So, Graham Norton (hey, somebody should make a show called that) admits that he has taken drugs.
Norton was interviewed by Janet Street Porter for Marie Claire magazine and admitted:
"The only time I took ecstasy was years and years ago. It was absolutely amazing. It was just fantastic - really really fun."
"I think that coke is middle-aged stuff. It's quite a slow drug that involves coffee tables. To me, it's a middle-class choice of drug."
Now there are many who would say that those are pretty accurate descriptions of those drugs and their users.
But the tabloid press is not going to let a BBC TV presenter get away with that sort of honesty.
As the Daily Mail put it: "Graham Norton has caused outrage...."
According to the Mail: "MPs reacted angrily...." followed by a quote from one Tory MP. For good measure the Mail adds the obligatory explanation: "Norton - who is openly gay - ..."
The BBC then had the temerity to approach the story in a grown-up manner by stating:
"The issues that Graham discusses in this interview are aimed at an adult audience and reflect the frank and open nature of his personality."
Thus the Mail was allowed its second bite at the cherry: "BBC defends Graham Norton's drug-taking comments"
Given the blindingly obvious chain of events that sprang from Norton's comments, is there any chance of an open and honest drugs debate in Britain? Although I have quoted the Mail here, the same approach was followed by a variety of tabloids.
The Mail story used a quote from the National Drug Prevention Alliance who said:
"It's irresponsible, we know that people die randomly from ecstasy, very few but some do."
The story adds:
"Deaths from ecstasy have been on the increase in recent years with 26 fatalities recorded in 1999 and 48 in 2004 - a rise of 85%."
But that's a drop in the ocean compared to the number of deaths related directly or indirectly to alcohol and cigarettes. Both drugs. Both legal.
There are reasons why the BBC should not be paying Norton £4m a year (he was more suited to Channel 4 and, anyway, nobody should be paid that amount of money by a public service broadcaster), but this is not one of them.
As Norton presciently said in his Marie Claire interview: "Let's face it, I've tried lots of drugs but what would really bug me if I got busted in the tabloids, is that I do them so rarely."
Given the fun (and sales boost) that can be had by newspapers exposing drug use - see Kate Moss and the Mirror - what is to stop the media behaving this way?
La Moss' earnings have soared since her exposure. The Mirror has won some awards. Given all of this, will the drug taking/exposure/outrage/repentance merry-go-round ever stop?
