To fill in the background for my American visitors, Huw Edwards is a very well-known news presenter who has worked for the BBC for 39 years. He reports on all the grand occasions like general elections, Royal coronations and state visits.
On July 7 the Sun (a down-market right-wing tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch) reported on allegations that a "well-known BBC presenter" had paid £35,000 to a 17-year-old man for "indecent images".
Instead of briefly mentioning these dubious unsubstantiated claims on an inside page, and stressing they were merely allegations, virtually all the mainstream media pumped out banner front-page headlines wondering who was the mysterious senior presenter and clearly implying he was a ghastly sleazeball who deserved his come-uppance.
Even the supposed serious papers like the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent all gleefully splashed the story for several days, seldom questioning the allegations and finding him "guilty until proved innocent".
On July 10 the young man's lawyer stated that "nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place" and that the allegations are "nonsense". So where the truth lies is anyone's guess.
Meanwhile Huw Edwards is reported to be so distressed by the coverage that he is now in hospital with "serious mental health issues". He is known to have had regular episodes of depression throughout his life.
The way the media, including papers that should have known better, have put the boot in on the basis of a totally unproven story in the Sun is despicable and I can only feel very sorry for poor Huw, who has always seemed decent and likeable.
Pic: Huw Edwards
NB: Huw is pronounced Hugh
I loathed this feeding frenzy - it was ugly, and very cruel.
ReplyDeleteSx
Ms Scarlet: Ugly and cruel indeed. The media love to big someone up for a while and then happily demolish them.
DeleteWhich government disaster were they covering up?
ReplyDeleteFly: Hard to say, there are plenty to choose from. And of course they want to ruin the reputation of the BBC which they think is in the grip of crazed lefties.
DeleteWho made the allegations in the first place, if not the young man? Something seems fishy …
ReplyDeleteBijoux: It's very fishy. He makes dramatic allegations, then his lawyer says the allegations are nonsense. There's a lot more to this than we've been told so far.
DeleteBijoux, from what I have gleaned it was the mother - not the youngster - who made the allegations. Some people will stop at nothing to get their fifteen minutes in the limelight or some hush money.
DeleteU
Ursula: But presumably what the mother said was based on what her son had said.
DeleteYes, Nick. But maybe he told his mother his story anecdotally, in confidence, even bragging how he got a hapless older guy to pay money for some photos. Not something to then bring to public attention. Anyway, nowadays seventeen years old can hardly claim innocence. The play that is made of a few months between being "under age" and eighteen (adult) is ludicrous. Even at my time there were friends who, as my mother would put it, were "washed with all waters". They knew full well what they were doing.
DeleteU
Ursula: It's going to be some time before we learn the full facts of what was going on - if we ever do.
DeleteI suppose like any news such as this, we have to wait. For one: why is he not suing? But I agree on the feeding frenzy, Completely irresponsible click bait.
ReplyDeleteXO
WWW
www: I think he may very well sue, but the law is complex and he's up against Rupert Murdoch and his vast financial and legal resources.
DeleteMary says: "They should be required to have actual proof before putting something like that out there."
ReplyDeleteMary: They should, absolutely. But journalists are getting more and more cavalier about simply running with a juicy story without any attempt to check the facts. If it's plausible, hey, let's publish.
DeleteNick, also do spare a thought for those BBC presenters who were, speculatively, named. My heart goes out to them.
ReplyDeleteJust read an account on Jeremy Vine and others who felt compelled to say they were NOT the person in question. It's small fry in comparison yet I have an inkling what it feels like to be accused when you are actually innocent. A blogger has got it into his, admittedly rather limited, head space that I am the ANON that plagues his comment boxes. I am not. Who cares for the truth when you can put rumours about, stoke fire and hatred? It's pretty shit to be dragged through the mud - and there is little you can do about it. He has stooped so low as sending me emails; his reasoning not going further than using the f and c words. Signing off with "You have been warned". Good job I am thick skinned.
So, to think being pulled through the tabloids' and, as you say, broadsheets' hedges backwards ... doesn't bear thinking about.
U
Ursula: Indeed, it's appalling that entirely innocent presenters were named as the supposed guilty party. I see Jeremy Vine has agreed a settlement with the moron who fingered him. As for the ongoing anonymous comments, I concluded quite early on that they didn't sound like you.
Delete