John Walker has a good article about it which I agree on.
I agree its a storm in a teacup it seems silly that two things that are on a program that is genrally good needs to make the WHOLE BBC change its absolutely ridiculous. Also very much pot calling kettle black on a lot of these newspapers but then again newspapers will jump on any chance to attack the BBC remember Saxgate.
Also I like how that Daily Mail while showing how the advert is terrible gives you big shots of the woman in skimpy clothing in question.
They wanted a scalp. They wanted the big story, the converse of the Savile situation... "Look! We care about catching pedophiles! Even when they are establishment figures". They rushed the program out, they possibly allowed politics to influence it, they provided no right to reply against some of the worst allegations a man can have thrown at him, they failed to do even the most basic of journalistic checks, and their editorial oversight was non-existent. As a result, the credibility of the accuser is now in serious question, an innocent man has been hounded and continues to be hounded, and the BBC as a whole is coming under tremendous attack.
It's not the death of the BBC, but it's a serious issue for NewsNight, at the least.
Whatever happens, this is totally not cool. I enjoy so much of BBC documentaries in all subjects. I dont know how to explain it, but BBC has somewhat very unique style which cannot be replaced by the others.
The outrage is not just about the shelved Newsnight about Saville.
Far more disturbing are the accusations that Saville regularly molested children in his dressing room inside BBC buildings. There is a growing consensus that people within the BBC must have known something was going on. There are even claims that BBC executives were told about allegations of sex abuse and did nothing.
Another way of looking at this is that a bunch of media outlets who've already been shown to be dishonest, venal, corrupt and working entirely for their extremist owners has gotten upset that the BBC failed to run a report and then ran a report it probably shouldn't have - both of which were judgement calls which only look bad with the benefit of hindsight.
Meanwhile the rest of the country is running around with it's head-up-it-arse seeing paedophiles in every bush and generally behaving like a lynchmob - because most of them are too stupid to breathe regularly without reminders...
Comes with a free Brucie Bonus in the comments.
There's no manifesto. There's no formal plan.
The thing is, Saville was hiding in plain sight - he even talked about stuff in his own bio which, when read without the tint of "it's Jimmy Saville, noted charity guy and all round helper of children", is pretty eye-opening stuff (OK, it was 1974 and things were a big different but still...)
Louis Theroux showed that he was stark-staring bonkers (if you'd not worked that out already) but everyone had a tale to tell - it's just they was that, tales, no-one was going to "out" him because he was friends with Prime Ministers and those sorts of people - we would, literally, have taken a LOT of people with him.
Hell, he even LOOKS like a pervert - arguably he probably avoided being 'caught' simply because thieves don't wear stripey jumpers and carry bags with "SWAG" written on them and murderers don't wear Freddy Krueger gloves and masks - you don't expect a crim to LOOK like a crim.
Literally hiding in plain-sight...
BUT - he's dead and I'd hate to think we're going to start digging up other people like him (Cyril Smith was added to the list today I see). I've no idea why people wait until someone's dead to talk to the Police about him - they really should say "bit late aren't you?"
I've no idea why people wait until someone's dead to talk to the Police about him
I can its very obvious if you think about it especially for the higher up people, obviously you fear you wouldn't be believed, they would get you or some other paranoid fear that abuse victims have. Its a bit horrible to turn them out the door.
They rushed the program out, they possibly allowed politics to influence it, they provided no right to reply against some of the worst allegations a man can have thrown at him, they failed to do even the most basic of journalistic checks, and their editorial oversight was non-existent. As a result, the credibility of the accuser is now in serious question, an innocent man has been hounded and continues to be hounded, and the BBC as a whole is coming under tremendous attack.
Yes i agree and things should be investigated, but no one is saying to the police officer who got it wrong that they should be fired, and other stuff that was along the line. this was shoddy journalism very serious shoddy since it is about pedophiles but still its shoddy journalism nothing more I don't think.
Open-faced sandwiches are upon you whether you would risk it or not.
If I knew, or had heard things, I'd have one of two reactions:
1) I'm a total cock for not saying anything and keeping quiet lest everyone find out, or
2) I knew and did nothing and now I feel totally awful about it and really hope people can forgive me.
I don't get why this is something people want to admit to casually.
I don't think it's a crisis for the BBC or anything, but it's a pretty major f*ck up for Newsnight.
Also, maybe someone should be talking to the Police Officers that got it wrong, and all the other stuff along the line.
It's worth noting that the whole "top Tory implicated in paedophile case" story have been rattling around for a while - it was raised in Parliament last week(ish?) and everyone was scrambling to find-out who it was as a result of that.
When they worked out the likely party - and they probably did so simply by asking his accuser - they ran with it. They didn't really check anything else - which is sloppy when you're accusing people of this stuff.
That said, the way the press attacked Jo Yeates landlord last year was FAR FAR worse - they ripped the guy to pieces, got people to tell sordid tales about him and generally painted him as 'guilty'. So whilst the Police quietly eliminated him as a suspect the press were stringing him up/hounding him/accusing him of child abuse (when he'd been a teacher) and so on.
EIGHT newspapers paid him damages but I didn't see any of their bosses quitting in disgrace - I didn't see anyone demanding they reform themselves (aside from the Leveson Inquiry which we're constantly told is 'interfering with free speech').
expose of a pedophile in a private school in NYC that was published only after his death.
It resulted in a mass of people coming adding further accusations, an outspoken backlash against the school, a belated response by the school, the confession of secondary parties, and a question by the Times editor as to whether the truth of the matter was being sidelined for the spectacle of the case among a dozen more articles as the scandal continued.
Why was it hidden for so long? Because at the time it happened, the power of the teachers, the administration and the parents - each with their reasons to keep things under wraps - far outweighed the power of the student victims. Why was it exposed at all? Confessions and memoirs and investigative journalism on the part of a Times reporter.
The problem here being that dead people cannot defend themselves and so instantly become 'guilty' and I do actually worry about that, a bit.
The Police (at least in the UK but probably everywhere else) are not always the most trustworthy, honest and hard-working of people - they've been known to cut corners and scrimp on the truth - ride their "we are the Police and we are right" arrogance and when the person they're invesitgating is dead, you get the feeling they'll "go to town" with that...
I actually think that once someone is dead, any and all crimes they committed and any and all claims against them for damages etc. should be nullified - if you can implicate other people who are alive then by all means prosecute and sue them but the dead person and their estate should be out-of-bounds - IMO
ALso - DLT!!!!<<<<<<<!!!!!
The thing I don't understand - And correct me if this has been addressed in the thread already, but I'm lazy - is that the BBC came under fire for not choosing to air a report on a suspected paedophile. Then, they air a report on a suspected paedophile, without even naming him, and they're under fire again.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.