\n There was extensive analysis of the way in which Wallace\u2019s and Torode\u2019s contributions had been cut to remove their banter, and whether this had blandified the series to the point of tedium.\n<\/p>\n
\n Also under scrutiny was the request by one contestant to be edited out. Was this a brave moral stand or a futile gesture? And would she have made the same request if she had gone on to win?\n<\/p>\n
\n What callers weren\u2019t encouraged to explore were deeper, more fundamental dilemmas, such as the cultural blind spots that allowed Wallace, in particular, to engage in inappropriate behaviour so flagrantly and for so long.\n<\/p>\n
\n And what the BBC ought to do to address structural power imbalances so contestants and members of staff have the confidence to report such behaviour in the future?\n<\/p>\n
\n I am not criticising this radio show\u2019s choice of subject per se. MasterChef is a popular brand, and it was clear from the number of people who phoned in that those who watch it have strong opinions they are keen to share. But as someone who doesn\u2019t, the approach felt quite superficial, an empty exercise in handwringing.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
\n There was no sense that what happened on the programme was not a one-off incident involving a couple of mavericks, but part of a continuum of abuse which flourishes in every institution with a hierarchy rendering those at the top untouchable.\n<\/p>\n
\n We can agonise all we like over whether or not this series of MasterChef, which had been filmed before the decision to axe the hosts was made, should have been shown.\n<\/p>\n
\n (Image: Gregg Wallace)\n<\/p>\n
\n Humiliation<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n \n PERSONALLY, I feel Wallace and Torode are already ruined \u2014 seeing themselves reduced to empty vessels merely compounds their humiliation. But either way, nothing much hangs on the decision.\n<\/p>\n \n Because the pertinent question is not: how do we ensure these particular presenters get their just deserts? But: how do we create an environment in which sexual\/sexist and racist language is no longer tolerated?\n<\/p>\n \n It feels like we are trapped on a conveyor belt of scandals. Every single time, this is how it unfolds: the predatory behaviour of one individual \u2014 Huw Edwards, Russell Brand, Philip Schofield \u2014 is exposed. The people on whose watch the offences were committed throw their hands up in horror.\n<\/p>\n \n The individuals offer up a handful of lukewarm apologies cum-excuses. \u201cI\u2019m sorry, but I was suffering from stress\u201d; \u201cI\u2019m sorry, but I have been diagnosed with autism\u201d. Or they seek to downplay them as “unwise, but not illegal\u201d. Or they deny the allegations altogether, describing them as \u201churtful\u201d.\n<\/p>\n \n Notwithstanding their excuses, they are suspended, then sacked. The BBC (or other body because \u2014 think Neil Gaiman \u2014 this is not confined to broadcasting) engages in a brief period of self-flagellation and faux introspection. Perhaps it holds a review, berates itself for the failings the review identifies. A politician or two may weigh in.\n<\/p>\n \n On this occasion Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told the world she would be boycotting the MasterChef series.\n<\/p>\n \n Someone expresses a view that the perpetrator was \u201chiding in plain sight\u201d. And then the band wagon moves on. Until the next time. And so long as the focus is on rooting out the bad apples instead of tackling the source of the rot, there will always *be* a next time\n<\/p>\n \n Across the Atlantic, the US is caught up in its own navel-gazing, albeit with more serious offences and much higher stakes.\n<\/p>\n