You've Got Mail

There is nothing out there that eats up talking time quite like whipping up a good scandal.

The right story, when it's spun out, can develop such unbelievable traction and become a major talking point that can even define a year.

It is safe to say that the Daily Mail has fine form on both sides of this space-filler, both as instigating the fires and being on the receiving end. In 2008 it managed to whip up an incredible firestorm against Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, where it turned 2 complaints against a BBC Radio 2 programme into 45,000. This also wound up with resignations from Brand and the head of the station, a suspension for Ross, egg on the face for the BBC and MP support to clean up the media, even if most of them came from people that didn't actually hear the initial broadcast.

But the paper faced a firestorm of it's own making the year after when columnist Jan Moir incredibly linked Boyzone singer Stephen Gately's homosexuality with his death, leading to 25,000 complaints to the Press Complaints Comission.

Bizarrely the newspaper defended this spot of opportune gay-bashing under free-speech and the PCC allowed it to pass through despite classing it as 'extremely offensive to certain groups'. Not that it did the career of Jan Moir any favours, with the columnist deried by almost everyone else and given an award as Bigot of the Year by a gay newspaper.

Not that this stops campaigns that essentially look like something from the down with this sort of thing scene from Father Ted. For those who haven't seen it, this sees the main character and his hapless fellow priest Father Dougal try and protest a sexually eplicit film showing in their local cinema, and then promptly make it the most succesful film in the history of their parish's local cinema. This is more or less the effect, as attracting attention to something deemed offensive promptly makes people more eager to see it, and possibly more popular.

The Mail has happily got back on it's high horse and had a campaign go only to fall into this trap. In it's firing line this time is The Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2012, which aired on Channel 4 the night before New Year's Eve and received less than 10 complaints in the first few days to OFCOM. This is a mere drop in the ocean and is hardly a big story - three million people watched the initial broadcast.

These odds did not stop Mail attempts to whip up a storm, describing jokes offered up by James Corden, Jack Whitehall and presenter Jimmy Carr as "vulgar", "crass" and "puerile" among other things. These were served in an article peppered with quotes from MPs looking for something to do and from the worst rated on its comment board - ironically the best rated were comments from people who felt the Mail needed to get off it's high horse.

For those readers who prefer to know what they are being outraged by, the Mail reprinted bleeped versions of the material in question and also tried to outrage viewers further by saying that Whitehall and Corden were having a dinner of pizza and wine while making jokes about the Queen, Susan Boyle, Usain Bolt and President Obama among others.

Unlike Sachsgate, though, this was not really a campaign that was going to draw up the same hysteria. While that incident created a truly incredible tidal wave of hysteria, this one failed to get to the same blockbuster proportions, with OFCOM receiving less than 100 complaints and Channel 4 repeating the show anyway.

Any further campaigning seems like flogging a dead horse to faintly incredible levels. If you're not a fan of Carr or Whitehall, you're hardly going to suddenly turn around afresh at the comedy that they perform. Also, one fair indication is the time in question - the 9pm watershed is the point when swearing and more out-there lines can be merrily recounted to the extent they normally are.

Despite this the Daily Mail has carried on undaunted. There is something to admire about its commitment to the cause despite other sources, ranging from other newspapers to bloggers and further onto the commenters on it's own website, just looking on at its attempt with bewilderment.

Certainly, they're hardly going to convince Jonathan Ross, a man who once described Daily Mail journalists as "insincere hypocrites", to suddenly tone down his act.

I watched the show and found it fairly amusing, albeit not the best installment of the Big Fat Quiz - that honour is jointly shared by it's 2006-09 broadcasts. While it's understandable not everybody will find it amusing, the bulk of the reception on the night of broadcast was mostly positive. Negative comments online have mainly been from people who don't rate the comedians in the first place, which is fair enough - for instance I find my enjoyment of any comedy programme significantly reduced by the appearance of the painfully unfunny Mickey Flanagan.

Natrually, some people will be offended in any case - it is hard to get all of the people to like you. But there is certainly one possible option for people offended by this programme, one magic option. It is called the television and, more precisely, its remote control - there are hundreds of other channels providing entertainment, and some of it will be to the liking of the people offended, even at the time of broadcast.

Back in 2010, newspaper editor Paul Dacre was hilarious in commenting that most of the complaints around the Moir article were from people who hadn't read the article, which is somewhat two-faced given his paper have been encouraging people who haven't seen the broadcast to complain.

It is certainly a strange affair the Mail has decided to call for censorship of the programme. A few weeks ago it campaigned against the Leveson Report, arguing that said report was against press freedom. Whether or not the actual report is harmful to free speech is ultimately down to personal opinion, but certainly, as the paper says, a free media is essential for a free democracy.

Despite this, it seems faintly weird that the Mail has decided free speech does not apply to Channel 4 or topical comedians, who are certainly a form of media. But then such pick-and-mix decision making to flavour its campaigns is commonplace. There is certainly vindication for the Mail's campaign to try and protect kids from illicit material online, which is fair enough. But illicit material does also cover the Daily Mail online, which regularly features naked models and remarking on 13/14 year olds that look "all grown up".

It is an interesting conumdrum really, but in any case it seems that this time the Mail's valiant efforts against perceived rudeness is set to hit the wall on this occasion.