Guardian columnist Mark Lawson blames the current BBC programming scandal -- faked call-in show contest results -- on a mania for interactivity.
The BBC's version of this nervousness about public relevance and connection has been to encourage programmes towards phone-ins, competitions and user-generated content. "Hits" on programme websites and "through-put" to consumer programmes have been carefully measured and, in some cases, rewarded with enhanced budgets. In this culture of connectivity, one email or phone call to a show could have the same impact as thousands of viewers or listeners.
The problem, however, is that, at some times of day and with some kinds of programme, the demand for public response may be ahead of supply. A programme which is failing to attract responses or for practical reasons finds it hard to run a call-in or quiz begins to worry that this lack of interactivity will be held against it the next time that, in the cruellest of euphemisms, the "schedule is refreshed".
And so it begins. As a precaution against being live on air without callers, phone-in producers quietly contact some programme regulars or emailers, arranging to bring them into the discussion. This isn't quite swindling - a phone-out rather than a phone-in - but it's a step on a ladder to practices that are. What if there are no correct answers to our quiz? Tell Jeff on work experience to be ready to pretend to be Sid from Loughborough. The presenter says she needs to pre-record next week because it's her kids' parents' evening. Rather than mysteriously have a week without interaction, the team cods it up, using people in the office.
All of this is a form of fraud, but it's a long way from Conrad Black. The people who did it were not trying to enrich themselves but hoping to hold on to jobs their bosses had led them to believe were at least partly dependent on obeying the one law chiselled on the frontages of all modern media organisations - only connect. ...
In a desperate paradox, the BBC has corrupted the relationship of its programmes with the public because of an obsession with showing that the public relates to its programmes.