The BBC seems to have a knack for making bad situations worse. When a scandal breaks out in New Broadcasting, which happens with monotonous regularity these days, the organization manages to choose the wrong option without hesitation. Its intricate management structure, many protocols and personnel mechanisms: it seems that none of these costly and bureaucratic structures is able to confidently protect the institution; instead we have clumsiness and floundering. Why can't they do it right?
Think about what we know so far: A worried mother contacted the BBC on May 19, alleging that the presenter was paying money to her child in exchange for obscene photos. Lots of money, she said, tens of thousands of pounds; money that allowed her child to become addicted to cocaine. It was only natural that she wanted the Corporation to do something. She didn't immediately choose the path of advertising — which I think is her merit — she wanted the host's employers to sort it out. So what happened? It seems nothing special.
Over the next few weeks, to her dismay, the same host appeared on her television. And we can all understand, I think, why it pissed her off. There is no stronger human instinct than a mother's to protect her child, and she must have felt that the BBC was acting with indifference bordering on arrogance. The BBC reports that an investigation was launched at this time, led by a cybersecurity expert. But it didn't lead to anything; The BBC claims that her attempts to contact her mother went unanswered and she claims she was given the wrong number.
As the BBC said in a statement: “We take any allegations very seriously and we have processes in place to actively respond to them. This includes actively trying to talk to those who have contacted us to learn more and understand the situation.
“If we don’t get a response to our attempts or get further contact, it could limit our ability to progress , but that doesn't mean our requests stop.»
To make the situation even more grim, the young man's lawyer called the allegations «nonsense». But whatever the truth, in the end, the mother told her story to The Sun newspaper in order to put some pressure on her. That is why the BBC is now plunging into yet another ominous crisis, which, had it acted differently, could have been much less devastating.
Let's consider an alternative. Suppose back in May, when the corporation first became aware of this allegation, it immediately suspended the host in question — which only happened over the weekend — and launched a thorough investigation. Suppose the investigation found that the accusation had merit (which, frankly, we currently have no proof of), what could the BBC do then? Probably to put the presenter indefinitely and, depending on what is found, contact the police.
Okay, of course, that wouldn't be great for the BBC or the person involved, but what she would show would be decisive action, clear thinking and a determination to put the public interest first. This is the crux of the matter. Too often in the past three decades, when allegations have been made about scandalous behavior by BBC staff, the organization's first impulse has been to prevent reputational damage. This was the worst aspect of the Martin Bashir scandal; not that Bashir was a viciously manipulative and utterly unscrupulous journalist (which he was), but how the BBC's senior management closed ranks to cover up a pernicious departure from all their pretentious notions of ethical journalism.
BBC Director General Tim Davy Photo: Jacob King
The hackneyed notion that «a cover-up is worse than a crime» is a cliché because it so often turns out to be true. I think few of us believe that the BBC, or any of our other great institutions, is staffed by saints; deep down we know that, despite their fame, they are people just like the rest of us. Their fame gives them privileges, but also brings unusual temptations; inevitably some of them give way, and then the fall becomes a public spectacle. We get it. But a decisive and timely response at least partially mitigate the damage. The BBC's dithering makes things worse.
The delay also hurt other BBC staff. All weekend, Twitter was flooded with the names of the BBC presenters, and everyone was asking: “Who is this?”. Their anger and frustration is understandable — until the name is officially known, they will all be under suspicion. Of course, this is not a complete picture — any BBC presenter who appeared on your screen today is clean — but pity the poor soul who is on vacation or sick. Until the name is known, they will be tarnished.
Over the past few days, BBC apologists have attempted to justify the corporation by saying that when allegations are made against a well-known presenter, it has an obligation to proceed with caution. This is because so many wild and unfounded accusations are allegedly pouring out all the time. It is argued that natural justice means that people should receive a fair trial. But the game has changed in recent years, and the BBC has played a part in changing it.
BBC journalist Martin Bashir Photo: MSNBC
How many politicians have ended their careers on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing? Allegations of bullying or sexual harassment against famous personalities frequently make headlines in BBC News. There are no special rules for BBC presenters: those who live off retail scandals must be prepared for the fact that sometimes they will die because of them.
And what are the long-term implications of this still rapidly evolving case? The BBC's top management, including CEO Tim Davey, is once again looking sluggish and indecisive; The political enemies of the BBC will certainly be able to use this case to further weaken the corporation.
But there may be deeper and more serious implications for the BBC's reputation as a trustworthy organization. Every major scandal—the Martin Bashir case, the heinous predatory behavior of Jimmy Savile—leaves institutional scars. People remember and trust the ebb a little more. Added to that are day-to-day issues like Gary Lineker's stupid tweets, and they also undermine trust.
In the long run, no organization can resist such things indefinitely. At some point, the walls of the temple will collapse, and then the BBC will only blame itself.
Свежие комментарии