Football doesn't much interest me.  I've long held the view that the game is institutionally corrupt, to the point where a decent case can be made for asserting that it's a malign influence on society.  That view was based upon the cheating that's now at the core of the game, and on the antics of some of the obscenely overpaid Premier League players.  However, recent months, and in particular last week's vote in Zurich have put a new spin on this, and as a result serious questions need to be asked about the role the media plays in aspects of our national life.





I watched the much trailed and hugely hyped Panorama special on alleged corruption in FIFA's ranks, expecting wondrous revelations, but what did I see?  Certainly not the knock-out punch that was predicted.  In fact, the organisation coming under greatest fire after the broadcast was the BBC which is accused of headline-chasing and worse.  It is reported that Sepp Blatter referred to 'the evils of the media' in a speech to FIFA delegates just minutes before the vote was taken, and it would be naive in the extreme to imagine that this didn't play a part in the humiliation that followed. 


Was the BBC right to broadcast this programme?  It's the wrong question, I'm afraid.  The right one is 'Was the BBC right to broadcast it when it did?'  Mark Thompson, the Beeb's Director General put up a typically staunch defence of the decision - staunch defences are what Thompson does, and goodness knows he's had enough practice at it!  However, in this case his words had a hollow ring to them.  He said that the BBC had been "right" to screen the Panorama programme, which contained "significant information about matters of very serious public interest and public concern".  One, it's questionable whether that was the case, but Two, any public concern about FIFA paled into insignificance compared to the concern the public had about the country not winning the 2018 bid!





The BBC's timing was just plain lousy and it should be asking itself some serious questions.  Top of the list must be, 'Would the programme have had less or more impact had it gone out the day after the vote was taken?'  The Sunday Times report that kicked this whole business off was a superior effort on two grounds: it had better content and FIFA had to act, and it was not published so close to D-Day.  Thompson says that he believes the British public is behind the decision to broadcast the programme, but an online poll (admittedly with just a couple of thousand respondents) shows 60% of those voting to disagree with the Director General's view.


The key message coming out of this is that not only does a media organisation have to check its facts, but it has to think carefully about the effect that its publication date will have on its target audience.  The BBC might think it has the moral high ground on this one, but it has also managed to hack off a sizeable chunk of its audience.  If I was one of the corporation's critics I think I'd be storing this example away for future use.