Looking at the single biggest media story develop in the press this week, I couldn't help wonder how such a non-story became the nation's biggest issue. And the effect it has had on business.
Up until the booting out, this has to be one of the biggest non stories in the media this year. I'm not suggesting this is not an issue (breaking Ofcom rules is no doubt a big issue for the BBC) but I would say this is a non story that for a various reasons has snowballed this week.
And today the FTSE finishes 8 per cent up, that's up over 300 points. On the day the media talks only about showbusiness. No coincidence there I'm sure.
So what exactly seems to have happened with this media coverage over the last three days as the story of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross insulting Andrew Sachs and family ballooned and made it to the front pages of every paper and justified a response from the Prime Minister, Ofcom and the Metropolitain Police?
On the front line of PR, we're hearing from a lot of the media that they are looking for stories that aren't about the credit crunch. The nation's not enjoying it strangely. Is this distraction of Brandgate and the coverage it warranted something to do with us wanting to take a step away from endless reports of the panic of our houses / businesses / savings disappearing along with western capitalism? It's either that or the entirety of mainstream media has ganged up on what are currently BBC Broadcasting's two top talents to take them down a peg or two.
Whatever reason, I hadn't seen many people looking into what made this issue a story, and why the story became so important to the nation. And what as a result the media agenda did to our economy.
I think the FTSE soaring has more to do with the fact the Federal Reserve cut its rate by 0.5% and the Dow making its biggest gain ever on Tuesday (and I doubt that can be put down to the scandal - most Americans would have no idea who Andrew Sachs is). Ironically both stories have been pushed out of the news by this non-event.
The story's legs could be attributed to the fact it gives the commercial media a chance to take another pop at the state-funded BBC, and the added bonus of being able to print saucy snaps of Georgina Baillie to accompany it, to add "human interest", every time.
But I'd agree that there may well be a sense of credit crunch fatigue - a good old-fashioned tabloid scandal & moral panic may be a reminder of the good old days - not so much a distraction but a much-wanted return to normality?
Posted by: Chris Applegate | October 29, 2008 at 07:46 PM
I think there's also the issue here that the BBC failed to fill the 'news vaccuum' itself. The Independent pointed out the other day that hardly anyone from the BBC had actually said anything, from the producer referring all enquiries to the press office, to the senior producer, and upwards. It's just not a good thing, during a crisis, to say nothing! So I'd say this also became a crisis simply due to a lack of crisis management.
Posted by: Brendan | October 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Good read thanks
Posted by: Pure Acai | December 09, 2008 at 12:30 AM