So what was all that fuss about over Channel 4's Diana documentary? Almost every journalist who has seen it thinks it was entirely innocuous. Ofcom fielded a relatively tame 24 complaints, while C4 - whose switchboard was not jammed - received just 80 complaints after the programme was screened last night plus 55 praising its decision to go ahead with the broadcast despite the protests from Clarence House.
I took part in a televised debate last night and it was fairly obvious that the producers had found it difficult to round up four critics willing to make a genuinely coherent case. Well, I readily admit, I would say that wouldn't I? Anyway, rather than argue the toss once more over the nature of the content, let me deal instead with the worrying matter of how this storm in a teacup was brewed in the first place.
It all began on May 27 with an article in The Observer that read like something from a red-top tabloid. It was inaccurate, overheated and - like so many fake row stories - the result of journalistic sleight of hand.
For example, the opening sentence read: "Graphic images of the car crash that killed Diana, Princess of Wales, are to be made public for the first time next week in a Channel 4 documentary that has been condemned as 'grossly intrusive' and bound to cause distress to Princes William and Harry."
Let's just analyse that. There were no "graphic images". The pictures that were shown had appeared previously elsewhere, including The Sun, so it was not the first time they would be made public.
As for the condemnation, that was falsely generated by reporters obtaining quotes from two people - Patrick Jephson, Diana's former private secretary, and Anthony Holden, an Observer critic and a friend of the late princess - who were informed that such images were going to be screened. In other words, they were manipulated into condemning something they had not seen, relying on the reporters' veracity. (Tony should know better).
The other objector was Lord St John of Fawsley, a royal rent-a-quote who can be guaranteed to condemn any story any time any where that involves anyone remotely connected to the royal family.
Towards the end of the article, however, there was a change of mood, with fair and accurate description of what was really in the documentary. The marked contrast between the over-hyped intro and the rest was the result of internal "discussion". The reason The Observer knew about the documentary was because a preview copy had been sent to its arts correspondent, Vanessa Thorpe. After watching it she called C4 and said how much she had enjoyed it and would reflect this in what she wrote. But when she had filed her copy, the news desk decided it required a rewrite and drafted in two other reporters - David Smith and James Robinson - to spin an otherwise straightforward piece into a row.
Next day - a bank holiday without much, if any, news about - the dailies leapt on the bandwagon that The Observer had started rolling. All accepted at face value that a supposedly serious paper was telling the truth. It also happened to be open season on C4 at the time because of Ofcom's critical ruling over Big Brother. The Diana "row" therefore provided a handy opportunity to bash the broadcaster some more. Rival broadcasters weighed in, of course, and by the time phone-in programmes chose the "controversial" documentary as their subject the negative public reaction was a foregone conclusion.
Some journalists, notably Andrew Billen in The Times, did their best to put the matter in perspective after seeing the film, as did Sky TV's reporter Orla Chennaoui, who resisted attempts by her anchor to slam the programme.
So what have The Observer got to say for themselves? Thorpe has failed to return calls. But I did get to speak to the news editor, Kamal Ahmed, earlier today. I asked him if Thorpe had resigned or threatened to resign, as had been suggested to me. No, he said firmly, she had not. When I asked him more questions he said I'd got him on the hop (which, as I pointed out, is what journalists do) and begged for "time to think about it". Two hours later, I'm still waiting for him to call back. Does he have a guilty conscience, I wonder?
.png?w=600)
