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…

Jeff Randall, former Business Editor of the BBC (and a very good one he was too) is offended by our report. He thinks that members of the panel have no sense of humour and failed to spot his sophisticated use of irony and sarcasm.

During the interview, broadcast on Five Live on December 3 2006, Mr Randall, now the Daily Telegraph’s editor-at-large, asked Mr Murdoch a question about the future of new technology, such as high-definition television.

Mr Murdoch replied with a list of Sky’s achievements – prompting Mr Randall to congratulate him sarcastically on giving a great sales pitch for Sky and a free advert on the BBC.

We commented that “the interview with James Murdoch (December 3 2006) also appeared sycophantic when the presenter congratulated Mr Murdoch’s pronouncements about the future of his company as the best sales pitch he had heard.”

The Guardian reports Jeff’s astonishment that his comment had been taken seriously.

“That was a sarcastic comment. I can’t believe the listeners would have failed to spot it,” he hold MediaGuardian.co.uk.

“I was having a pop at an interviewee who failed to answer the question,” Mr Randall said.

Hmmm… I’m tempted to borrow Simon Hoggart’s crack about Gordon Brown and say that Jeff Randall — who is a great ornament to his profession but approaches it much as sportswriters approach Premiership football — does irony the way Alex Ferguson does self-doubt.

Thanks to Bill Thompson for spotting the story.

From Guardian Unlimited Technology…

A friend has two children aged 11 and 16. He explains: “The latest thing in Surrey right now is downloading high-pitched tones that only children can hear [the 17kHz “Mosquito”] on to their mobiles, Bluetoothing them around, and then starting up a cacophony in lessons – they can hear it and double up in agony, but their teacher can’t.” It’s a metaphor for the adult/child gap: the children can recognise what the grownups can’t.

This is just beautiful — an animation of flight patterns over the US.

Thanks to Jon Crowcroft for the link.

Roy Greenslade has a lovely dissection of a letter from the LA Times Editor to staff announcing their redundancies.

Did LA Times editor have help with redundancy letter?

It has been decided that 57 editorial staff are to leave the Los Angeles Times after a call for redundancies. I was particularly struck by the euphemistic corporate goobledegook employed by the editor, Jim O’Shea, in his explanatory letter to staff. I couldn’t really believe a journalist had written such guff. Then I realised that other people must have been at O’Shea’s shoulder as he wrote…

He began by referring to “a voluntary and involuntary employee separation programme” and pointed out that among those departing are “a very small number of involuntary departures… All will receive a generous separation package that includes salary continuation and outplacement assistance.” Straight from the human resources department handbook.

“We are also examining our polling operation to determine if reorganisation could increase revenues while achieving further savings. We expect to complete this examination in the next couple of months.”

Worth reading in full.