Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I congratulated David Elstein on coming out immediately saying there was a systemic problem with the culture of the BBC. His language is now being used everywhere (unacknowledged, of course). He also said don't fire the culprits like Ross and Brand who had been hired to do what they do. Because the BBC does not know what it believes in, it also does not know how to edit and protect standards. I think there is something quite deep about British culture here - the first 'B' in the three letters. Of course the BBC should not pay people to be obscene. But how are they to know? Am I alone in sensing a hint of bad faith in the zeal with which the print media has leapt upon the Corporation? I believe that societies should be able to celebrate eroticism, with all its ambiguities as well as delights. But the gratuitous lowering of sex and the treatment of people as sex objects is wrong and should be resisted and it is not snobbish or ridiculous to say so. The acceptance of obscenity and sleazy and disgusting questions to politicians is not caused by page 3 but the tolerance of a daily "cor" in the Sun is seen in every media studio and millions of families across the land and brutalises the ideals of enjoyment and entertainment. What do the BBC's editorial staff see when they open their daily papers? Tits. Little wonder, therefore...
What can be done about this without getting into censorship? Well, how about a rule that for every use of gratuitous nudity a publisher should pay £50 per 100,000 copies printed or page views clicked, to go to services that help battered wives, and the amount should be published with the picture.
