A month or two ago, I was invited on to the GMTV sofa to discuss the phone vote scandal that was enveloping the industry. John Stapleton asked me some pertinent questions, and I replied by saying something along the lines that trust in TV was at stake. Then, moments after the interview, Stepleton and Penny Smith plugged the GMTV quiz, funded, naturally, by a premium-rate number. I thought then that GMTV could end up looking pretty silly if it found itself at the receiving end of similar allegations. And sure enough, Smith and Stapleton looked pretty sheepish when they were forced to read out the statement prepared by GMTV management this morning.
But we should not make the mistake of thinking that Panorama's story is just the same as the other ones that dominated the news a few weeks ago. There is a new line that no-one has yet teased out. Take a look at the statement released by GMTV.
"Just over a month ago GMTV instructed the city accountancy firm Deloitte to carry out a full independent review of GMTV and Opera's current interactive systems and processes. This review has now been completed and we are confident on the basis of Deloitte's findings and our own research that our competitions are being operated fully in accordance with the codes".
Note the present tense.
Then compare this with what Panorama alleges. I watched a report on the Panorama website earlier today which specifically stated that the problems ran from 2003 to 2007. In other words, both statements are not inconsistent with each other. (Annoyingly that report, has now been replaced with an updated version that is less comprehensive.)
Then look at what ITV said about its investigations into shows like This Morning and Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
"On the basis of the information available, including Deloitte's findings, ITV is satisfied that these programmes are being operated in accordance with the Icstis and Ofcom codes."
Note the present tense again. Which leaves a big question unanswered. Did Deloitte find any historic irregularities with ITV's shows? If so, how many people did it involve and how much money was fraudulently obtained from them?
Or consider an alternative scenario. Did Deloitte miss the GMTV problem? In which case, did they also miss anything at ITV?
Whichever way you cut it, it doesn't look good for anyone.
Those of us with connections to the broadcasting industry have all heard anecdotal evidence that suggests these practices have been endemic. I heard this again, this morning, speaking to a television producer who said he had worked on numerous shows in which phone lines had been kept open long after a "suitable" winner - that is, someone who sounded good on air - had been chosen.
Panorama's revelations only serve to show that this problem is (or at least has been) endemic in the industry.
So what happens now? The News of the World reported on April 15 (no link available) that Channel 4 had considered making the phone vote lines free on the next series of Big Brother. I hear today that C4 ruled this out - get this - because the phone lines were so central to the Big Brother revenue model.
Ofcom and the premium rate regulator Icstis are consulting on new rules. But in my view the biggest threat is the inquiry by the gambling commission. MediaGuardian.co.uk has already reported that the commission is minded to classify call-TV quizzes as lotteries, which means a chunk of the profits would have to be donated to charity - and all sorts of other rules would come into play.
Why not go one step further and, as Janine Gibson argued here a few weeks ago - ban them all.
LATER:
Channel 4 tells me that they considered making the Big Brother voting lines free this year. But it almost certainly won't happen, not because it would lose a significant profit, but C4 would be saddled with a significant cost base. Free voting lines would result in many more votes than paid-for lines. Someone has to pay for that - C4 in this case. I should also say that in my experience the Big Brother voting is the cleanest in the industry. It's audited - live - by the Electoral Reform Society, who hold no brief for anyone.
