Accurate, stinging assessment by Marina Hyde of Channel 4’s ludicrous hypocrisy about those racist interludes on the last series of Big Brother…

The overriding sense one gets from reading the report and listening to the various reactions of involved parties is the staggering and unabashed contempt in which the viewer is held. In Martin Amis’s novel Yellow Dog, the staff on the tabloid it features refer to readers, quite straightfacedly and at all times, as “wankers”. A circulation dip means the paper has “lost wankers”. A new feature called “Wankers’ Wives” is suggested. As record complaints banked up at Channel 4 in January, one can honestly imagine executives rubbing their hands with glee that another load of “wankers” had stoked the ratings even higher.

Naturally the channel’s director of television, Kevin Lygo, was careful to avoid creating this precise impression when mouthing a few platitudes following Thursday’s judgment. But perhaps he’d care to revisit the interview he granted to Broadcast magazine in late January – several days after he had been privately notified of the incidents that have now come to light – in which he explained that the race row had saved the show from being dull.

“This was in danger of being the most boring Big Brother that we’d had in many years, maybe even ever,” he prattled to the trade journal, whose readers are presumably deemed savvy enough to “get” how this kind of controversy can be a good thing. He added that Channel 4 had “made the right decisions all the time”.

Positively wafting off the pages of Ofcom’s report is the sense that both Channel 4’s and Endemol’s cultures are terminally introverted and smug. Yet both companies’ delusions of even basic professional competence should be shattered by their staff’s apparent inability to distinguish between media mischief and entirely justified suspicions on behalf of the people who pay their wages that four venal halfwits had been bandying about the word “Paki” in the name of light entertainment…