BBC wanted to read the words &#x27;paedophile&#x27; and &#x27;Tory&#x27; in same headline...

Original post by InnerTemple

There should be no knee jerk reactions. Lord Patten has said that there should be some changes - mainly to the role of director general which is twinned with the role of editor in chief at the moment. There have been a few comments in the press that such an arrangement is unworkable and was bound to result in the failings we have seen recently.

I'd echo the words of John Ware: the BBC is a force for good and produces some very good output. As he highlights, some of their investigations have led to important breakthroughs, such as the prosecution and conviction of care home workers a few weeks back. It would be a shame to see this incident (which is a failing that many, especially the right wing press/politicians, have been hungry for) ruin what is very important British icon.

I don't want to see the BBC ruined, but I do think there should be more radical changes to the way it is organised than Lord Patten has suggested. I see the way it is funded is a particularly big problem. The license fee is the only politically accepted regressive tax. The BBC simply must adapt to meet the standards of twenty-first century media institutions, and it will not do that without radical reform. It's fine to point out good things which the BBC has achieved; but plenty of similar achievements have been made by corporate-run media outlets as well.

Reply 23

The Gentle Giant

The issue is that the BBC is inherently biased subconceiously. The people who apply to them tend to be financially secure middle class arts students with a strong sense of self sacrifice for the public good, which is why they do journalism rather than business. As a result of this selection bias, they then think that they are representative and impartial despite not being so, which is why the majority of their coverage is left wing. Even the occassional people who are trotted out as being conservatives in the past (Robinson and Paxman), were never really that conservative and have become more 'wet' in their old age as they try to appeal to more people.

I truly believe the BBC should be split up, the entertainment and factual aspects privatised and the news aspect limited to BBC news 24 with panorama, question time and the daily politics moved there. Perhaps if they only had one channel to worry about specifically focusing on the news then they could do the job a bit better...

Reply 24

OP

Original post by Jack93o

poor BBC, they get criticized for previously not running a story which was also based on little more than hearsay and victims' accounts, and now they're in trouble for doing the opposite

Didn't air a true child abuse story about one of their own.

Did air a false child abuse story about a 'friend of Thatcher'.

You have grossly oversimplified the two issues and distilled out important detail.

I can only assume you are a journalist...

Reply 25

The Mad Dog

3

Original post by Frube

The main thing they did wrong was to simply say "Leading Tory". This was slanderous and led to dozens of people being accused of paedophilia. Either say nothing at all or have the balls to accuse him.

To distract people from their failings with Saville they went frothing at the mouth to attack the Tories, the second they got a wiff of it.

Anyway, none of this takes away the fact its undemocratic the way the BBC is funded, Or its blatant bias. Time for it to go (become optional)

You do realise your licence fee money is also given to Channel 4, in a lesser amount.

Reply 26

Jack93o

15

Original post by marcusfox

Didn't air a true child abuse story about one of their own.

Did air a false child abuse story about a 'friend of Thatcher'.

You have grossly oversimplified the two issues and distilled out important detail.

I can only assume you are a journalist...

well thank god we have someone highly analytical like you to point out facts we don't know: BBC = anti-tory, that is totally new to me :eek:

Reply 27

Newerfield

Original post by marcusfox

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100188920/the-bbc-wanted-to-read-the-words-paedophile-and-tory-in-the-same-headline-but-things-didnt-go-to-plan/

Read more at that link for the full BBC DG interview...

Oh, and in completely unrelated news, it's not looking good for that other left-wing mouthpiece, the Guardian either.

A Guardian writer had to grovel for defaming Lord McAlpine on Twitter.

The hysteria over paedos in high places was started by Labour MP Tom Watson, who mouthed off in the safety of the Commons without producing any proof.

The greatest danger out of all of this is that the guilty go free and the innocent suffer purely because of political point scoring...

I may be naive, but what exactly have the BBC (post Jimmy Savile) and Tom Watson done wrong?

The BBC said they had obtained evidence that a high ranking tory official had been involved in something untoward. They, at no point, released the name of this individual, or identified them. That was other members of the press, and ITV - and ITV didn't even release the name of the person, noone on the internet, going off the ITV program, could make out anything that was written on the card. Have we gotten to the state in society now where allegations with regards to someone with a political affiliation can't be made? Libel laws aren't enough, we now have to stop people from mentioning, indiscriminately, that a crime may have been committed by someone?

And Tom Watson? He was just trying to bring the concerns of a member of his constituency. Have any of your actually read his blog? (http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/) He still maintains that there is strong evidence of some kind of paedophile ring that needs to be investigated.

Also, a lot of you are saying that this Messham is a sinister individual. The judge that presided over the original investigation said that there was clear evidence that he had sustained significant abuse throughout his childhood. Have you no sympathy for that at all?

What about the allegation that when Messham was being interviewed by the police over his abuse, during the time of the original investigation, he was shown a picture, identified a person, and was told it was 'McAlpine' by an assisting police officer? What about the fact that there is an allegation that the picture was of one of Lord McAlpine's relatives? And, if this is the case, why was that relative investigated?

Reply 28

InnerTemple

Original post by Newerfield

I may be naive, but what exactly have the BBC (post Jimmy Savile) and Tom Watson done wrong?

I am a massive fan of the BBC. However, even with this in mind, I do think that they have made a massive mistake.

What you say is correct: Newsnight had information which they made a program about. The problem is, the information they had was flawed and it seems as if no, or insufficient efforts were made to check the information. It was also clear that the name of the individual would be leaked - people would find out should their curiosity be triggered, which this show would do.

With all that in mind, one would have thought that this show would be looked at before it went out. One would have thought that had it been looked at, the person looking at it would ask questions like: "is this true?" "is the evidence reliable?"

It is unclear what, if any, questions were asked. However it is clear that the DG had no idea what was going on. He is the editor in chief - he has responsibility for these things. It is unreasonable to expect him to give the green light to every program that goes out. However this one was so volatile that he ought to have had some input. He, however, claimed that he was not even aware of the allegations until after the program aired. This may be true, but it shows total lack of awareness on his behalf: I knew about the allegations before the program went out... there was even a TSR thread on it.

As a result of these failings, a program went out which accused someone of a serious crime. It was clear that the person would be identified. It was totally unacceptable.

Reply 29

OP

Original post by Newerfield

I may be naive, but what exactly have the BBC (post Jimmy Savile) and Tom Watson done wrong?

Well, the BBC wanted to bury a story about one of their own, but they couldn't wait to get their claws into the Tories.

Because he was "Tory" they thought that he was fair game. They'd never have gone for one of their own - open or closet Socialist, alive or dead - in such a way as they'd have made sure that any doubts there were about such a person would never have seen the light of day.

Original post by Newerfield

The BBC said they had obtained evidence that a high ranking tory official had been involved in something untoward. They, at no point, released the name of this individual, or identified them. That was other members of the press, and ITV - and ITV didn't even release the name of the person, noone on the internet, going off the ITV program, could make out anything that was written on the card. Have we gotten to the state in society now where allegations with regards to someone with a political affiliation can't be made? Libel laws aren't enough, we now have to stop people from mentioning, indiscriminately, that a crime may have been committed by someone?

It was blatantly obvious to anyone who had been following the case that the person they were referring to was McAlpine, his name was spread all over the internet.

There was sufficient information to make it clear.

It's funny how many grovelling apologies are being made (ITV This Morning, The Guardian's George Monbiot, Steve Messham) since McAlpine emphasised the "seriously defamatory" (ie actionable) aspect of the allegations in his rebuttal statement.

Original post by Newerfield

And Tom Watson? He was just trying to bring the concerns of a member of his constituency. Have any of your actually read his blog? (http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/) He still maintains that there is strong evidence of some kind of paedophile ring that needs to be investigated.

I don't doubt that the Labour MP Tom Watson was wholly sincere when he stood up at Prime Minister's Questions on 24 October and claimed to be in possession of "clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10". The issue he raised was a specific and important one, even if the evidence he adduced was somewhat tenuous. He referred to the presence, in an old police evidence file, of a claim by an alleged member of a "widespread paedophile ring" that he had "links to a senior aide of a former prime minister." In a nation already knocked sideways by the revelations about Jimmy Savile, even the hint of such a network was explosive, as Watson must have known it would be. It was inevitable that there would be fevered speculation, much of it online, as to the identity of the alleged Tory paedophile: speculation that Watson did nothing to discourage when he made clear on his blog that the man concerned was not the late Peter Morrison, as many had guessed, and implied that the guilty man was still alive.

Original post by Newerfield

Also, a lot of you are saying that this Messham is a sinister individual. The judge that presided over the original investigation said that there was clear evidence that he had sustained significant abuse throughout his childhood. Have you no sympathy for that at all?

There is a difference between listening sympathetically to the stories of people who say that they have been abused and uncritically believing every assertion that is made.

The media always seek sensation and the loudest voices are usually the most incautious.

You will no doubt now be aware of the 1994 inquiry where Messham claimed he was abused by a senior police officer and many inconsistencies were found in his version of events in that case?

Original post by Newerfield

What about the allegation that when Messham was being interviewed by the police over his abuse, during the time of the original investigation, he was shown a picture, identified a person, and was told it was 'McAlpine' by an assisting police officer? What about the fact that there is an allegation that the picture was of one of Lord McAlpine's relatives? And, if this is the case, why was that relative investigated?

Is it standard procedure to tell an alleged victim the name of his alleged attacker when showing him photos for ID purposes?

Just ask yourself, when actually do the police tell a victim the name of the alleged perp in any case?

Supposing your house was burgled and the police came round later and said 'we caught him, he's Fred Bloggs down on the council estate', and you get your mates to go round to Bloggs' house and give him what for? Well, it's just not going to happen, is it?

(My apologies to all genuine Fred Bloggs out there.)

I made the point earlier in another thread. The guy who "accused" him reckons he was shown a picture of a man 20 years ago and wrongly told that it was McAlpine.

I find it a little hard to believe that in the 20 years since, the "victim" hasn't ever Googled a picture or watched TV footage of McAlpine to have realised the error before today.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 30

jacketpotato

ITT: right-wingers with fake exaggurated outrage. The private media make outrageous accusations about politicians and celebrities all the time but noone bats an eyelid.

Original post by The Mad Dog

So Newsnight get's criticised for dropping a Savile investigation because it had insufficient evidence to broadcast the claims but when it broadcasts as much of an investigation as it can on the word of a victim, without naming names, is criticised.

Exactly this. The BBC are in an impossible situation. When a serious allegation is made noone knows whether it is true for some time. If you report it you might ruin an innocent person's life but if you don't you might face public outrage. I would not want to make that decision.

Reply 31

OP

Original post by jacketpotato

ITT: right-wingers with fake exaggurated outrage. The private media make outrageous accusations about politicians and celebrities all the time but noone bats an eyelid.

I think it's very rare that they accuse them of outrageous criminal offences.

Original post by jacketpotato

Exactly this. The BBC are in an impossible situation. When a serious allegation is made noone knows whether it is true for some time. If you report it you might ruin an innocent person's life but if you don't you might face public outrage. I would not want to make that decision.

Nonsense. You face public outrage when a true child abuse story with plenty of hard evidence emerges about one of your own, but gets canned. People will justifiably wonder if you have an ulterior motive - burying bad news.

When you air a false child abuse story about someone with only tenuous evidence, you probably end up getting sued, especially as it was known before the broadcast that it was probably false. Again, your motives will be questioned, especially if you are perceived as being left wing and the alleged molester is a friend of Thatcher, and if you don't have a good answer, you're left without a chair when the music stops.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 32

jacketpotato

Original post by marcusfox

I think it's very rare that they accuse them of outrageous criminal offences.

Some of the accusations are very serious and completely without foundation. Daily Mail accused Nicolas Cage of stalking, DM published a false story about the suicide of Matt Lucas' partner and DM wrongfully accused a peaceful protestor of leading the violent protests at the Tory headquarters last year. That's just the Mail, I'm sure there are lots of other examples.

Nonsense. You face public outrage when a true child abuse story with plenty of hard evidence emerges about one of your own, but gets canned. People will justifiably wonder if you have an ulterior motive - burying bad news.

When you air a false child abuse story about someone with only tenuous evidence, you probably end up getting sued, especially as it was known before the broadcast that it was probably false. Again, your motives will be questioned, especially if you are perceived as being left wing and the alleged molester is a friend of Thatcher, and if you don't have a good answer, you're left without a chair when the music stops.

As I understand it, there was no hard evidence for the Saville story when the decision was made not to publish. There is evidence now but that is only because witnesses came forward after they saw the story being reported. I struggle to see the difference between an unsubstantiated accusation made at PMQs and unsubstantiated witness testimony alleging abuse by Saville. I can see your point but its a really difficult line to draw.

Personally I think these stories should not be published at all until there is really strong evidence, but you can argue it either way. I think people who are outraged at both the Saville decision and the Tory molestor decision are hypocritical.

Reply 33

OP

Original post by jacketpotato

Some of the accusations are very serious and completely without foundation. Daily Mail accused Nicolas Cage of stalking, DM published a false story about the suicide of Matt Lucas' partner and DM wrongfully accused a peaceful protestor of leading the violent protests at the Tory headquarters last year. That's just the Mail, I'm sure there are lots of other examples.

And those people are free to sue those papers for those unfounded accusations.

Original post by jacketpotato

As I understand it, there was no hard evidence for the Saville story when the decision was made not to publish. There is evidence now but that is only because witnesses came forward after they saw the story being reported. I struggle to see the difference between an unsubstantiated accusation made at PMQs and unsubstantiated witness testimony alleging abuse by Saville. I can see your point but its a really difficult line to draw.

Personally I think these stories should not be published at all until there is really strong evidence, but you can argue it either way. I think people who are outraged at both the Saville decision and the Tory molestor decision are hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical at all.

Firstly, anyone is free to say what they like about Savile because he is dead, and therefore having been given several different witness accounts they should have gone ahead and broadcast the allegations which might then have led to other victims coming forward.

However Lord McAlpine is very much alive and they should not have broadcast defamatory allegations without taking all appropriate precautions to ensure that the allegations were objectively accurate. Taking a proper statement from the victim Mr Messham would have been a great help, and would have revealed that he believed his abuser was dead, not alive, and did not recognise him from the photo of Lord McAlpine.

If they had bothered to do a proper investigation into the McAlpine matter and had read the Waterhouse Inquiry report, they would have realised that their informant Mr Messham had previously given a muddled and sometimes inaccurate account of who had abused him and when.

They would have realised that in the absence of any corroborating testimony from someone else, it would not be safe to broadcast the allegations based on one single solitary 'witness' account and to assume that somehow the law of libel has been changed and that we now believe every account of abuse without taking the trouble to check the account.

In fact, the BBC has not only defamed Lord McAlpine, it has also damaged Mr Messham's reputation. He probably has been abused during his childhood, and is evidently confused about the identity of some of his attackers. This shambles of an investigation and its aftermath has left many people with the impression that Mr Messham is a liar and that nothing he has said can be believed.

It's absolutely not credible at all that Messham had never seen what the *real* McAlpine looked like from when he was shown the picture 20 years ago, until last week. If I read it correctly, he'd already falsely accused one person of abusing him, had been deemed "unreliable" at one inquiry and even his own lawyers think he's a lying fantasist.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 34

meenu89

19

Original post by marcusfox

If they had bothered to do a proper investigation into the McAlpine matter and had read the Waterhouse Inquiry report, they would have realised that their informant Mr Messham had previously given a muddled and sometimes inaccurate account of who had abused him and when.

I heard about this today from an media expert on the radio and I really couldn't believe it. Poor old Lord McAlpine, all reports say that he isn't in the best of health these days and I just think the shock of this could be all too much for him to take.

Reply 35

OP

Original post by meenu89

I heard about this today from an media expert on the radio and I really couldn't believe it. Poor old Lord McAlpine, all reports say that he isn't in the best of health these days and I just think the shock of this could be all too much for him to take.

Messham reckons the Police told him the man he'd identified in a photo (of his alleged abuser) was McAlpine and that he didn't know it wasn't, until 20 years later.

You'd think he might have wondered at some point, "If I've positively identified Lord McAlpine, why haven't they arrested him?"

Reply 36

WelshBluebird

Fed up of this hypocrisy. As someone else said in this thread, people have whinged about the BBC axing a news night show that was based basically on victim testimony. And now they are being criticized for broadcasting a show based on victim testimony. What exactly are they supposed to do? They cannot win.

Reply 37

OP

Original post by WelshBluebird

Fed up of this hypocrisy. As someone else said in this thread, people have whinged about the BBC axing a news night show that was based basically on victim testimony. And now they are being criticized for broadcasting a show based on victim testimony. What exactly are they supposed to do? They cannot win.

Already covered this a couple of posts above...

The BBC just have to go and drop the sort of [testicle] the tabloid press has never even come close to.

Just imagine the fuss had it not been the BBC but the Murdoch press that was falsely naming a famous political figure as a child abuser.

Quite obviously the ~~left wing~~ Guardian lot (who are in full-on apologist mode for the BBC at the moment) would be screaming for blood.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 38

InnerTemple

Original post by marcusfox

The BBC just have to go and drop the sort of [testicle] the tabloid press has never even come close to.

Just imagine the fuss had it not been the BBC but the Murdoch press that was falsely naming a child abuser.

Hmm, the tabloid press are hardly squeaky clean, even if we ignore the fact that News International have spent a lot of their time hacking people's phones while the various high ups in the organisation have been getting into bed with whoever happens to be running the country.

You just have to look at the handling of the Yates murder. This led to two newspapers being found guilty of contempt of court after they (and other papers) had embarked upon the character assassination of an innocent man.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 39

OP