By Gabriel Princewill-
One of Channel 4’s press officers Harpreet Gill acted ignorantly and unprofessionally when the eye of media.com cal Harpreet Gillled the broadcaster on Friday.
The purpose of the call was to follow up a question about Sunday’s documentary about the former princess. ‘Diana in her own words’ is to be featured by the broadcaster this Sunday, but has attracted controversy owing to the private context in which the information was recorded.
Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer, has begged the broadcaster not to feature the hour long documentary, but Channel 4 are adamant the programme will give the public greater insight into the life of the princess. Channel 4’s sent us their statement to the general press, which stated:
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
”the excerpts had never been shown before on British television and are an important historical source.
”We carefully considered all the material used in the documentary, and though the recordings were made in private, the subjects covered are a matter of public record and provide a unique insight into the preparations Diana undertook to gain a public voice and tell her own personal story, which culminated in her later interview for panorama”.
”This unique portrait gives her a voice and places it in front and centre when the nation will be reflecting on her life and death”.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
CONTENTIOUS
Two of our writers have already written about the contentious issues surrounding the propriety of the Channel 4’s decision to beam the documentary tomorrow. One was against, and the other in favour. Whilst the expressed statement provided by Channel 4 was self explanatory, it failed to address the privacy issue.
All the statement did was make a cursory acknowledgement to the private character of the recordings, then ostensibly justify it by the statements that followed. I called Channel 4’s press office to request them to direct their stated justification, specifically to the issue of privacy. This was because I felt the privacy issue had been conveniently displaced by other points, albeit, valuable points.
CALL
A subsequent call to the broadcaster’s press office was met with an unedifying beligerent attitude from their press officer, Harpreet Gill, who was talking over me once she realised I appeared disatisfied with the original quote. Gill mentioned a meeting she had to attend, adding that she had passed my message on. As I tried to ascertain when I would get the response, she rudely dropped the phone on me, saying ”bye Gabriel”.
FORESIGHT
This lady appeared to have lacked the forsight to envisage a scenario in which she were exposed for her ill conceived conduct. She knew who she was talking to, but was too imprudent to consider a measured response.
INQUIRY
Viewed froma media perspective, Harpreet Gill’s conduct conduct autamatically fell under my inquiry into Channel 4’s judgement in featuring a documentary about Diana using tapes obtained from private recordings. Chnnel 4’s judgement is not restricted to just their decision to air a programme, but their judgment in choosing who they appoint to deal with the press.
PANORAMA
Diana indeed had disclosed alot of her private life in a 1995 panaroma documentary, and some in a book. Channel 4’s position in feeling justified in showing it is therefore understandable, not unreasonable, but not necessarily right or legal. An addition statement from the broadcaster read:
”Great consideration was given to issues concerning privacy in the making and broadcast of the programme. There is significant public interest in this material and it was concluded that in all the circumstances the public interest in relation to the extracts of this historical footage included in the programme outweighs any potential privacy rights”.
CLEARER
This repsonse was alot clearer and to the point, though not so dissimilar from the first in its essence. The balancing exercise between considerations of the public interest and that of privacy rights is generally a value judgement. It is a broader topic which we may potentially look at after the documentary On Diana has been aired on Sunday. The central point of this article is that media organisations should adequately train their staff to deal with customers and the press efficiently.
Harpreet Gill acted like a novice in her interaction with myself, exhibiting signs of indiscretion and unsuitabiity to the post to which she has been assigned. A verbal and written complaint was put to Channel 4, and the response that came back from them was:
”I do not accept your criticism of Harpreet I am afraid. She is very professional, polite and helpful, and always conducts herself to the highest standard as demonstrated by her ensuring your enquiry received a timely response”.
She certainly wasn’t professional, or polite, and the standard of her professional conduct was low, not high. Her colleagues will necessarily be biased, but the picture conveyed in this article is disapassionate and accurate. She and the broadcasters must raise standards in this respect.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar