Déjà vu, all over again

/
 


A high-profile TV presenter. Allegations of inappropriate behaviour. A broadcast network reporting on itself.

Gosh this all felt familiar…

(… I mean, the Philip Schofield story was only seven weeks ago, and now fresh drama over the road at the BBC!)

Today, newsreader Huw Edwards was revealed as the BBC presenter who’d been accused of paying a young person thousands of pounds for sexually explicit pictures.

That news was confirmed by his wife Vicky Flind who said Edwards “was first told that there were allegations being made against him last Thursday” and that ”once well enough to do so, he intends to respond to the stories that have been published”.

Flind said Edwards was suffering from serious mental health issues and that he is receiving “in-patient hospital care where he’ll stay for the foreseeable future”.

This is a story which will run and run. There is clearly still so much to learn, and because it involves the BBC and therefore taxpayer money, the levels of outrage and interest are amplified.

But before anyone writes the next speculative article or caustic social media post, perhaps consider a few things:

  • HOW MUCH IS ACTUALLY KNOWN: The mother and step-father of a young person, from whom they are estranged, have made allegations. The young person themselves has said, through a lawyer, that there was no inappropriate behaviour and the allegations are “rubbish”. And really, that’s it. There is no crime, and two police forces have said they’re not pursuing any action.

  • ARE THE SOURCES TO BE TRUSTED: Well it’s hard to know because their identities are a mystery. There can be no scrutiny of anyone involved in the allegations, or their potential motivations, because everything has been done anonymously through the media. There can be a tendency to immediately believe all accusers, when in fact it should be to listen to them first, and then investigate their claims (and them) whilst always keeping credulity in check.

  • QUESTION THOSE REPORTING THE STORY: There are investigations, and there are take-downs… and the discerning reader will hopefully know the difference. In this case, The Sun published these allegations without ever showing any proof or evidence to its readers, and now says it won’t be publishing any more allegations and will in fact co-operate with the BBC’s internal investigation. Also, The Sun never disclosed that the alleged victim had already denied the accusations made by their parents, prior to publication. What is the newspaper’s motivation? Informing its readers, or taking aim at a high-profile person and their often-maligned employer whilst getting millions of clicks along the way.

  • UNDERSTAND THE PROCESSES INVOLVED: Both Edwards and the BBC’s Director-General Tim Davie have said they were only made aware of the allegations last week. Davie also said the corporation had to get right the “balance between privacy, duty of care, and a very serious allegation”. In other words, there is an internal employment process which has to play out, and it has to be fair to all sides. There should be no ‘judge-jury-and-executioner’ situation, either within the corporation or in the media.

The final and perhaps most important thing to remember are the people at the heart of all of this.

BBC veteran John Simpson summed it up in this tweet:


I’m reminded of a Broadcasting Standards Authority decision published last year, in the case of Short and Television New Zealand Ltd which related to the reporting of my departure from TVNZ.

It stated that “Overall, we have found the alleged harm to Santamaria’s privacy interests did not outweigh the public interest in the broadcast and does not justify restricting freedom of expression in this case”.

Such things are often said - that people in public-facing roles are essentially fair-game because of the “public interest”. But again, before piling on with the next comment or article, just imagine it was your own family being put under that kind of scrutiny and pressure, and having their private lives played out in the media.

I can assure you, it’s even worse than you can imagine.

Just as the full story of Huw Edwards, the complainants, and the BBC is unknown, so too is what all the people affected are truly going through.

Sadly, John Simpson’s hope that the press will leave them all alone now will almost certainly be in vain.

There’ll be photographers and journalists outside the hospital where Edwards is being treated, and at his family home… just as there’ll be attempts to identify the accusers and those close to them… and all for what?

Just another little scrap of ‘content’ to keep the story going, and to prolong the pain for all involved.