No disrespect mikw, but it is rounded for those who want to keep the company in it's current form, but not rounded for those who don't. You see it is all about perceptions and opinions, something you cannot seem to accept unfortunately.
It is no good going round saying people are naive simply because they don't agree with you. We could say this about anything or anybody couldn't we. I certainly don't call people naive because they have opposing views to mine, OK I am not the greatest in an argument but I do respect peoples opinions, even if I don't agree with them.
I think that, to an extent, you've proved the "naievity" claim, You seem too have made up your mind already!
It also seems to be the same as the newspaper's agenda.
History shows us that, in the case of the Hutton enquiry, after many sackings and millions of pounds, the truth is usually not what the knee-jerk and agenda-filled papers try to claim it is.
Therefore, i think that scrapping channels is utterly missing the point.
And you call that "desperate"? Isn't it more desperate not to even question newspaper reports? They have slandered and libelled people over the years to a very large degree.
Agreed. Seems to me the BBC is getting extra scrutiny partly because of the decision to drop the original Newsnight report into Savile, which was compounded by the editor's misleading explanation as to why it was dropped. It does make it seem like some sort of cover up.
But it doesn't mean it is.
To put it in a nutshell, The Newsnight editor dropped the report because it relied, solely, on witness testament which could be described as potentially unreliable.
Then they went too far the other way, even though they didn't name names.
It's probably as simple as that - and that doesn't mean cover up.
I think with all the confusing reporting, and the agenda from those that do it, can lead people to think there is a cover up - and has.
To put it in a nutshell, The Newsnight editor dropped the report because it relied, solely, on witness testament which could be described as potentially unreliable.
Then they went too far the other way, even though they didn't name names.
It's probably as simple as that - and that doesn't mean cover up.
I think with all the confusing reporting, and the agenda from those that do it, can lead people to think there is a cover up - and has.
The original ITV Exposure also relied entirely on witness testament which was not corroborated by any third party but it didn't stop ITV broadcasting the programme. As far as we know, no-one has sued them.
The original ITV Exposure also relied entirely on witness testament which was not corroborated by any third party but it didn't stop ITV broadcasting the programme. As far as we know, no-one has sued them.
Many of the same witnesses, apparently. Maybe ITV just have better investigative reporters...:)
Agreed. Seems to me the BBC is getting extra scrutiny partly because of the decision to drop the original Newsnight report into Savile, which was compounded by the editor's misleading explanation as to why it was dropped. It does make it seem like some sort of cover up.
Or more likely sheer incompetence, or at least just generally now knowing what exactly was what whilst all the shit was hitting the fan.
Had Newsnight run the story with what had turned out to be less than reliable witness testimony, I doubt people would have been happy with that either.
Or more likely sheer incompetence, or at least just generally now knowing what exactly was what whilst all the shit was hitting the fan.
Had Newsnight run the story with what had turned out to be less than reliable witness testimony, I doubt people would have been happy with that either.
I'm confused. Are you saying it was incompetent of them to drop the report, or prudent?
ITV had many of the same witnesses, presumably providing the same statements they did to the BBC, and ITV are getting the credit for breaking the story.
Is it possible some higher ups in the BBC ordered NN to drop the story rather than run it and make a beloved national figure out to be a monster so soon after he died?
So anyone can come along, claim they were interfered with by Jimmy Savile (or anyone else for that matter), have no witnesses but be able to claim compensation ? Surely there must be more to it than that for the case to ''stand up'' in court ? Don't forget a proportion of those making claims were not under age at the time.
The original ITV Exposure also relied entirely on witness testament which was not corroborated by any third party but it didn't stop ITV broadcasting the programme. As far as we know, no-one has sued them.
Because there were more witnesses in the "Exposure" programme, and that was down to the many months between it and the original Newsnight investigation.
I'm confused. Are you saying it was incompetent of them to drop the report, or prudent?
ITV had many of the same witnesses, presumably providing the same statements they did to the BBC, and ITV are getting the credit for breaking the story.
Is it possible some higher ups in the BBC ordered NN to drop the story rather than run it and make a beloved national figure out to be a monster so soon after he died?
I'm saying that its entirely feasible that the story was dropped due to question marks over the witness testimonies. IIRC I also read something about how either Newsnight contacted the police for confirmation of something, but no confirmation was forthcoming, which contributed to them deciding not to run the story.
ITV through a combination of having some other information, and not necessarily having the same journalistic standards of the BBC could have decided to run with it anyway. That ITV ran with it, and the BBC did not doesn't mean the BBC covered purposely covered anything up.
With respect to any incompetency, that was more in regard to how it was all handled after the event - it was a complete shit storm, so its easy enough to think that people didn't have a clue whether they were coming or going, and in those circumstances errors of judgement in the subsequent handling of the situation are understandable.
I'm saying that its entirely feasible that the story was dropped due to question marks over the witness testimonies. IIRC I also read something about how either Newsnight contacted the police for confirmation of something, but no confirmation was forthcoming, which contributed to them deciding not to run the story.
ITV through a combination of having some other information, and not necessarily having the same journalistic standards of the BBC could have decided to run with it anyway. That ITV ran with it, and the BBC did not doesn't mean the BBC covered purposely covered anything up.
With respect to any incompetency, that was more in regard to how it was all handled after the event - it was a complete shit storm, so its easy enough to think that people didn't have a clue whether they were coming or going, and in those circumstances errors of judgement in the subsequent handling of the situation are understandable.
Thanks for the clarification on both points. Hopefully the Pollard enquiry will offer some insight into the first.
Is it remotely possible the editor of NN took the right decision at the time - it is irrelevant to his decision what has emerged since.
Depends why he took it. If it was because of orders on high to kill the story because Savile was a beloved figure who just died, and/or it might make the BBC look bad if some of Savile's alleged behaviour took place on BBC property, then that wouldn't have been the 'right' decision, imo.
So ten witnesses and victims weren't sufficient, and rather than keep looking for more the right decision was to drop the story completely?
They put it "on the shelf", the witnesses had question marks about their reliabillity as well - witness Anna Racoon's blog.
Certainly you have to be 100% certain with these things before going to air.
In the meantime scores of new claims emerged in the next few months, meaning that the "exposure" programme could broadcast without any such problems.
Remember Hendero, the BBC is not a tabloid paper, it can't just publish (ala Louis Walsh) and then pay a fine afterwards. It knows that the papers will whip up the public into demanding a lot more if it gets it wrong.
Even when it DOES broadcast an investigation, and DOESN'T broadcast the name it still gets in trouble.
It gets a lot more pressure than other news suppliers gets.
Also, seeing as i've answered your question, here's one for you :
If the Press couldn't get enough of a case going to "out" Saville, how could Newsnight?
Depends why he took it. If it was because of orders on high to kill the story because Savile was a beloved figure who just died, and/or it might make the BBC look bad if some of Savile's alleged behaviour took place on BBC property, then that wouldn't have been the 'right' decision, imo.
Can't seeing it being like that - the BBC is not really a "singular" enitity.
It doesn't really have anyone at the top controlling what it puts out as news.
This was one of the central themes of a film made by John Sergeant and showed on "This Week".
He said that the DG has no input at all into news and he was never told what he could write in his news reports during his time with the corporation.
They are hands off.
The only person who would have the power, or the "hands on" approach to cull a story would be the editor of a programme, and that is what he did - and he would have nothing at all to do with what BBC1 were running for Christmas.
Just pointing out that with a very small pool of witness testaments that Newsnight had it would have been very dodgy to go to air at the time.
And Way to go to fail to answer the rest of my post!:D
Ten witnesses providing evidence against the same individual and the same type of allegations is not a small pool.
And the Pollard report will hopefully provide some insight into your question. The BBC journalists who worked on the story appear to think it shouldn't have been pulled. I suspect they have more insight into whether that was an appropriate decision than anyone on this forum.
Ten witnesses providing evidence against the same individual and the same type of allegations is not a small pool.
And the Pollard report will hopefully provide some insight into your question. The BBC journalists who worked on the story appear to think it shouldn't have been pulled. I suspect they have more insight into whether that was an appropriate decision than anyone on this forum.
No Journo likes to see their story pulled, no matter what it is. I'm not sure that proves any of the reasons why it was.
I'm not sure you saw it or not, but here's some of my post that i'd like addressing if possible, seeing as it's an answer to something you put to me :
Can't seeing it being like that - the BBC is not really a "singular" enitity.
It doesn't really have anyone at the top controlling what it puts out as news.
This was one of the central themes of a film made by John Sergeant and showed on "This Week".
He said that the DG has no input at all into news and he was never told what he could write in his news reports during his time with the corporation.
They are hands off.
The only person who would have the power, or the "hands on" approach to cull a story would be the editor of a programme, and that is what he did - and he would have nothing at all to do with what BBC1 were running for Christmas.
In one there were ten witnesses with stories that fit a pattern, in the other there was one witness who was apparently well known to be unreliable.
Those ten witnesses could have been part of a "pact" - that is something the Newsnight editor would have to sure wasn't the case.
Also, whenever the police had arrested him, they found no evidence.
How about the celeb scandal-filled tabloids? They could never find enough evidence to go to press.
The subsequent case was, no doubt, an over reaction. Even then Newsnight erred on the side of caution and removed the name from the report.
The papers can pretty much print what they want about people - and do! they just pay the fine afterwards and that is usually the end of it - the BBC can't do that.
Comments
I think that, to an extent, you've proved the "naievity" claim, You seem too have made up your mind already!
It also seems to be the same as the newspaper's agenda.
History shows us that, in the case of the Hutton enquiry, after many sackings and millions of pounds, the truth is usually not what the knee-jerk and agenda-filled papers try to claim it is.
Therefore, i think that scrapping channels is utterly missing the point.
And you call that "desperate"? Isn't it more desperate not to even question newspaper reports? They have slandered and libelled people over the years to a very large degree.
But it doesn't mean it is.
To put it in a nutshell, The Newsnight editor dropped the report because it relied, solely, on witness testament which could be described as potentially unreliable.
Then they went too far the other way, even though they didn't name names.
It's probably as simple as that - and that doesn't mean cover up.
I think with all the confusing reporting, and the agenda from those that do it, can lead people to think there is a cover up - and has.
The original ITV Exposure also relied entirely on witness testament which was not corroborated by any third party but it didn't stop ITV broadcasting the programme. As far as we know, no-one has sued them.
Many of the same witnesses, apparently. Maybe ITV just have better investigative reporters...:)
Or more likely sheer incompetence, or at least just generally now knowing what exactly was what whilst all the shit was hitting the fan.
Had Newsnight run the story with what had turned out to be less than reliable witness testimony, I doubt people would have been happy with that either.
I'm confused. Are you saying it was incompetent of them to drop the report, or prudent?
ITV had many of the same witnesses, presumably providing the same statements they did to the BBC, and ITV are getting the credit for breaking the story.
Is it possible some higher ups in the BBC ordered NN to drop the story rather than run it and make a beloved national figure out to be a monster so soon after he died?
Because there were more witnesses in the "Exposure" programme, and that was down to the many months between it and the original Newsnight investigation.
As everybody in the world knows by now!
Nope, the "Exposure" programme was made many months after the Newsnight investigation, more people had come forward.
The weight of numbers involved mean that reliable testament is more likely.
So ten witnesses and victims weren't sufficient, and rather than keep looking for more the right decision was to drop the story completely?
I'm saying that its entirely feasible that the story was dropped due to question marks over the witness testimonies. IIRC I also read something about how either Newsnight contacted the police for confirmation of something, but no confirmation was forthcoming, which contributed to them deciding not to run the story.
ITV through a combination of having some other information, and not necessarily having the same journalistic standards of the BBC could have decided to run with it anyway. That ITV ran with it, and the BBC did not doesn't mean the BBC covered purposely covered anything up.
With respect to any incompetency, that was more in regard to how it was all handled after the event - it was a complete shit storm, so its easy enough to think that people didn't have a clue whether they were coming or going, and in those circumstances errors of judgement in the subsequent handling of the situation are understandable.
Thanks for the clarification on both points. Hopefully the Pollard enquiry will offer some insight into the first.
Depends why he took it. If it was because of orders on high to kill the story because Savile was a beloved figure who just died, and/or it might make the BBC look bad if some of Savile's alleged behaviour took place on BBC property, then that wouldn't have been the 'right' decision, imo.
They put it "on the shelf", the witnesses had question marks about their reliabillity as well - witness Anna Racoon's blog.
Certainly you have to be 100% certain with these things before going to air.
In the meantime scores of new claims emerged in the next few months, meaning that the "exposure" programme could broadcast without any such problems.
Remember Hendero, the BBC is not a tabloid paper, it can't just publish (ala Louis Walsh) and then pay a fine afterwards. It knows that the papers will whip up the public into demanding a lot more if it gets it wrong.
Even when it DOES broadcast an investigation, and DOESN'T broadcast the name it still gets in trouble.
It gets a lot more pressure than other news suppliers gets.
Also, seeing as i've answered your question, here's one for you :
If the Press couldn't get enough of a case going to "out" Saville, how could Newsnight?
Can't seeing it being like that - the BBC is not really a "singular" enitity.
It doesn't really have anyone at the top controlling what it puts out as news.
This was one of the central themes of a film made by John Sergeant and showed on "This Week".
He said that the DG has no input at all into news and he was never told what he could write in his news reports during his time with the corporation.
They are hands off.
The only person who would have the power, or the "hands on" approach to cull a story would be the editor of a programme, and that is what he did - and he would have nothing at all to do with what BBC1 were running for Christmas.
Well, if Anna Raccoon says they're lying that should be case closed.
What a relief, eh? Problem sorted.
Just pointing out that with a very small pool of witness testaments that Newsnight had it would have been very dodgy to go to air at the time.
And Way to go to fail to answer the rest of my post!:D
Ten witnesses providing evidence against the same individual and the same type of allegations is not a small pool.
And the Pollard report will hopefully provide some insight into your question. The BBC journalists who worked on the story appear to think it shouldn't have been pulled. I suspect they have more insight into whether that was an appropriate decision than anyone on this forum.
No Journo likes to see their story pulled, no matter what it is. I'm not sure that proves any of the reasons why it was.
I'm not sure you saw it or not, but here's some of my post that i'd like addressing if possible, seeing as it's an answer to something you put to me :
I've responded to that part of your post I felt like responding to. If you crave more feedback, why not post it on the Anna Racoon blog?
It sounds like you are unhappy about the decision not to go ahead with the story.
But were also unhappy (IIRC) that they did go ahead with the story about the Conservative guy.
In one there were ten witnesses with stories that fit a pattern, in the other there was one witness who was apparently well known to be unreliable.
Those ten witnesses could have been part of a "pact" - that is something the Newsnight editor would have to sure wasn't the case.
Also, whenever the police had arrested him, they found no evidence.
How about the celeb scandal-filled tabloids? They could never find enough evidence to go to press.
The subsequent case was, no doubt, an over reaction. Even then Newsnight erred on the side of caution and removed the name from the report.
The papers can pretty much print what they want about people - and do! they just pay the fine afterwards and that is usually the end of it - the BBC can't do that.