BBC bashing

So, the BBC is in crisis, and I’m sure you are desperate to know what my views on it are. Go on, I know you are really.

So, colours on the mast from the outset – I love the BBC.

But I love the BBC. For an independent, yet public service to produce output of the breadth, depth and quality it does, simply for the cost of the licence fee – a considerably lower cost that either the fiscal cost of a subscription service; or the psychological cost of having to watch adverts – is brilliant. But then I have already said that.

So, the BBC is in crisis. Or, more accurately, two crises.

Firstly, it failed to show a report alleging that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile.

Then it showed a report which lead to the erroneous naming of a senior politician as a paedophile.

It almost couldn’t do any right.

But as a result of these two reports (or lack thereof) it has been pilloried. And unsurprisingly – but then I’ll come to that later

Now, the two incidents together have claimed the scalps of around half-a-dozen people within the organisation already, with more almost certain to follow. These include the Editor of Newsnight, the Head of News, Deputy of News and even the Director General – the chap in charge of the organisation. They have also, together, spawned no less than five inquiries within the BBC alone, irrespective of those instigated by MPs or the police.

So, what really are the allegations?

Well, allegation one is about the Savile Scandal. It is now widely acknowledged that Savile carried out a long lasting campaign of sexual assault against girls and young ladies. He did this within a number of different institutions, over a considerable number of years. Yes, he almost certainly carried out some of these attacks on BBC premises. But he also carried them out at children’s homes, in hospitals, even in prisons. He particularly targeted the most vulnerable of people who would not report it; either because they were too young to be believed, because they lacked the mental capacity, or because he could silence them with his celebrity.

There are many investigations into how this was allowed to happen. One of the most important things to remember is that these attacks happened in a different era. The sixties, seventies, eighties were another place to today. That doesn’t mean the attacks didn’t happen – they did. It doesn’t mean that they were any less vicious or that the victims suffered any less – they still were and did. But there were no such things as CRB checks, or risk assessments or things like that back then. Celebrities gained unfettered – and unsupervised – contact with fans simply to giddy to know what was happening, and too eager to be able to say no.

But the fact that these attacks occurred is not really the gripe of the papers.

It is that the BBC dropped the report on the attacks. The BBC had interviews with the victims – they were perfectly credible interviews. They had corroboration of the incidents from people other than the victims. They had a story.

But it was dropped.

Why? Because the editor of Newsnight at the time – Peter Rippon – was actually looking at pursuing a different story to the one the journalist – Liz MacKean – was following. Rippon was concentrating on the failure of various institutions – the police and social services particularly – to investigate at the time.

That may have been a story; but that was not THE story. Failing to run the Savile story itself was a failure.

Do I genuinely believe that Rippon thought there was just one story? I don’t know. He seems naïve enough to do so.

But he reported to Helen Boaden – Head of News – and held a discussion with her about whether to run the story. If she, Rippon and Entwhistle – who was Head of Vision, and therefore Boaden’s senior – are to be believed, Boaden briefly mentioned it to Entwhistle, and he barely batted an eyelid. This is despite a Christmas tribute to Savile planned.

Could the tribute have been dropped? Easily. Should it have been? Yes. The failing here is to identify that there were two stories and that one could very easily have been run without impact upon the second “failure to investigate” story. Or it could actually have ‘lead into’ the second story – asking the question how he was allowed to get away with it so long.

Where did this decision lie? Was it Rippon who decided there was one story? Was the discussion between Boaden and Entwhistle more involved? Was cold water poured on this from a much higher height, either in the hope it would disappear completely, or at least only come to light after the Christmas tribute? If the conversation at the top was not more involved, then why not? Afterall, Entwhistle was in charge of the programme schedule which would pit these two competing interests against each other. These matters are to come out in the wash.

But then the second incident. On Newsnight. Again.

Here, the BBC had been provided with information from a victim as to the perpetrator of the attacks upon him, that the paedophile that committed the attacks was a senior politician.

Let me be clear – the BBC did not name the individual. Indeed, in the run-up to the broadcast of the programme there was a lot of noise on Twitter from seasoned journalists actively criticising the BBC for NOT naming the individual.

In fact, the BBC relied upon the honestly held belief of the victim – Steve Messham. Messham had, in the past, been shown a photo of his attacker by the police, and had then been told the identity of the person. It is uncertain as to whether the photo was incorrectly titled; or whether the person in the photograph was similar looking. Again, remember, the photograph was taken in the seventies before the days of super megapixel cameras. So it was highly possible it could have been a photo of the senior politician, which – due to blurriness or passage of time – Messham did honestly believe was his attacker.

That doesn’t get them off the hook though. The BBC is one of the largest, most trusted and respected journalistic organisations in the world. Do they go to air with just one man’s say-so? Or should they actually have checked out the details – the times and places the attacks were supposed to have happened? Much as I love the BBC, this is a distinct failure. But, in light of the circumstances where they had just been criticised for not going to air to name a paedophile; it is perhaps somewhat slightly more understandable that they were a little quick-off-the-draw. Maybe, however, with journalistic standards already under review, they should have been more cautious. But was it journalistic standards, or simply editorial standards that were under review?

Needless to say, the BBC has received a good kicking from the press. In fact, it has received an undeserved kicking from the press. The reasons for this are two-fold.

Firstly, the press is in between earthquakes. The Leveson inquiry has been undertaken, looking at the failings of the press and the regulators in the phone hacking scandal. The BBC was one of the only journalistic bureaux to escape that entirely unscathed. And they are not happy. They don’t want to be the bad guys, they want someone else to carry some blame, deflect some of the attention. Particularly as the second earthquake – the publication of the findings from the inquiry – is imminent.

But also, the BBC holds a unique position which other media hate. The BBC is independently funded by the licence fee. This means it doesn’t have to generate a revenue by selling papers or advertising space. They see the BBC as in a commercial bubble, and whilst they are facing the ‘perfect storm’ of people turning to free internet pages to consume information; the BBC has perfectly positioned itself as just that…but at the cost of the licence fee payer rather than the advertisers or the shareholders.

Many see its protected position as a reason for it to have a higher integrity, more rigourous journalistic standards. In reality, any broadcast media has to have these higher standards, and it is perhaps for that reason that the broadcast medias were entirely excluded from the Leveson inquiry - they simply could do no wrong, it wasn't possible for them to have a "don't ask how we got it" policy. But there it where regulation by Ofcom differs from self-'regulation' (if it can be called that) by PCC differ wildly. The reason that the BBC actually goes - or aspires to go - even further, is reciprocal. It is expected of the Beeb that it will be the best, and so the Beeb expects to be regarded as the best, but knows that it only holds that position whilst it IS the best. It's the opposite of a vicious cycle. Yes, the principle may have been established by being the first such news bureau, by being independently funded and therefore able to take the time; but the comearound of it is that it needs to work doubley hard to maintain that reputation otherwise it has worse than nothing - it is a drain on the public.

But you can see how easily the BBC gets beaten - and, indeed, beats itself up - over these crises. Look at ITV. ITV pulled what can only be descibed as a pretty base and crass, oportunistic stunt. They ambushed the Prime Minister mid-interview and presented him with a card of suspected paedophiles. The Prime Minister, with tact and credit, ignored the list and instead raised concerns about ITV's attempt to turn this into a witchhunt. Worse still, in performing this cupid stunt, the presenter exposed a number of the names to camera. Has action been taken at ITV? Have people lost their job? Has the head of the organisation been forced to quit? No - no-one has lost their job. "Words of advice" have been given. Nothing more.

And again, the newspaper who actually named the subject - has anything been done there? No. That was handled slightly differently. They only named the person in the course of raising concerns as to whether the report was correct. But up until then, few people had put a name to the allegation.

In the meantime the BBC is having to work doubley hard again to restore its position. It has to be seen as beyond white, and that means taking more extreme steps than those other media organisations who are happy with being seen as grey at best.

Media organisations should never see themselves in a priviledged position. They should never see themselves as protected, or as mere filters and editors of the news. Sometimes they are the news, and when they are they should never be beyond inquiry. This is happening with the BBC now as it has with other outlets and will again in the course of the Leveson inquiry. But whilst they are all too happy to put the boot into the Beeb now, will the Beeb repay them in kind when the report is published? No. It is simply above that level. And rightly so.