Is the Ross/Brand scandal the BBC's Jo Moore moment? Like the notorious "good day to bury bad news" e-mail, it was a lapse that revealed the darkness behind the facade - with devastating consequences.

In the case of Jo Moore, we saw the sheer amoral cynicism of the New Labour's news manipulation obsession. For the BBC the Andrew Sachs interview casts an ugly light on the broadcaster's declining standards and the way in which commercial priorities means "talent" now runs the show.

Like the Jo Moore incident on 9/11, the outrage has taken a few days to build, almost as if people could not initially believe what they read they were so aghast. Another parallel is the way in which the initial apologies were slow and inadequate. Only when the scale of the anger became clear were more abject expressions of regret forthcoming.

One reason people feel so upset is because most regard the BBC as one of the country's finest institutions, overwhelmingly a force for good.

How can an organisation responsible for Planet Earth, Cranford, Life on Mars, Dr Who and, of course, Fawlty Towers, also churn out this offensive bilge? Jonathan Ross earns a reported £6 million a year, that's £120,000 a week, or around £17,000 a day. I don't know what Andrew Sachs was paid for his unforgettable portrayal of Manuel, but I'd be surprised if it was more than Ross's daily rate.

Put it another way. The BBC collects £3.368 billion a year from the licence fee and pays 0.178 per cent of it to Ross. The licence is £139.50 per household and 0.178 per cent of that is around 25p. Perhaps viewers who are particularly outraged that they pay the wages of the man who so insulted Andrew Sachs should withold the 25p Ross levy next time they are asked to cough up. That would send a message to the hierarchy. Not in my name, Mark Thompson, not in my name.