Allegations, and mounting evidence, that an iconic British television presenter sexually assaulted hundreds of women and underage girls has provoked simultaneous crises at two major news corporations. The BBC has launched internal enquiries to establish what its senior management knew about Jimmy Savile’s alleged crimes, and whether this knowledge influenced their decision to shelve a Newsnight documentary that would have exposed him. The scandal has also managed to jeopardize the appointment of former BBC Director General Mark Thompson as CEO of the New York Times.
Jimmy Savile died last year, aged 84, with an OBE and a Papal Knighthood to his name, just rewards – it was then thought – for years of charitable fundraising. For most of his career Savile seemed little more than a charming eccentric, constantly mugging for the cameras as host of the music show ‘Top of the Pops‘ or as the man who made children’s wishes come true on a programme called ‘Jim’ll Fix It.‘ Less than a month into their investigations, however, British police now say that Savile may have abused up to 300 women over the course of his career.
As the scandal widens it has become clear that many of those who produce the news are quite inept when it comes to handling press inquiries about their own conduct. Statements by BBC executives have repeatedly been revised or retracted as further evidence complicates their initial claims. Both the current and former Director General have delivered mixed messages, lessening both their credibility and the already small amount of plausible deniability. To a sceptical public it now seems barely credible that senior management at the BBC neither knew of Savile’s sexual proclivities or were not complicit in hiding them.
Writing in the Daily Beast, the Guardian media reporter Steve Hewlett notes that “The BBC initially maintained [that] it had searched its archives and found no evidence of complaints about Savile … However, once the scale of alleged abuse started to become clear, that line simply couldn’t hold…” Likewise, a denial that the decision to shelve the documentary was questionable “didn’t hold either.” Within a fortnight the BBC “had been forced to announce two major internal enquiries—into Savile and the Newsnight decision—and a third into sexual harassment more generally at the corporation.”
The enquiries may have come too late to safeguard public trust in one of Brtain’s most cherished institutions. Public opinion has turned sharply against the colleagues and managers who should have flagged the problem decades ago. Allegations about other BBC presenters have also surfaced, making it difficult for the organization to ignore larger questions about its internal culture and standards. Veteran BBC foreign correspondent John Simpson called it “the worst crisis that I can remember in my nearly 50 years at the BBC.”
Concerns at the New York Times are equally serious. In a recent column entitled ‘The Right Man for the Job?‘ Joe Nocera questioned Thompson’s repeated failure to inquire into the allegations against Savile and said his statements to date made him look “willfully ignorant.” Nocera continued: “It makes you wonder what kind of an organization the BBC was when Thompson was running it — and what kind of leader he was.”
Other questions, beyond these organizational crises, have hardly been addressed. How, for instance, in a tabloid culture that routinely intrudes in the private lives of public figures did Savile get away with so much for so long? Did other celebrities know the truth and ignore or conceal it? Even if there wasn’t a cover-up at the BBC, were there others elsewhere?
Across the UK signs and monuments to Savile have been defaced or removed, charities set up in his name have announced that they will transfer their funds to other organizations and close. The Catholic Church is trying to revoke his Papal Knighthood and there are calls for him to be stripped of his OBE posthumously. Though well-intentioned none of this will make a difference to Savile’s victims. Much of the blame has to be placed on the media that failed to uncover his sexual predation during decades of public life. The scandal is an ugly reminder of what can happen when journalists – within the BBC and the British press – fail to act in the public interest.
