Savile latest: paedophilic cover-up at the BBC and the discrediting of 'Newsnight'

The disgust of many regarding the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal is difficult to quantify. Some see our anger about Savile's sick conduct a matter of great hysteria, and a mindless assault on the BBC. Others believe that we would be making a greater fuss if Savile's behaviour had been facilitated within a Murdoch institution, such as Sky TV. I believe this effectively means the public have been fair and balanced in their response to the scandal. We believe that the BBC must be held to account, while appreciating who the main perpetrator was.

Allow me to deal with the Murdoch point first. I am a big critic of the BBC. The reason for this is I believe it was a great institution, but at present it is doing itself a huge injustice, not just by the way in which it is failing to report important events (such as the government assaults on the NHS), but because of the shambolic handling of the Savile scandal. Despite my affection for the BBC, there is no question the physical abuse that occurred within the boundaries of the broadcaster is far more appalling than the phone-hacking at the News of the World. The phone-hacking, let us not forget, was itself serious enough for Murdoch to close the newspaper.

Savile (right) with friend, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Source: (The Sunday Times)

When the phone-hacking scandal came to light, I was one of those who made a case for breaking up Murdoch's stranglehold on the British media. It would be hypocritical for me not to insist upon the same with the BBC. It is a massive institution, which as with Murdochsville was (and possibly still is) also a fertile environment for wrongdoing. This must take two parts - the abolition of the licence fee and a splitting up of BBC operations.

First of all, the licence fee needs to be abolished, and quickly. The funding model for the BBC is archaic. Every household in the country with a television set (almost everyone) pays a tax, not to watch BBC programming, but to merely be able to use the set in their household. A great chunk of the licence fee then goes on funding the behemoth. This includes paying the likes of Jeremy Clarkson to spread their political messages overtly through light-entertainment programming in a manner that makes an absolute mockery of the BBC's veneer of impartiality. Every television owner has to pay the licence fee tax, whether their home is a mansion or a flat. It is grossly unfair. I have spent the past decade or so trying to make my fellow members of the left see this.

The template for a modern BBC is that of Channel 4. They are largely funded by advertising, but still maintain an independence, resulting in brilliant documentary programming such as Dispatches, and the most balanced news programme on British television. It can be done.

Secondly, and most crucially, the BBC needs to be broken up into sections covering radio, TV and local output. Anyone who has read The Corporation by Joel Bakan will realise that the bigger corporations are, the more susceptible they are to pathological and downright criminal behaviour, that would lead to imprisonment if carried out by individuals. Bakan largely wrote about private enterprises, but his argument can be applied to the BBC - itself a huge corporation, which is clearly a breeding ground for pathological behaviour and secrecy.

I still find it difficult to comprehend how an institution is large and sophisticated as the BBC was able to create such a huge monster in Jimmy Savile, and keep it active for 40 years. In the meantime, Savile was a prolific abuser, who raped children at every possible opportunity. Other BBC staff chose not to say anything despite admitting they knew (or had strong suspicions) about Savile's individual pathologies because he had amassed a lot of power. This Savile case is a warning to broadcasters, who still to this day over-inflate the importance of their highest-profile stars by giving them as many presenting gigs as they will accept. We know who they are. They are the ones who always seem to be on the television, no matter what time you switch it on. They reach a point where they are untouchable.

However, excuses about 'untouchable' presenters do not wash. The "I was a new member of staff" excuse is symptomatic of this. Does the novice member excuse remain relevant long after those using it cease to be newcomers? Fair enough if in 1971 a newcomer felt unable to report Savile's paedophilia - but what about 1981 and 1991? Another cop-out is the old "things were different in the 1970s" excuse. Savile was someone who seeked out physically and psychologically vulnerable children to attack. That is not a bit of 1970s experimentalism; that is abuse.

The most sickening aspect of all is the secrecy and cover-ups continued to the present day. The BBC's once-flagship, but now discredited, current affairs programme Newsnight will never be the same after the stigma associated with the apparent decision by the programme's editor, Peter Rippon, to ditch an investigation into Savile scheduled for late last year. The researchers, Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean are convinced the decision was made because the BBC had some gushing tribute programmes to the paedophile already filmed. Despite none of the pressure faced by commercial broadcasters to pursue ratings, the decision was taken anyway, and the news story was suppressed for months, until it was picked up in an investigation by ITV.

At this point, I wish to explain selectivity bias. In research, to bias a project by choosing samples or examples which tell a preferred story at the expense of others is an unforgivable academic sin. In fair and balanced research, all narratives must be collected and accounted for. With issues such as the NHS, and now Jimmy Savile's perversions, Newsnight has shown to be lacking in this important academic test. Their biases are demonstrated - not by what is included in their programmes, but what is excluded. Never again would, or should, anyone trust Newsnight as a neutral and impartial news source. The best thing the BBC could probably do is develop a new news programme to take its place - one more up-to-date and respondent to emerging interactive technological trends.

The Jimmy Savile scandal has created a huge problem for the BBC, which will be faced with legal actions from Savile's victims, and rightly so. Other institutions trusted the paedophile because of the exposure he was given by the BBC. Children who thought they were safe on BBC premises were taken into dressing rooms and abused by dirty old men. This is not a problem that the BBC can now escape from, and having held their hands up and all but pleaded guilty to failing in its duty to the public (Panorama, BBC, 22/10/12), the BBC will need to take its punishment on the chin.

Murdoch crisis has exposed Cameron's unelectability and Tory dependence on his press

Whatever the outcome of the Leveson inquiry into media standards, and the many other investigations into the conduct of News Corporation, one thing for certain is the Tories will emerge with their reputations battered. Although David Cameron's asserts that all parties got too close to the Rupert Murdoch machine, there is no doubt the Tories are coming away with more muck on them than the others. It is hardly a surprise - they have showed themselves to be the party of the few and out of touch with the many.

The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.

Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.

The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.

Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.

Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.

Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.

Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.

Chiles and Bleakley lose Daybreak gig

After some rather poor ratings for ITV's Daybreak, the finger of blame has finally been directed towards the overexposed presenting duo of Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles. It has been reported in the press that they have fallen on their swords and will no longer present the breakfast programme.

Christine Bleakley, I know little about outside of her television work but seems harmless enough. Chiles, the slightly grumpy person who used to present Match of the Day 2, has shown more than a glimpse of character on his own Sunday evening television programme.

The problem was never the duo themselves, but a combination of pay and height of expectation from the pairing. ITV paid them a fortune to present Daybreak, off the back of their work on The One Show. The lesson to be learned is that before paying people a small fortune to present a programme, check whether the programme they presented before is genuinely popular or only watched because there is little else worth watching at the time!

Sir Cliff Richard songs banned by new 60s radio station

He has sang on pop records spanning six decades, but there is no place for Sir Cliff Richard on a new 1960s radio station being spawned by Absolute Radio.

Quoted in the Daily Mail, presenter Pete Mitchell said: ‘His songs don't fit the cool sound of the swinging sixties we're trying to create on our new station'. In other words, his songs do not fit the conceptualisation of what is 'cool' by Absolute Radio.

For those who are new to Absolute Radio, here is a brief introduction. It is the current name for the former Virgin Radio, launched in the 1990s as an at-the-time much needed radio station to address the adult-oriented rock (AOR) much-neglected elsewhere on the radio.

The station already has 1980s and 1990s versions on digital radio. I listen to both sometimes, and they are good. The 1990s version does at times resemble a bad 1990s Britpop mixtape, with the inevitable top guns Blur, Oasis and Pulp, but also plays the work of many other acts caught up in the wave, some of which were awful.

All things considered, Sir Cliff is not typical of what Absolute will be playing to their target audience (expect lots of Beatles and Kinks). And I see no reason why such a big deal has been made out of the fact he will be among a number of singers who will not be finding their way on Absolute. So why make a big deal about it? The station launches on November 22nd. I will leave it at that.

Phone-hacking review - July 2011

The phone-hacking scandal continues to keep us amused and entertained while most of us should have been doing something better with our time. Rather than cover the details, here is a slice which covers the most important developments. To put it another way, a bluffer's guide with a little detail included.

1. The scandal has actually been going on for years, but most of the British public - understandably - had a 'tough shit' attitude to it when it was celebrities and politicians having their voicemails hacked by investigative journalists working for newspapers. In other words, it was a scandal, but one only media-types cared about.

2. The 'smoking gun' which turned phone-hacking from a scandal to a storm nobody could put out was the news that murdered teenager Milly Dowler's phone was hacked, while she was still missing. By nightfall my anger had turned to a feeling of non-surprise about the inevitability of it all. The silver lining in this awfully dark cloud is that Rupert Murdoch's empire and its power over the regulatory powers of British government would finally come under scrutiny.

3. The scandal led to typically British gallows humour. Yes, we realise Mystic Meg saw none of this coming, including the closure of the News of the World - so far the greatest day in British publishing history. Hopefully those talented and honest writers out of work will be promptly snapped up by other newspapers.

4. The death of the News of the World has already led to one frightening prospect. Rumours abound our friends at the Daily Mail plan to create a downmarket Sunday tabloid to fill the void created by the News of the World.

5. An early highlight of the scandal was Rupert Murdoch being chased by reporters. Welcome to the world of your papers' victims, Rupert.

6. Another highlight was the archive footage of former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, embracing Rebekah Brooks. Meanwhile a randomer was flapping her arms around like a seal attempting to prevent any filming. The right-wing were all in this one together (read Blair's autobiography and judge for yourself how 'lefty' he was in government).

7. The usuals have been making interesting and valid observations. George Monbiot predicted something along the lines of when the dust settles, we would be just as disillusioned with the role of the Metropolitan Police in their failures regarding dealing with the phone-hacking.

8. The usuals have been embarrassing themselves too. Mel Phillips claimed on her Twitter the campaign against Murdoch was that of anti-Semitism. This is despite the fact I always assumed Murdoch's religion was the mighty Dollar. Let us not forget a dead girl's phone had been hacked. Let us consider that people were concerned about Murdoch's discourse-shaping powers, courtesy of his press and media holdings. Or let us not - it turns out we are just prejudiced and full of hate.

9. Those involved in the Times and ex-News of the World have been saying silly things throughout. David Wooding stated 'never has so many jobs been affected by so few'. Miners' strike, anyone?

10. But prize for grand idiocy goes to Roger Alton. As Executive Editor of The Times, he brought his newspaper into disrepute with his diatribe against the website Mumsnet, describing users of it as fair trade tea drinkers and organic shortbread eaters. As someone against the News of the World's actions myself, I can confirm I do not eat organic shortbread, nor am I female.

11. Many jobs have fallen as a result of the phone-hacking scandal. Rebekah Brooks fell on her sword. High-ranking members of Plod have also accepted their P45s for employing ex-News of the World executives as press officers. Naturally, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, believes the idea of his resignation for the same offence is ridiculous.

12. Thankfully, after all the recent madness, the phone-hacking scandal has now calmed down, which means we will be hearing less of the excellent Tom Watson who has campaigned throughout this scandal. Except.......

13. Yesterday it emerged that Sara Payne, the mother of murdered Sarah Payne, may have had her phone hacked by News of the World. Considering the rag made the campaign for Sarah's Law the centre of their moral universe, it is fitting Tom Watson has described the possibility of Sara's phone being hacked as 'the ultimate betrayal'. We wont be hearing less of Tom after all.

14. So far then we have learned of the culture at the News of the World that was a disgrace. Those people the newspaper claimed to be friends of were betrayed by the rag they trusted. Every revelation that goes by must leave Rebekah Brooks feeling a little more sick; a little more disinclined to get out of bed in the morning.

This summary could not begin to collect up everything that has occurred during the phone-hacking scandal, least of all the interminable committees briefly made interesting by the actions of an attention-seeking idiot. However, there will be plenty more to come. No doubt there will be another update soon.

Phone hacking and our fickle tabloid friends

So now you know who your friends really are – and it is certainly not those at the British tabloid press.

They do not provide public service, though they might like to think they do. They do not act in the interests of the people, though they might say they do. They are there to make money by selling copies. They sell copies by digging out stories. They get stories by leaving their morals at the office door when they arrive for work.

The phone hacking activities revealed to have taken place at the News of the World were beyond contempt. Each revelation was worse than the one which preceded it. The newspaper, and around 200 careers associated with it, laid in ruins as owner Rupert Murdoch brutally closed down the beleaguered publication following a string of destructive headlines as the newspaper suddenly became the big story.

Phone hacking was always a scandal, even when the victims were ‘just’ politicians and celebrities. To learn that the phone of a dead Milly Dowler had also been hacked, as well as the phones of dead servicemen, is sickening. To cap it all off, we learn that the police were paid by News of the World journalists for information. As George Monbiot pointed out, when the dust settles, the police collusion will be equally as big a story as the hacked phones.

Make no mistake, the News of the World became more than a newspaper. It became a criminal network. Until the muddy waters clear, nobody knows who knew what, who is guilty, who is innocent, who will be charged, and who will be released. However, a law qualification is not required to realise the crimes listed above are serious enough to ensure someone is going to jail – and that someone will probably have more than just a few ex-colleagues for company.

The most depressing aspect of all this is the News of the World actually turned out to be the enemy of those it tried so hard to be a friend of. It was this newspaper that led aggressive naming and shaming campaigns of child molesters, often leading to its more uneducated readers to mistakenly attack the wrong targets. All the while, it campaigned on behalf of victims’ families.

I have no doubt the News of the World anti-predator campaigns had the best of intentions. But behind the scenes its investigators were violating the same families of those violated by the likes of Levi Bellfield and Ian Huntley. The newspaper, far from being the victims’ mate, added to the misery already heaped upon those families. It was the newspaper which promised so much, but could only deliver a pack of sordid lies.

Out of this darkness however may come light. The model of cosy relations between our party political leaders and the key people in the print media is now discredited. And while the allegations against the News of the World are strong and clearly with foundation when considering the defensive stance of its management, few people believe the News of the World was alone in unscrupulous practices. When considered as a whole, the days of a free press are over – and the loss of that freedom may not be a bad thing.

No longer should publications with such large circulations be allowed to tell people how to vote. This would bring it in line with broadcast media, where a plurality of views must be represented. This is the only way to cut the strong bond between politician and press. Headlines such as The Sun’s 1992 “lights out" if Kinnock wins must never happen again. A balanced democracy needs a balanced media with balanced levels of freedom as opposed to total freedom. Gone are the days when people can write whatever they like.

We must also take our share of the blame for legitimising the misdeeds of the press. We laughed, smirked and sneered when the complicated private life of a certain Ryan Giggs was released on websites, then in the House of Commons, then in the press – drip-by-drip. Will we ever know how all the incriminating evidence was collected? Given the events of the past week, it is not unreasonable to assume more than just a sprinkle of skullduggery.

Then there was the parliamentary expenses scandal. We applauded the ‘outstanding journalism’ which exposed Members of Parliament. We chose to overlook how the data came into the hands of journalists, because it was inconvenient to our collective sense of outrage at the time.

It is easy to full into the trap of thinking those who bring us the exclusives are our friends. They are not. They make money. They set the political agenda. They get Tories elected with the minimum of fuss. Now it is time for change.

Old

Probably the shortest title ever written on this website, earlier I was locked in discussion about old people, and what sort of prejudice they face. In a world where racism and sexism are long identified issues, the issue of ageism has come to the fore in recent times. How bad is it?

In the previous paragraph, I deliberately used the word 'old' and not elderly, as the world 'old' is seldom used politely. It is quite rare for the word 'old' to be used sensitively, for instance 'old dear', but regularly compounded with an insult. Here are a just a few examples of the lovely phrases associated with the word 'old':-

Old git
Old codger
Old bastard

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Still, it is good to see that ageism is not institutionalised in this country - unless you ignore the fact that unemployed over-50s find it incredibly difficult to find work (link). Despite the BBC Panorama episode investigating this problem, let us not take too many lessons from the corporation since the BBC has recently suffered the indignity of having its ageist practices shamefully exposed when former Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly won her employment tribunal against the corporation.

Maybe when I will migrate when I reach the big 5-0. At the very least I wont have to suffer any jibes.

More BBC cuts

An entertaining and highly amusing BBC special about Top of the Pops from the 1970s, screened earlier in the week, had me starting to think about cuts to the BBC again.

There needs to be no reminder this page constantly speaks out against the folly of excessive government cuts to the public sector based on ideological motivations. The BBC is quite different. Although it is a great British export, for example the World Service, the domestic product is a symbol of excess and waste.

BBC Three and Four are the worst examples of complete waste (yet the broadcaster wanted to take the knife to minority cultural interest radio stations such as the Asian Network and 6 Music) and I would get rid of both BBC Three and BBC Four. Some of the excellent programming that occasionally appears on BBC Four could easily be given airtime on BBC Two.

However, this week I have finally embraced repeats. After years of moaning about the things, I realised after watching the Top of the Pops repeat that they can be fun, special, nostalgic, and most importantly, cheap. The BBC must have a bulging archive (not including the material they have long lost) and it is time to put it to use.

Obviously the most interesting repeats would be those programmes unseen for a long time. Would we really want to see more repeats of Dad's Army? Do we really want to see repeats of programmes initially aired only months, weeks, or worse still, days before?

If done correctly, repeats would be interesting. How interesting would it be to watch old episodes of Tomorrow's World? It is time to stop paying excess money to provide vehicles for the same old faces and start reviving some of the quality material collecting dust in the archives.

Murdoch to take full control of Sky - what next?

So Rupert Murdoch got his way and was able to win approval by the government for News Corporation to take full control of BSkyB.

It left me feeling a little disorientated. In one respect, I was annoyed because I felt he had won - again. In another, had it not been for his travails, I would not have known that he did not have full control of the broadcaster. For some reason I always assumed BSkyB was his pride and joy anyway.

I certainly was not aware that his share was a mere 39 percent.

Assuming the takeover goes smoothly and Murdoch ends up in full control, the concern is regarding what will happen next. The sweetener that appears to have paved the way was Murdoch's agreement to only hold a maximum of 39 percent of Sky News and keeping it separate from the rest of the company.

There is one caveat, which is the concern as to whether any safeguards have been put into place that would prevent Murdoch from launching a Fox News for the UK, a channel which he would have a full share in. Considering I have not heard about any such safeguards, I can only assume the answer to that is 'no'.