Did I Miss Something On The Bbc. Dg Resigns But What Did They Do Wrong?

[Norman Verona]

As far as I can see Newsnight reported on the accusations made by a chap who claimed he was abused by a Tory MP during the 70's.

They did not name the MP (Lord actually), and the story had been reported before the programmes was aired as I was aware of it before last Friday. Yes, they should have checked the story out, yes,they should have stated that this was the claim of someone in the home at the time and it hadn't been verified.

Now the DG has resigned over this and the Savile non-broadcast.

Maybe he should have resigned as he didn't seem to have much control of his troops but I'm a bit baffled by the fuss made over the programme.

My concern is that some MPs would love to see the BBC closed down. Why do we always injure the things we have which are the envy of the world?

[SootySport]

Lord McAlpine it was. The funny thing is, the original accuser has now said he made a mistake, it wasn't Lord McAlpine, what a ******! Meanwhile Lord McA' is now mobilising his lawyers to sue the accuser for deformation of character, can't see him getting anywhere with that.

[jeff oakley]

He was in charge and he has become the first casualty in this whole sorry affair. The BBC went after the newspapers over the hacking stories and MP's on expense claims. This is their opportunity to get back at them.

I have to say for a man with the job he had, the stature seemed wrong. The BBC needs a leader who is not control by the PC brigade, he is not one of those men.

[Norman Verona]

Agree with that, he was far too glib and spouting corporate PC glibness

But I can't see that the BBC made that big a mistake, it's been blown out of all proportion, unless I'm missing something.

[Blatman]

The recently departed DG has only been in the job 2 months. I suspect all he has seen is the fallout from the Savile storm.

I suspect he had had enough of that as it was always going to be a no win situation. This was a big enough secondary issue to get him to call time. In his shoes, I'd probably do the same as his entire tenure would have undoubtedly been overshadowed by the Savile issue, and no matter what the outcome, he was inevitably going to be damned by some, praised by others. It's a no win situation. The incoming DG is going to need broad shoulders.

I think Norms point about the item being broadcast before checking highlights the issue. Journalists are supposed to verify their story's as best they can to avoid such mistakes as well as offer the other party a right of reply. Sure, journalists can and often are lied to, which is why careful verification and the right to reply is crucially important. This wasn't an honest mistake, it was a careless one...

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

You only need to hear the Humphrys interview to know why he had to go. For once, the Humphrys abrasive and, frankly rude, interview technique was justified. Entwhistle had no idea what his duties as Editor in Chief involved. He had not heard the puff for the Newnight 'relevation' despite the entire remaining population have done so and yet it was his job to be aware of 'bombshell' programmes such as this. As I understand it, not only was the alleged abuser not only not McAlpine, but he might not have even been a politician. At least one report said that the police at the time showed the victim the wrong photograph! Also, it should be remembered, that a lad being abused isn't going to have the most reliable memory of the time because of the emotional stress of the event, and what young person, girl or boy, would even recognise a front bench MP in a photograph, let alone a more obscure member of an administration? The whole thing was dangler-up predicated upon surmise and assumption. Newsnight were too concerned with ratings and sensation, and unconcerned about accuracy.

[hilux]

The BBC needs a leader who is not control by the PC brigade

Agree entirely.

The BBC is noticeably biased these days yet prides itself on its historical lack of bias which is why it is so respected around the world.

Its programming and news used to be completely factual. If it wasnt it was not broadcast. It seems they are allowing editors to tread the `sensational story' road that the tabloids love so much (either that or the checks and balance systems are failing)

I fear the PC culture is now endemic within it (and the governing classes generally)

[GreigM]

I think he had to go and is right to resign. He was "editor-in-chief" and admitted he didn't query the content or even watch the show, in fact had very little knowledge of the show altogether. Remembering this was a show which was attempting to "out" a very senior politician in what is currently the biggest news story of the day, not an episode of teletubbies. If he's overseeing any content this should have been at the top of the list at the time.

Ultimately it was his responsibility to ensure the correct questions had been asked regarding the validity of this content and the reliability of the source on what was an extremely important/dangerous topic and he very obviously didn't.

[s2rrr]

Sounds to me that all this fuss over someone who wasn't really up to speed with the job yet and had been actively targeted by the independant TV and others was going to go at some time. It seems that everyone has been having a pop at the beeb sometimes justified, sometimes not and I suspect a little of the anarchic types just love these weakened times. My view is that they shouldn't have transmitted anything until it was 100% fact, problem is that the victim named the Lord and then pulled his accusation, he apologised and damage enhanced. Jimmy Saville was Mr BBC but someone somewhere knew what was going on. To waste almost all of this mornings TV coverage is not particularly good considering the importance of the day. The beeb is an institution we should be proud of and mostly are but I guess it was all summed up on Andrew Marr when it was stated that the previous lower level cuts had left amateurs doing a mans job (my words) which is pretty common in all walks of life. Retire the knowledge and replace with juniors who haven't learned the trade. I guess though if Jeremy Paxman supports you, you must have some clout but never heard what his comments where.

Bit of a dangler up all around and knee jerk reactions are just what the enemies of the beeb want, then let the inmates take over the asylum.

Have we forgotten so soon the Olympic coverage, the many class programmes made by our corporation. The heavily top end establishment needs a cull but horses for courses. Get the right people in not just your mates, sadly happening all over the country and need stopping. Possibly a result iof the sheer lack of trained people in the jobs/skills gap which took place over the last 20 years. Politician and banker led. See the new Lord Mayor is a banker.

A few off the wall comments after watching the news and the BBC for a couple of hours today. Time to do a spanner check on my suspension after the remembrance bit.

Bob (keep smiling, some say it could get worse - and it did)

[Norman Verona]

Bear in mind that before his appointment as DG he was the News Editor (or some such title) and was in charge of Newsnight when the Savile expose was pulled last year.

I can't remember the exact name but someone on the BBC news channel (maybe Torin Douglas) said he was know as "Uninterested George". If this is the case, and he is known amomngst his colleagues as "uninterested" then they will get into the habit of not informing him of things they should.

Let's hope the trustees can choose the right man to get our ship back on course.

As far as bias is concerned I note with interest that one week it's the Tories crying bias and the next it's Labour. Balance?

[jeff oakley]

The BBC is typical of a goverment department. Over staffed at the top and driven by PC politics on every subject. They run by committe not as they should be, if you know anyone who works for the BBC at any level they will tell you what is wrong with their bit of it. We have had agisum, sexsisum recently and now allegedly a kidde fiddler ring running there for years.

The BBC as Greg said used to stand for something, I am not sure what that is now. They seem to pay to whack for someone like Jonathon Ross, why? As they are funded by us does it matter if X factor beats Strictly, or Eastenders beat Corries. It should not but clearly it does now hence we have even the Archers running storylines that would not happen in the country.

Unless they now set on someone from outside, who is not afraid to take on the established ways it will not change.

[Norman Verona]

Jeff, surely the problem isn't that they chase rating to increase the income but they try and provide programming to entertain the masses as it's the masses that pay for it.

I'd love all BBC programmes to be like Radio 3 and 4 but not many would tune in, would they?

As an aside can you imagine any other broadcaster where the anchor man on a daily news and current affairs programme lays into his ultimate boss on air. Humphries did such a thing yesterday on Today.

I can just see the newsreader on Sky doing that to Murdoch.

ed to add that I agree with you that they need some strong, non PC men at the top to keep standards high. I really do hope these fiasco's improve my Auntie.

[Fat Albert]

Yes Norman, you have missed a great deal. The BBC is a publicly funded (£5bn annually) organisation run by non elected, appointed mandarins who consider themselves above the law. They have recently argued to the Information Commissioner that the BBC is a 'private body' and therefore not subject to Freedom of Information legislation, as such the corporation is now politicised, it's very principles have been hijacked by activists with an agenda to change society.

BBC allowed to keep it's dirty little secret

A remarkable legal drama has been unfolding recently in London’s Camden Town, pitting a lone pensioner from Wales against all the might of the BBC, represented by an array of highly-paid lawyers. It has been a battle fought to determine the BBC’s right, under the Freedom of Information Act, to keep secret how it arrived at a major policy decision which, for six years, has allowed it to operate in breach of its legal obligations under its Charter.

The BBC Trust does not hide the fact that a “high-level seminar” in 2006, attended by “expert scientists”, led to the decision that the BBC should take a highly proactive line in pushing alarm over global warming, while ignoring or ridiculing anyone who dares question it. This was done in full knowledge that it ran counter to the BBC’s Charter commitment that its coverage of controversial issues must be impartial.

Another BBC scandal: hiding their climate change agenda

While the BBC struggles to deal with its recent bout of self-proclaimed ‘shoddy journalism’, there’s another ethical scandal simmering away. The simple question of ‘who decides how the BBC covers climate change’ has a rather complicated answer.

...

Curious environmental blogger Tony Newbery filed a Freedom of Information request to the Beeb to find out if these accusations were true by asking who were the 28 participants at this seminar. The BBC refused to release the information, citing the seminar was a journalistic endeavour and afforded the protection of sources by law.

...

Newbery disagreed and took on the corporation in an information tribunal.

...

The organisation went to some extreme efforts to protect the identity of the attendees. From the court session, the Register reports that the BBC was represented at the tribunal by six lawyers, including a cross-examination of Helen Boaden, Auntie’s Head of News who is also tied up in the Jimmy Simmy/Newsnight saga.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. At a time when one of Britain’s great institutions is under huge pressure to appear transparent and open to public scrutiny, trying to cover up their decision making is the wrong approach. Whether you agree with the BBC’s coverage or not, it is a tax-funded organisation with strict orders to be balanced. If it has decided against balance, on one of the biggest questions, the public have a right to know why. If the BBC is to acquire a new broom, this is one area of the corporation that deserves a good sweep.

The BBC is corrupt (ok not all, just most of the management classes), it doesn't matter whether the conspiracy is about keeping the public in the dark about the criminal behaviour of a Beeb 'favourite' or hiding the names of those who conspired to break Reith's golden rule of impartiality, some, nay many, Beeb employees think they are better than us and have the right to spend our money without being accountable.

[bhouse]

And let us not forget, George Entwistle is merely an anagram for "we see no G Glitter". If he'd kept his eyes open rather than "not seeing it as my place to micro-manage" then the BBC would be a better institution.

[Norman Verona]

FA, that may well be the case.

However in this case (Tory Lord) they published a chap who claimed he had been abused by a Tory Lord. The did not name the Lord. On one hand everyone was up in arms about abused children not being listened to and then everyone is up in arms because the BBC broadcasts an abused childs story (Now an adult)

So, do we want them to not broadcast stories of public interest in case the social networking sites start a campaign?