Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
By Simon Heffer
14/07/2007
The Telegraph
The BBC should show the Queen more respect
Let us suppose, for a moment, that our beloved Queen had behaved in the way that a BBC trailer originally showed her to have done: that she had stormed out of a photo-shoot in an act of petulance towards a world-famous photographer.
Even if she had done that - which, of course, she had not - would it have been proper for the Controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham, to show the clip to journalists and talk it up in order to obtain publicity for his programmes?
Of course it wouldn't. Yet Mr Fincham, in his desperation to blame other people for what in the end must be the BBC's responsibility - and to save his own highly paid, publicly funded skin - misses what is actually the main point.
The ethics of what happened would stink even if the victim had been the lowliest of Her Majesty's subjects from the meanest of Her Majesty's council estates. But using the Queen in this fashion was particularly monstrous, and would have been monstrous even if the truth had not been distorted. If Mr Fincham doesn't understand why, then let me tell him.
The Queen is not just another celebrity. She is our Head of State. She never seeks publicity. She will have agreed to co-operate with the makers of the BBC programme about a year in her life not to aggrandise herself - as if that were possible or necessary - but to ensure the public remains informed about the institution she embodies.
However, with that disgusting cynicism so redolent of the broadcast media, Mr Fincham chose to treat our Head of State and Sovereign as just another celebrity. She was a convenient and rather exciting way of publicising his programmes, his network and, of course, himself.
Why should it be any concern of Mr Fincham's that this might lead to the state broadcaster damaging the Queen and the whole institution of monarchy? Why indeed?
Like the people who edited the trailer to distort the truth, Mr Fincham seems to have something of a values deficit here. I am sure he didn't know it was distorted, I am sure he hasn't the time to check every trailer, and I'm sure he does a magnificent job at talking up his network (which, incidentally, should be privatised, but that's another matter).
However, he doesn't seem to grasp the basic need to have a set of manners in relation to the Sovereign that might be different to those exercised towards, say, a member of the cast of EastEnders, or one of those trivial people of uncertain sexuality who seem to populate BBC1 during the evenings.
The people who edited the Queen in this way displayed a lack of training, a lack of understanding, a lack of experience, a lack of ethical judgment but, above all, a lack of breeding.
It is terribly funny for the stupid and ignorant to use the Queen as a means of getting a laugh: but Mr Fincham is not stupid or ignorant - at least on paper.
Yet to hear the way he talked about Her Majesty at his infamous press conference "throwing a wobbler" suggests not that he has a lot to learn, but that it must be doubted that he could ever learn it.
I don't believe the Queen should be above criticism, although quite frankly I think her conduct over the past 81 years suggests she almost certainly is.
However, those in the media, if they wish to be taken seriously, have a duty to treat the Queen in a way unlike any politician, and certainly unlike any run-of-the-mill celebrity.
This must apply especially to the state broadcaster. This is because the Queen's position cannot be compromised by her giving interviews, or taking a public point of view on any question: she is the figurehead for the entire nation.
And those with power in the respectable media have a duty, therefore, to protect her and her special position. Mr Fincham's use - or misuse - of her was contemptible and indefensible. Why is he still in his job?
thetelegraph.co.uk
By Simon Heffer
14/07/2007
The Telegraph
The BBC should show the Queen more respect
Let us suppose, for a moment, that our beloved Queen had behaved in the way that a BBC trailer originally showed her to have done: that she had stormed out of a photo-shoot in an act of petulance towards a world-famous photographer.
Even if she had done that - which, of course, she had not - would it have been proper for the Controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham, to show the clip to journalists and talk it up in order to obtain publicity for his programmes?
Of course it wouldn't. Yet Mr Fincham, in his desperation to blame other people for what in the end must be the BBC's responsibility - and to save his own highly paid, publicly funded skin - misses what is actually the main point.
The ethics of what happened would stink even if the victim had been the lowliest of Her Majesty's subjects from the meanest of Her Majesty's council estates. But using the Queen in this fashion was particularly monstrous, and would have been monstrous even if the truth had not been distorted. If Mr Fincham doesn't understand why, then let me tell him.
The Queen is not just another celebrity. She is our Head of State. She never seeks publicity. She will have agreed to co-operate with the makers of the BBC programme about a year in her life not to aggrandise herself - as if that were possible or necessary - but to ensure the public remains informed about the institution she embodies.
However, with that disgusting cynicism so redolent of the broadcast media, Mr Fincham chose to treat our Head of State and Sovereign as just another celebrity. She was a convenient and rather exciting way of publicising his programmes, his network and, of course, himself.
Why should it be any concern of Mr Fincham's that this might lead to the state broadcaster damaging the Queen and the whole institution of monarchy? Why indeed?
Like the people who edited the trailer to distort the truth, Mr Fincham seems to have something of a values deficit here. I am sure he didn't know it was distorted, I am sure he hasn't the time to check every trailer, and I'm sure he does a magnificent job at talking up his network (which, incidentally, should be privatised, but that's another matter).
However, he doesn't seem to grasp the basic need to have a set of manners in relation to the Sovereign that might be different to those exercised towards, say, a member of the cast of EastEnders, or one of those trivial people of uncertain sexuality who seem to populate BBC1 during the evenings.
The people who edited the Queen in this way displayed a lack of training, a lack of understanding, a lack of experience, a lack of ethical judgment but, above all, a lack of breeding.
It is terribly funny for the stupid and ignorant to use the Queen as a means of getting a laugh: but Mr Fincham is not stupid or ignorant - at least on paper.
Yet to hear the way he talked about Her Majesty at his infamous press conference "throwing a wobbler" suggests not that he has a lot to learn, but that it must be doubted that he could ever learn it.
I don't believe the Queen should be above criticism, although quite frankly I think her conduct over the past 81 years suggests she almost certainly is.
However, those in the media, if they wish to be taken seriously, have a duty to treat the Queen in a way unlike any politician, and certainly unlike any run-of-the-mill celebrity.
This must apply especially to the state broadcaster. This is because the Queen's position cannot be compromised by her giving interviews, or taking a public point of view on any question: she is the figurehead for the entire nation.
And those with power in the respectable media have a duty, therefore, to protect her and her special position. Mr Fincham's use - or misuse - of her was contemptible and indefensible. Why is he still in his job?
thetelegraph.co.uk