Creating any publicity buzz around the launch of the 14th series of a television show must be difficult – though it would be a nice problem to have. So imagine the delight with which Brian True-May, executive producer of Midsomer Murders, a programme of which even John Nettles has now tired, must have received the news that the Radio Times wanted to interview him.

"Perfect!" he would have thought. "A publication whose dogged continuity echoes that of my show, whose readers are solid middle Englanders who still buy a magazine to plan their viewing: people who disdain the electronic programme guide and use tea cosies; who like Songs of Praise and watched The One Show until they were put off by the time Gyles Brandreth said "boobs"; people who still say the number when they answer the phone, who wouldn't hurt a fly but love a vigorous stabbing in the rectory."

As True-May said in the interview: "You don't want to have too much change. Chopping and changing, rebranding – that's a mistake… We have an audience out there that doesn't like a lot of change. People hate change." So I imagine he was totally cool about John Nettles leaving the show.

Unfortunately that wasn't all he said and the whole thing has been a disaster for him. He was reported all over the media as admitting, or indeed proclaiming, that he'd adopted a casting colour bar: "Well, we just don't have ethnic minorities involved," he said, adding: "We're the last bastion of Englishness and I want to keep it that way." He was promptly suspended by his employers.

His could be the remarks of a racist. Equally they could be the imprudently expressed justification of an escapist drama, with no pretensions to realism, of a reasonable man who knows his market. If, by "Englishness", he means an idealised version of the rural England of the past – basically a costume drama but with mobile phones – then the whole cast being white is arguably no different from the whole cast of Cranford being white. Even if you don't accept that argument because, realistic or not, the show is set in modern Britain and should represent its diversity, it could be argued that it accurately reflects the lack of ethnic diversity in much of rural England. Eight per cent of the population may be from ethnic minorities but Bengali families aren't much thicker on the ground in the Somerset countryside than ones with 2.4 children.

That said, would it have killed him to have the occasional black character being killed? Even Downton Abbey had that Turk who died of sex. What offended many commentators was the implication that any ethnic diversity would spoil the show. "I'm trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed. And I don't want to change it," he says. If not racist, is he pandering to racists?

It's impossible to be sure but I reckon he's been stitched up, and here's why. A few weeks ago, many newspapers reported that Joanna Lumley had made a series of scathing remarks about Britain's young: "Nowadays, children find it laughably amusing to shoplift and steal," whereas in Ethiopia: "You might find a seven-year-old expected to take 15 goats out into the fields for the whole day with only a chapati to eat and his whistle." She suggested sweeping educational changes: "laptops should be banned" in favour of "hearty-sounding pursuits, such as building a camp. Or getting an entire school to go and work in a farm, for a term, all together".

I was surprised. I don't know enough about the state of our schools to judge whether or not she had a point. But the remarks seemed uncharacteristic of Lumley. Her previous forays into political comment had been exemplary. A respected actress, she has a personal connection with the Gurkhas and campaigns for them tirelessly and exclusively. When she felt the government was betraying them she intervened briefly, to ruthless effect, and then returned to her day job. Full marks (as teachers now say when a hoodie pulls a knife). It was odd to see her courting controversy in this vague undisciplined way. Then I noticed that she'd made her comments in an interview with the Radio Times.

This interested me because, in January, I was interviewed by the Radio Times. It was part of a long day of interviews for 10 O'Clock Live. It's always quite tiring. You spend hours defensively not seeming defensive, boredly trying not to bore. With the Daily Telegraph, Sun and Media Guardian all done, I was pleased to hear that the next interviewer was from the Radio Times. I relaxed.

A few days later I was Googling myself (not a euphemism: I'd just had a wank) when I discovered that, according to a newspaper website, I'd "taken a pop at the Today programme". It's "very self-important and sometimes you want it to be taken down a peg or two", I'd told the Radio Times. Then I remembered the interview – a jolly chat with a nice man whom I remembered doing a lot of talking and opining, saying things I agreed with – sentiments which, come to think of it, I may have completed.

I didn't really mind. I doubt I was misquoted – that's the sort of thing I might say, although I'd have qualified it more. To avoid feeling foolish, I told myself it was all good publicity. But, if I'd really wanted to say it, I'd have written it here.

Similarly, I doubt Lumley and True-May would've chosen a clutch of hackish reports, inspired by a listings magazine's scoop, as the perfect platform to express their views on education or multiculturalism. They both have enough clout to write articles of their own on those subjects. Then they could have chosen their words with more care and been paid. But I think they were egged on by a friendly-sounding journalist, from a friendly-sounding magazine, who said lots of things they agreed with. I'd love to hear tapes of the interviews.

Maybe this is good journalism. It's certainly clever journalism and a lot cheaper for the Radio Times than placing adverts. And maybe we deserved what we got? That's probably true in my and Lumley's cases because all we "got" was the unsettling feeling of having inappropriately gone off on one in public. But True-May could be sacked which, depending on what he really meant, is either harsh or fair. But not both. Well, I hope things either work out fine for him or he's a racist. But not both.