on media


When scandal hits one of the BBC’s own


Sun shone harsh light on the Edwards story, says Raymond Snoddy At the heart of any examination of


A


newsagent in the native Wales of suspended BBC News presenter Huw Edwards has announced that it was


no longer selling The Sun. The internet has been awash with


vitriol aimed at the popular daily amid calls for a boycott of the tabloid following the sad story of Edwards’ online involvement with pictures of a young man. The story, the arguments went, was a monstrous invasion of the privacy of the man who solemnly announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II and who then covered her funeral and the subsequent coronation of King Charles III with dignity. It was a typical example of Rupert


Murdoch’s gutter journalism and part of the plot by Murdoch to undermine the BBC by exposing one of its most respected figureheads. There is absolutely no doubt that


Murdoch hates the BBC and its universal licence fee and public service commitment, and would like to see it either broken up or forced to turn to voluntary subscription financing. Even now, when Murdoch no longer


owns Sky, the extensive free-at-the- point-of-use BBC website limits his ability to charge for online news. There is also no question that, over


the years, The Sun has been responsible for some truly squalid stories such as the vilification of Liverpool football fans over the Hillsborough disaster. The problem is the Edwards story is not one of the above. It is a great scoop and a story that deserved to be told, even though some of the details are still in dispute and the police have determined that no criminal offence has been committed.


The Sun’s journalism is the fact that the paper was approached by the mother and stepfather of the young man because they were concerned their son’s involvement with the television personality enabled him to finance a drug problem. They came to The Sun weeks after


they had first approached the BBC on the issue and either no action was taken or, at the very least, no effective action. They did not ask the Sun for money so ‘cheque-book journalism’ was not an issue. The controversy did became more


murky when the young man issued a statement through his lawyers denouncing the Sun story as ‘rubbish’ and claiming that nothing ‘inappropriate or illegal had taken place’. It is noticeable, however, that no


details were given on what, if anything, the parents had got wrong in their interview with the Sun.


Because the police are no longer


involved, the BBC inquiry has had to deal on its own with a raft of complex issues, including the gulf between the accounts of the parents and their son. As BBC director general Tim Davie


has acknowledged, it could take a couple of months to untangle. Final judgements should await the publication of that inquiry but the questions – and even some of the answers – are already relativity clear, . It ought to be possible to find out


whether Edwards did pay £35,000 to the young man and whether indecent images were involved. It is already obvious that the BBC’s


complaints procedures have been exposed yet again – Davie only found out about the impending scandal little more than a day before the story broke.


“ ”


It is admirable that the BBC properly


covered the story. Yet it also probably went over the top on the scale of the coverage, which helped push into the shade more important stories – such as former prime minister Boris Johnson failing to hand over his mobile phone to the Covid inquiry. There are also the matters that came


to light after the Sun exposure; BBC staff were already investigating Edwards’ behaviour and three young colleagues said they had received ‘inappropriate’ messages from him. It has echoes of the power imbalance that ended Philip Schofield’s career at ITV. Is Edwards entitled to say what he does


in private is his own affair even though many would find his behaviour bizarre? Not when the gap between his public


persona and the reality of his life is so wide and when BBC News has to be backed by authority and integrity. Not when there are allegations that money from him fuelled a serious drug habit. And certainly not when young BBC staffers receive unwanted attention from a powerful colleague. Former Sky political editor Adam


Journalists hold the behaviour of other powerful public figures to account, whether illegal or unwise, so must be accountable themselves


Boulton says The Sun was right to bring the Edwards issue to public attention. Journalists hold the behaviour of other powerful public figures to account, whether illegal or merely unwise, to account so must be accountable themselves. In the end, there will be lessons to be learned for the BBC. For Edwards, it could come down to the clause in his contract against doing anything to bring the BBC into disrepute. After the inquiry, a quiet resignation


might be best for all concerned, giving Edwards time to rebuild his life and mental health. Whatever the outcome, it is unlikely he will present television news again.


theJournalist | 09


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28