By Gabriel Princewill-
Channel 4 has responded a Freedom Of Information Request by The Eye Of Media.Com in relation to deplorable act of swearing on twitter as part of promotional activity against cancer. Channel 4 was taken up by this publication for sending a message to former Daily Mirror Editor and well known television presenter, Piers Morgan. The message was ”go fxxx yourself”.
We took exception to this after an eagle eyed member of our thinktank spotted this on twitter, and submitted it as a topic we should query. After being discussed, it was agreed that this was offensive language that should be discourage and reprimanded because of the reckless and negative message it sends to society. Channel 4 sent a comprehensive response to our inquiry of which employee in their teamwas responsible for the swearing.
The broadcaster said its remit included ”amongst other things, taking bold and creative risks,and to inspire and stimulate debate”.
The broadcasting corporation said its Stand Up To Cancer Campaign(SU2C) campaign was part of its ”creative output”, this being part of a regularly televised fundraising event broadcast by Channel 4 since 2012. It said ” given that devising and running social media campaigns is a key way in which we are able to drive audiences to the programme and encourage donations to this cause, I consider that this information relates to Channel 4’s creative output. Further, in this case, it is my view that decisions about the shape and content of the campaign are creative and editorial decision and therefore fall within the rubric of Channel 4’s creative output”.
It beggars belief that a broadcaster as reputable as Channel 4 would consider swearing on twitter to be a creative mechanism of stimulating debate. Their choice of language flagrantly endorses reckless language with unduly degrading connotations. Swearing is endemic in every society, but this does not mean it should be encouraged on social media where kids can access them at any time or day. Television programmes have a watershed hour for a reason; namely to respect the fact that we do not want to pollute children’s minds at an early age.
The culture of drinking and getting drunk is a useful analogy that can be drawn upon here. Just because many adults drink and get drunk for recreational purposes does not mean responsible adults should popularise this as something fashionable, and worthy of emulation. Discretion always calls for reasonable boundaries to be put in place, and the media; in particular, television broadcasters have a big role to pay here. Channel 4 is an innovative broadcaster that airs many useful programmes and documentaries, but its failings in the respect of the issue at hand are so glaring.
CORRESPONDENCE
In earlier correspondence with The Eye Of Media.Com, the broadcasting corporation had defended its decision to permit one of its employees to swear on twitter by saying Piers Morgan had agreed to be involved in the campaign conducted by Channel 4. When asked for confirmation that Morgan was specifically aware of the decision for a swear word to be used on twitter as part of the campaign, the broadcaster declined to substantiate its position. Instead, their legal representative couched her argument around the context of our Freedom of Information Request, stating that
” Whether Piers Morgan was aware of the specific plan for the F word to be used on him,” I can confirm that the Act applies to information held by public authorities in recorded form.
Accordingly, what Piers Morgan does or does not know is not information that is held by Channel 4, nor is it information covered by the scope of the Act. This response fails to corroborate the broadcaster’s earlier point that Morgan was aware of the campaign, since the context of our inquiry was in relation to the form the campaign took as far as swearing on social media is concerned. Morgan’s representatives from ITv distanced themselves from the investigation, saying: ”We are only concerned with what Piers Morgan does in Itv, not elsewhere”.
COMPETENCE
Channel 4 defended with impressive competence, its refusal to disclose the employee responsible for the swearing which was the subject of our investigation. It said:
”In determining whether disclosure would be unfair and in contravention of the DPA, I have considered the individual’s reasonable expectations of what would happen to their personal data and the legitimate interests of the public. In this regard, I have specifically considered the Information Tribunal decision in House of Commons v Information Commissioner and Norman Baker MP.
A key consideration of the Tribunal when considering the fairness of disclosure was that “where data subjects carry out public functions, hold effective office or spend public funds they must have the expectation that their public actions will be subject to greater scrutiny than would be the case in respect of their private lives
As you may be aware, unlike the BBC, Channel 4 does not spend any public money. It is funded entirely by its commercial activities, primarily through the sale of advertising. Accordingly, this is a significant and distinguishing factor, which must be taken into account when determining the fairness of disclosure. I do not see that there is any public interest in disclosing the personal names of employees that do not carry out public functions, hold effective office or spend public funds.
Please note that it is not the case that such information is required to be disclosed simply because it may be of interest to the public or because the individuals work for a public authority listed under the Act. Channel 4 takes its obligations under the DPA extremely seriously, and I consider that there would need to be overriding legitima to warrant breaching our DPA obligations”.
JUSTIFICATION
Whilst an employer may be able to justify refusing to disclose personal details of an offending employee under DPA rules, such an interpretation is subjective. Arguably, in this case, the fact the offending employee implicitly received consent from his/her bosses may give some substance to their defence. However, had we obtained the employees details ourselves from a credible and verifiable source, the considerations of the Data Protection Act would have had no bearing since the individual acting on behalf of Channel 4 would rightly have been held to account for their imprudent and inexcusable act. The public interest would for us have trumped any considerations of Data Protection which would even arise in such a scenario.
In supporting its decision not to disclose the name of its employee, the broadcaster made reference to decision by the High Court in Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v ICO and Brooke, Leapman and Ungoed-Thomas. That decision related to disclosure of information about the Additional Costs Allowance, an allowance payable to Members of the House of Parliament. Channel 4 quoted the High Court’s decision, stating: ” we are n ot here dealing with idle gossip, or public curiosity about what in truth are trivialities”.
WRONG
If the broadcaster is saying our query of them swearing on social media is trivial, we say, they are WRONG. Wrong because to say something is trivial is to say it is insignificant or unimportant. A broadcaster using vulgar language on social media is not trivial. Swearing is common in society, but unacceptable in professional settings.
If a member of parliament did the same, they will be expected to resign immediately! It is important to make an issue of a broadcasting corporation using vulgar language in a campaign connected with cancer. It is further important for a broadcasting corporation to think swearing can be regarded as a means of creative output to stimulate debate.
ERROR
Those executives in the firing line must accept that a fatal error of judgement was made here, and should endeavour to avoid its re-occurrence. All media outlets have a duty to behave responsibly and set good standards for members of the public to emulate. Failing to do this will amount to them shirking their responsibility, and potentially reduce their credibility in the minds of sensible members of the public.