BBC – COWED, CHAOTIC AND COMPROMISED?

What on earth was the BBC doing reporting in depth about and analysing in detail a matter all about itself, as if it is somehow independent? The narrative around Huw Edwards is chaotic.

The Sun newspaper on 7 July wallowed in allegations against an unnamed Senior BBC presenter, all in the so-called public interest. He had allegedly paid a woman, now 20 but possibly aged 17 on first contact, thousands of pounds for sexually explicit pictures of herself. The source was the woman’s mother. No actual evidence has yet been published but was presumed by many to exist as otherwise on what basis could the Sun have reported as it did. Perhaps a criminal offence or at least unbecoming and perhaps abusive behaviour had occurred. The mother had complained to the BBC in May this year, and the investigation started by the BBC, it seems in accordance with its procedures, had stalled, reinvigorated however by the allegations of 7 July. The name of the presenter was kept quiet until the wife of Huw Edwards named him in a public statement, late on 12 July citing his mental health problems and pleading for privacy.

 The facts of what occurred remain unknown to the public and it seems to most reporting agencies including the BBC News, though it is thought that several people at the BBC knew the identity of the accused. The BBC kept the name quiet presumably for reasons of rights to privacy. Therefore, a lot of speculation was rife guessing at who the culprit may be, besmirching many people on the way potentially, with social media jockeys speculating as irresponsibly as ever as if real people, their families, and the impact of uniformed scurrilous posting may have, matter not a jot. The matter has been a major news item for days, even on the BBC morning news on 12 July as its top story, despite no facts! 

This piece is not about the rights and wrongs of the incident – hard to be, given lack of facts, and of course it is also not that interesting (except now for the fact that a man seems sadly mentally disturbed). In the scheme of world events, such as Europe being at war with Russia, dozens murdered every day or the global economic malaise, it ranks as a pinprick. So sad a reflection on our world that what seems a sexual matter involving a person who, as a presenter, cannot be of any more significance than other human beings, obsesses so many people who pretend to be serious themselves. Is it gossip, titillation, the desire to see a media “star” brought low, or just prurient judgementalism in the face of grubbiness which elevates such incidents to grave importance. 

Police considered whether to investigate and have decided that as of now they have no evidence of criminality.  The suspended BBC investigation is now to resume. The matter is complicated by the fact the allegedly abused woman herself says publicly that the Sun allegations are wrong and that nothing inappropriate happened. With Huw Edwards being treated in hospital for mental health issues, his story cannot be heard and so no facts established easily. Complex perhaps?

The BBC news channels majored on the story since it broke, every day, most of the day, including how the BBC itself reacted to the complaint, the BBC’s processes, possible failures, interviews with pundits of all sorts, and including Tim Davie, the BBC Director-General, seeking to treat him like an unconnected third party. Bizarrely, with no facts yet established, the matter was likened to the Jimmy Savile scandal, to which as of now it bears no resemblance in nastiness, or institutional and personal cover ups and blind eyes turned in relation to dozens of cases of appalling abuse and criminality. 

But perhaps most absurd is the fact the BBC believed it was appropriate for its news arms to report in depth, speculating, interviewing and analysing the allegations; this subject, some suggest, put the heart of the BBC in jeopardy. How can the BBC presenters on this topic be impartial and be seen to be? Cannot the BBC recognise it is compromised with a clear and obvious conflict of interest in its treating this topic like a matter totally independent of itself? Presenters, producers, editors and directors, or other staff, may know the alleged culprit, love him, hate him, have a grudge, be jealous, see him as a role model, or have any range of relationship: it is said his identity was widely known within the BBC all along. The BBC prides itself on its objectivity. In, for example, reporting on political matters, it readily points out others’ conflicts of interest, not just actual, but emphasising the importance of the perception of possible conflict, that is the optics!

The BBC weakness which is its love of itself, belief in its infallible wisdom and perfection, its employment of people who are all like-minded in their outlook, without objective humility, renders it incapable of challenging itself, and incapable of the very objectivity for the truth which is its core brand. Surely this is a story where the BBC should have confined, and should continue to confine, itself to minimal reporting of fact, blandly done without fanfare or headline, publicly acknowledging that in depth reporting, if that is inevitable, should be left to those who are not the accused presenter’s employer. That BBC personnel have commented that their coverage of the affair, judging such coverage to be “muscular” as Tim Davie says, demonstrates the BBC News independent strength in itself demonstrates their very blindness.

Its failure to recognise this problem means it has contributed considerably to the hype around the story and the damage that hype may have done. Perhaps now Huw Edwards is a man to be pitied, more than vilified, but the facts remain unclear.  One thing is obvious: unless the BBC can examine and solve its cultural problems of group thinking and belief in its own perfection, such as by recognising straightforward conflict of interest, it will never live up to its own hype. With social media seemingly morally corrupt and uncontrollable, is it not essential, if they are to serve the public as they should, for the BBC and other significant media channels to develop a real sense of the important as opposed to the trivial? That would help guide the public’s sensibility, putting personal scandals and character faults as they judge them in more grown-up perspective.

Do not the people of the UK want the BBC to be world-leading, most respected and trusted, as an institution to be proud of? Time for its leaders to step up.

See also THE BBC’S BIG OPPORTUNITY and THE BBC’s MORAL SUPERIORITY SHREDDED AFTER DYSON in these pages.