First the effect, then the cause

"There has been much outcry and protest over a programme due to go out on television tonight ..."

"Tonight's television analysis of the industry has already provoked a furious controversy over ..."

"Reaction to tonight's attack on the ruling body of the sport has been swift and predictably bitter ..."

"Legal circles are in an uproar after tonight's revelations on TV ..."

How often have we read these words recently, or words strongly reminiscent of them? How often, in other words, has the passage of time been reversed?

In the old days, people made a controversial programme and then put it out. Later or, at the very earliest, during the transmission of the programme, people would get hot under the collar and react angrily to its contents.

In other words, the programme would come first and the reaction to the programme would come afterwards.

All that has changed now.

The contentious programme is made.

Its contents are leaked.

There is an uproar on all sides, provided entirely by professional controversialists brought in for the occasion, usually second-rate backbench MPs, ex-ministers, unknown experts and lobbyists.

There is heated reaction to the heated reaction.

Then it all dies down.

Then, finally, the programme that caused all the trouble goes out, and anyone who bothers to see it must feel that it is a repeat. Because the natural order of events has been transposed, and everyone has already reacted to something which has not yet happened.

In fact, there is a programme going out later this week which is certain to cause a great deal of unease and disquiet because it puts forward the theory that a major television controversy can be caused by a programme which is not even screened and may not even have been made.

The programme is called The White Queen Factor and was made by the controversial publicist, Adrian Wardour-Street.

"I called it The White Queen Factor because of the way the White Queen behaves in Through the Looking Glass," he tells me. "If you remember, she always reacts before the event. She wails and sobs because she is about to be pricked by her brooch. Then she calms down. Then she pricks herself, and Alice says: "Why don't you cry?" and she says: "What's the point? I've already done that" ... Well, my contention is that, similarly, everyone these days reacts in soundbites to other soundbites that haven't even happened yet.

"In fact, I've gone even further than that. I have put forward the theory that because everyone reacts in advance to a TV programme, then it is not strictly necessary to have that TV programme at all. It is the reactions that are important, not the TV programme itself. What Greg Dyke said about Rugby Union in that Channel 4 programme was quite important, but it has been completely overshadowed by the furore surrounding Will Carling's sacking and reinstatement by the pompous prats who run the sport. In a sense, it was not necessary to have the Greg Dyke programme at all."

Is he seriously saying that a furore can be caused by something which does not happen?

"Certainly. It has often happened already. It happened the other day with Kenneth Clarke and some tax which did not happen. It often happens with politicians' speeches when the text is leaked beforehand, containing some idea or phrase which causes a lot of fuss before the speech goes out and is therefore omitted from the text as delivered. This is equivalent to the White Queen wailing and sobbing and then not pricking herself. I am saying that we are now so used to controversy being based on something not yet broadcast that it is possible to have the controversy and then not broadcast anything."

Adrian's programme, which goes out later this week, has already caused very angry reactions among politicians, lobbyists and journalists, because it calls them all liars and cheats, and accuses them of colluding to deceive the public. Without the collusion of politicians and media hacks, believes Wardour-Street, most so-called controversies would never happen.

"It stands to reason," he says. "A controversy is only a controversy because someone calls it so. When someone on the Today programme says a new uproar is being created by the publication of, or the broadcasting of, something or other, he is usually the first person to call it an uproar and he is hoping others will follow his lead."

And when is this programme of Adrian's going out?

"Some time later this week," he says vaguely. "Anyway, must dash - have to go on The World at One and talk about it.