions expressed demonstrated

the role of Democracy as a forum (O’Neill 1992) where press had become the meeting place for

various public opinions could be expressed. One of these opinions was that put forward was that ”the

silly and the offensive are the price we pay for the sublime…” (Ellis in Kieran 1998: 172). In other

words, while it was important to strike a balance in how far one could go for entertainment’s sake,

too much control over creative output could be detrimental to freedom of speech. Former Radio 1

controller Matthew Bannister, quoted by John Plunkett in the Guardian embraced this view when he

“poured scorn on the length of compliance forms that had to be filled out by programme makers,

saying they risked stifling creativity and talent.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/29/bbc-

russell-brand2) Charlie Brooker, also from the Guardian declared “If something as sublime and

revolutionary as Python came along today, the Mail would try to kill it stone dead”

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/jonathan-ross-russell-brand)

The public, mainly reported by the Daily Mail for complaining in numbers to OFCOM, also

consisted of an alternative group set up on Facebook to support Brand and Ross. Revolting against

the paper’s self-appointed “ ‘watchdog’ role […]”. (Mc Nair 1999:21), the group organized a protest

outside the Daily Mail offices. Indeed, the Daily Mail had brought attention to the story by printing

the full transcript of the prank several days later. Here, it is important to note that “ although it takes

two to tango, either sources or journalists can lead, but more often than not sources do the leading.”

(Gans 1980: 116). For some, the Sachsgate was blown out of proportion, and the story illustrated how

the “nanny state” was restricting their civil liberties by sanctioning the presenters and suspending the

shows. The Russell Brand show was aired at 9pm and was clearly signposted as an entertainment

programme aimed at young adults. These young adults trying to protect them from something they

did not want to be protected. But for the “BBC who claimed they could “inform all of the people, all

of the time”(Keane 1991: 57), it is essential to remain plugged into the demands of the majority. And

the majority is embodied in its licence fee payers, who feel entitled to have a say in the programs they

pay for. Indeed, the vulnerability of the BBC in its accountability to its licence-fee payers. In this

4
context, it is a challenge to compete in the market against strong media organisations driven by

advertisers in “market-based” economy. In this bid for audience, the BBC “ will plummet to the level

of tabloid newspapers.” (Keane 1991:66).

How can the BBC “[deal] in more than stereotypes”(Keane 1991:117) when “the prevailing culture is

known to favour stories that are composed of vivid blacks or whites and not the messy greys and

ambiguous mid-tones of reality”? (Randall in Sanders 2003:137). Therefore, invasion of privacy is a

common side effect of the “dumbing down” trend (Sanders 2003:131) created by these market

pressures.

C) Which codes were infringed upon?

The ‘Sachsgate’ is mainly a story about invasion of privacy, but when looking closely at the

OFCOM broadcasting code and the BBC editorial guidelines, more aspects have been infringed

upon. In fact, the codes, with their lengthy sections and subsections are full of paradoxes and

carefully worded language can be interpreted in different ways.

Despite the clause in section 1 of the OFCOM ‘broadcasting code (Protecting the Under-

Eighteens), affirming that “the watershed only applies to television”, the code advises

broadcasters to “[take] into account school time, weekends and holidays”. “Appropriate

scheduling” is necessary. The Russell Brand show was broadcast on a Saturday at 9pm, which

could imply that some children, especially the older ones might still have been around and able

to hear the show which contained offensive language.

(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/protectingu18/)

In section 2 of the code (Harm and offence), OFCOM advises that material which may cause

offence is justified by the context. The meaning of context is broken down into 8 sections

describing the most common case figures. The decision to broadcast “[...] offensive language,”

5
 must be carefully balanced by factors of appropriateness that can be justified.

(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/harmoffence/)

Section 7 of the OFCOM code (Fairness) recommends that contributors “be told the nature and

purpose of the programme, what the programme is about and be given a clear explanation of why

they were asked to contribute , […]what kind of contribution they are expected to make, […]live,

pre- recorded, interview, discussion, edited, unedited, etc.; […] be informed about the areas of

questioning [and] be made aware of any significant changes to the programme”. Attention is also

brought to “deception, set-ups and ‘wind-up’ calls”. 7.14 warns that for “unsolicited wind-up calls

or entertainment set-ups, consent should be obtained from the individual and/or organisation

concerned before the material is broadcast” “material involving celebrities and those in the public eye

can be used without consent […], but it should not be used without a public interest justification if it

is likely to result in unjustified public ridicule or personal distress. (Normally, therefore such

contributions should be pre-recorded.) ”( http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/fairness/) Here

it is important to remember that in the Sachsgate, Andrew Sachs had withdrawn his consent for the

calls to be broadcast but they were aired anyway.

Section 8 (Privacy) states at length “principles” of privacy and seek to illustrate some of them with a

portfolio of good practice. Here, there is a strong emphasis on warranting invasion of privacy if it is

in the “public interest” When a claim is made that privacy has been invaded, “the broadcaster should

be able to demonstrate that the public interest outweighs the right to privacy”.

Section 8.6 argues that “ if the broadcast of a programme would infringe the privacy of a person or

organisation, consent should be obtained before the relevant material is broadcast, unless the

infringement of privacy is warranted”. 8.7 adds that “if an individual or organisation’s privacy is

being infringed, and they ask that the filming, recording or live broadcast be stopped, the broadcaster

should do so, unless it is warranted to continue.”

6
 Also, in this privacy section, a definition of “vulnerable people” is given. even more distasteful

because it was directed towards a 78 years-old man, who is considered vulnerable, even though older

people are not considered vulnerable by the OFCOM code. Only “those withlearning difficulties,

those with mental health problems, the bereaved, people with brain damage or forms of dementia,

people who have been traumatised or who are sick or terminally ill”are considered vulnerable in the

code.(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/privacy/)

In the BBC’s “editorial guidelines in full”, a lengthy document with sections and sub-sections,

Editorial responsibility is the banner under which all programmes are approved and staff is reminded

that “there should be a clearly understood chain of editorial responsibility”

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/onguide/responsibility/)

In the “fairness, contributors and consent” section, the BBC affirms its desire “to be fair to all -

fair to those [it makes] programmes about, fair to contributors, and fair to [their] audiences.”

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/fairness/). Like the OFCOM code,

the BBC puts forward its “commitment to fairness” by being transparent in their dealings with

contributors, and communicate clearly the kind of contribution they are expected to make”. The

BBC is dedicated to delivering a “final content will be a fair and truthful representation of what

[the contributors] say and do”. When discussing people without “their knowledge or consent”, the

BBC aims to “be fair and accurate in [the] portrayal of these people and where appropriate respect

their privacy.”Moreover, “any proposal to use deception must be referred to a senior editorial

figure or for Independents to the commissioning editor and in the most serious cases to Controller

Editorial Policy.”

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/fairness/fairnesstocontr.shtml)

Next, the privacy section, which has 29 parts states that the BBC will not “infringe privacy unless

justified by a clear public interest” (http://www.bbc.co.uk

/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/privacy/privacyeditoria.shtml)

“Public interest” is defined mainly as crime related (“anti- social behaviour”, “corruption”,
7
 “injustice”, “incompetence”, “negligence” that puts others at risk are some of the only reasons quoted

as to why privacy can be intruded upon.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/privacy/publicinterest.shtml)

“Privacy mandatory referrals to Controller Editorial Policy feature people in live broadcasts of comedy

and entertainment programmes without their knowledge.”

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/privacy/privacymandator.shtml)

The BBC is very clear about the “Secret recording for comedy & entertainment programmes: a

proposal to feature people in a live broadcast without their knowledge, whether in person or on the

phone, must be approved in advance by Controller Editorial Policy.” It adds “people who feature

prominently in the recordings must give their consent before the material is broadcast” and that

“secretly recorded material should not expose people to hurtful ridicule or otherwise exploit

them.”(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines

/editorialguidelines/edguide/privacy/secretreccom.shtml)

“Door-stepping for comedy & entertainment programmes: All proposals to door-step for comedy and

entertainment purposes must be approved in advance by a senior editorial figure or for Independents

by the commissioning editor.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/privacy/doorcomedy.shtml)

“Personal information: Contributors' personal details, comments or other personal information should

not normally be given to third parties without the consent of the contributor or, if consent cannot be

obtained, this should be referred to a senior editorial figure or for Independents to the commissioning

editor who may wish to consult Regulatory Legal”.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/privacy/personalinforma.shtml)

In its “harm” section, the BBC claims that “offensive language is one of the most frequent causes of

complaint.” It encourages “careful judgments about the use of the most offensive language post-

Watershed and ensure it is clearly signposted.” In this context, Jonathan Ross shouting that Brand

had ‘fucked’ Sachs’grand daughter is clearly a breach of the code, unless it was “referred to and

8
approved by a senior editorial figure or for Independents by the commissioning editor and the

relevant output controller for television, radio, online and any other service.” Moreover, suggesting

that Andrew Sachs might want to commit suicide on hearing of his grandchild’s relationship with

Brand can also be classified as offensive language.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/

edguide/harm/language.shtml)

“Defamation” comes under the law section of the editorial guidelines. The BBC is very formal here

in explaining that “libel […] is the biggest legal pitfall relating to the BBC's output, with serious

financial consequences if [they] get it wrong.” Here, Sachs can easily “sue for damage to [his]

reputation caused by” Brand and Ross’ allegations. These claims “ would tend to lower them in the

estimation of right-thinking people generally”. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/

editorialguidelines/edguide/thelaw/defamation.shtml)

“Privacy”, also, is an ambiguous concept when it comes to media ethics:

“When broadcasting or publishing a story which contains private information, each piece of private

information will need to be considered separately. If private information is conveyed by pictures,

these will be subjected to special scrutiny.” Brand and Ross’ show would have had to be scrutinized

before being aired.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/thelaw/privacy.shtml)

Finally, the Sachsgate could have been simply settled with a formal apology from Brand and Ross, a

fine for the BBC and more training for the staff at the BBC to gain a better understanding of the

editorial guidelines and responsibilities. Moreover, the BBC could have requested support from

OFCOM to avoid such pitfalls in the future, by securing better guidelines or by setting a helpline for

legal advice on ambiguous editorial decisions. The BBC could also have invited audiences, media

professionals and contributors to put forward their views through a survey or focus group, on how to

9
reconcile the need to protect privacy, provide entertainment (or information) and exercise freedom of

speech, while taking into account the audiences’ sensibilities. Amidst all these conflicting interests

came Georgina Baillie’s interviews. Sachs’ controversial granddaughter spoke on channel 5, the

Guardian and the Daily Mail in a series of interviews. Baillie’s interviews came as the last blow to

bury the ‘Sachsgate’ once and for all and put an end to speculations on her private life. They also

came as a powerful reminder that being wronged can be financially profitable. Scandals have got

great days ahead.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Keane, J, The Media and Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1991.

Mc Nair, B, Introduction to Political Communication, London, Routledge, 1999.

Palmer, J, Spinning into Control, news values and source strategies, Leicester
University Press, London, 2000.

Sanders, K , Ethics and Journalism, , Sage, London 2003.

WEBSITES:

HTTP://WWW.OFCOM.ORG.UK/
HTTP://WWW.BBC.CO.UK/GUIDELINES/EDITORIALGUIDELINES/EDGUIDE/ATOZ/R.S
HTML

10