Stay away from those boundaries!

It's not going away, is it? Every transgression by a BBC broadcaster is now cross-referenced to the Brand-Ross scandal while that story itself continues to provide tabloid fodder, some of it truly bizarre. I read that Jonathan Ross could sue the Beeb for actually allowing his broadcast. Really? And perhaps he could launch a further suit against them for their neglect in leaving a phone within his reach; he could also take action against Andrew Sachs for entrapment by having voicemail in the first place.

One paper gleefully announced that branches of Borders were selling the latest books by Ross and Russell Brand at 50% off, conveniently ignoring the fact that this was part of an ongoing discount offer also involving a number of biographies by other (non-controversial) stars!

My previous column centred on the issue of cruel humour but this time I would like to add a few more thoughts about the biggest story concerning radio comedy in years.

I am tired of hearing about it being a comic's 'duty' to push boundaries, as if any show which doesn't attempt to do this has limited merit. It is perfectly possible to consistently entertain audiences without trying to push boundaries all the time - thousands of performers manage to do so every day - and is radio really the place to be pushing them anyway? The Goon Show was ground-breaking in the fifties but there was very little TV then. In later years, great iconoclasts, such as Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Billy Connolly and Bill Hicks got their breaks through live shows, albums and late-night TV. In the nineties, Armando Iannucci did create a new comedic genre by mixing vox pops with scripted material in Radio 4's On The Hour but that was rather more sophisticated than prank answerphone rants!

I think Paul Gambaccini got it right when he mentioned the dangers of airlifting TV presenters into radio. A performer whose natural arena is a late night chat show or an adults-only live comedy gig is always going to be difficult to rein in.

Much has been made of the fact that the 40,000 complaints were only received after the press coverage but I think that for many listeners it wasn't a matter of protesting about an item they hadn't even heard but a long-overdue opportunity to petition against Jonathan Ross: his over-exposure, his inadequately censored outpourings and, of course, his reported salary. Incidentally, I see that he won't be hosting this year's Comedy Awards on ITV. It's always amazed me that the BBC let him moonlight for other channels when they are shelling out so much for his services. It's a bit like Man Utd saying to Rooney 'Ok, Wayne, this is your salary but if you want to go off and play the odd game for City then that's fine by us'. If a station has to put someone on the air so much in order to get their money's worth then you would think the last thing they would want would be to have their rivals contributing to the diminishing returns in audience appreciation. What would he have charged them for exclusivity...?

And if only two complaints were received from among 400,000 listeners before the Mail on Sunday ran the story then doesn't that indicate that boundaries weren't exactly being pushed that much anyway?

Over the fourteen years that I have been writing daily topical prep for commercial presenters, I have always been given a clear idea of limits. ILR stations may have had their share of phone-in scandals (just like the BBC) but any instances I read about where presenters overstep the mark (usually on breakfast shows!) these seem to be dealt with far more swiftly and effectively.

The coverage of the US elections once again demonstrated how BBC radio can be so much better than its television. It really shouldn't need to imitate it.

(Republished from the Radio Magazine Issue 866, 12 November 2008)