Is there a crisis of trust in the media?
22.10.2007
(BBC spent £50K to name "Socks" the cat. It this a good use of licence payers' money?)
It seems like there is a headline every day where some other media giant is caught in the throes of scandal. Even the "institution of moral values" Blue Peter was caught up in a scandal rigging a vote to name the show's cat "Socks" (named after the President's cat).
As a result of the scandal, Richard Marson was axed along with Rich Blaxhil, head of programmes for BBC 6 Music. Mr Marson was the editor of Blue Peter when its production team faked the winner of an online poll - in which 40,000 youngsters took part - to name the show's cat. Later Ofcom slapped a £50,000 fine on the show. The BBC has also been caught breaking editorial guidelines on its Asian network.
ITV are also in hot water with Ofcom, following rigged call ins on GMTV, the Ant & Dec show and the Soapstars. ITV have steadfastly refused to hold a full independent review on its own scandal risking a £70 million fine from OFCOM. Also matters got far worse when the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced that it may start investigations into the GMTV affair.
The popular 'Ant and Dec' were forced to distance themselves quickly from the actions of the production crew, announcing that: "It is important to us that people understand that none of the shows highlighted in the findings of the ITV's independent review were made by our production company, Gallowgate, and that there was no financial benefit to us from the phone lines within those shows.
"Our roles as executive producers on Saturday Night Takeaway are purely creative ones. We are not involved in running the phone lines, the logistics of the competitions or selecting winners."
Just as the Murdoch press was starting to revel in a "holier-than-thou-approach" to the rest of the media, Murdoch’s own Channel Five was caught in a scandal. Brainteaser's phone ins were questioned as Five said it was 'shocked and disappointed' to learn that makers of the daily lunchtime interactive word game show Brainteaser puts fictitious names of 'winners' on the screen and on one occasion a member of the production team pretended to be a winning contestant.
The response has been harsh from Ofcom: they were stung by a £300,000 fine - quite justifiable in the light of such blatant cheating in my view.
Finally C4, completed the quartet of UK TV broadcasters in trouble, and are under investigation for their Richard And Judy show as it came to light that it was systematically cheating viewers out of tens of thousands of pounds in a premium-rate phone quiz scam. The competition, which generates an estimated £1m in revenue for C4 was, given a £150,000 fine by Ofcom.
What is the result of all of this scandal? Well I hardly think viewers will be rushing to take part in phone- ins, but the issue of trust as a whole is a much more serious matter than fines for TV companies. What if viewers switch off, if they the believe that Big Brother and Xfactor are fixed? What if TV and broadcast news come under the same suspicion of moral scruples....? Once the viewers switch off, so will the advertisers which create far more revenue than telephone call ins. Clearly for the widespread welfare and reputation of the media as a whole, action must be taken to regain trust in the media.
I still believe there is many a good egg out there in the media world, despite media land becoming a meagrely resourced world where stress and deadlines loom large every hour and all day. However, the general public will not tolerate fraud on a wide scale.
What effect will all this have on the audience? Where will they turn to get trust worthy content? Watch this space for further analysis next week, as I take a look at the potential beneficiaries of this scandal - namely blogs and online media.
In the meantime, if you have been an unwilling victim of the phone ins yourself visit www.which.co.uk for a comprehensive guide to claiming your cash back!
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](/pub/Image/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")