Philip Hensher: I don't want my licence fee going to homophobes

As Philip Larkin said, everything seems to depend on where you are, or who. The other night, on the BBC's charity fund-raiser Fame Academy, the presenter Patrick Kielty noticed that one of the contestants, Colin Murray, seemed to be moved almost to tears. He derided Murray for being "a big gayer" - charming expression.

A small number of viewers phoned up to complain. Mr Murray is not gay, and Kielty's comments seemed to rest on the idea that bursting into tears on little provocation, and general emotional incontinence, are stereotypically gay. The BBC, in editorial guidelines from June 2005, said that "We should avoid offensive or stereotypical assumptions, and people should only be described in terms of their disability, age, sexual orientation and so on when clearly editorially justified."

One might like to compare this to the BBC's response to these specific complaints. It said "Patrick's comment was spur of the moment, unscripted and not intended to cause offence. However, we have reminded Patrick to be more careful during the remaining live shows."

That was it. I wonder what their response would have been if Mr Kielty had advised viewers to "stop being such Jews" and donate to Comic Relief. That seems to me an exactly parallel case, and no more offensive than what he actually did say.

"Not intending to cause offence" is particularly ripe as a defence, when you consider that "intending to cause offence" seems just as useful a defence in other circumstances. In another BBC response, where offence was clearly intended, they said, "we feel that the audience understand that this is 'an act' and that none of the contestants are [sic] upset by it."

The standard media defence of a comedian of systematically offensive homophobia such as Jimmy Carr is that the audience knows what it's getting; in other words, that they accept that the ceaseless ridicule of homosexuals is intended to cause offence, and people just ought to accept that with good grace. If it's unintended, no offence should be taken; if it's thoroughly intended, no offence may be taken.

Stonewall, the gay rights group, recently published a report based on the BBC's output, which contained a number of startling examples of broadcasting which could hardly be classified as "not intended to cause offence". On a quiz show, the presenter remarked of a participant that he was "more puff than pastry" and asked him with lewd innuendo "what was the strangest thing he had ever put in his mouth".

A comedy show had a sketch about a man arrested for being gay, and being let off by a gay judge making limp-wrist gestures - that was the joke, that a judge might be gay. Top Gear refers to poor-quality cars as being "gay" and "a bit ginger-beer". On the BBC website and message boards, racist comments are removed as a matter of policy; homophobic comments are left just as they are.

These are examples from the BBC, but there are others from broadcast programmes. Channel 4's late-night Friday broadcasting can be a welter of homophobic abuse; Jimmy Carr's atrocious Nine out of Ten Cats could hardly go for three consecutive minutes without someone trying to get an ill-natured laugh out of the word "benders".

An extraordinary confrontation between deliberate offence and a challenge to bigotry took place a few months ago over the repulsive Chris Moyles. The specific incident took place when he rejected a ringtone, live on air, with the comment, " I don't want that one, it's gay." Listeners who objected to the hard-fought word "gay" being used to mean " rubbish" were given this bizarre excuse: "The committee acknowledged that this use of the word 'gay' could cause offence to some listeners. However, the committee believed that Chris Moyles, when using the word, had meant no offence to gay people. He was not being homophobic in his use of the word."

Statements of bigotry on the basis of race are now, quite rightly, stamped on very hard in the media. Programmes from the past which rested on prejudice, such as Love Thy Neighbour or It Ain't Half Hot Mum, could never now be broadcast other than as grotesque curiosities. A programme of similar prejudice against gay people, such as Are You Being Served? not only goes on being broadcast, but many of its attitudes seem to be shared by today's programme makers.

Personally, I don't care whether "comedians" or "presenters" make insulting comments about gay people or anything else. After all, the talent of such people as Patrick Kielty, Chris Moyles or Jimmy Carr is practically zero, so they might as well find material where they can. I would much rather they did it while being paid by someone other than me, however. It is a disgrace that a public corporation such as the BBC, or a publicly owned company such as Channel 4 - which is supposed to "appeal to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society" - should broadcast such hateful material, and, in response to objections, provide contradictory excuses.

I don't really feel like being a good sport about this stuff any more. When John Inman died a week or two ago, there was a lot of pressure on gay people to declare that they found that sort of thing funny and charming. I don't. It seems strange to me that the Moyleses and Kieltys of this world haven't seen the shame and contempt that has descended on a Love Thy Neighbour, and not wondered what people will think of them in 10 years' time for having used live media to popularise the terms "gay" and "gayer" as direct insults.

Interesting? Click here to explore further