If the hypocritical BBC carries on trying to bury its dirty secrets, it will be the death of it
IT’S been a while since we heard from him hasn’t it?
You know, that BBC bloke who was once a revered newsman the whole country listened to and admired.
Then he got caught up in that dreadful scandal and slipped out of view.
Well, here is the news . . . he’s back.
Martin Bashir, of course. (Who else were you thinking of?)
It was three years ago that a hugely damaging report from Lord Dyson confirmed reports that Bashir used faked documents to secure his now infamous 1995 interview with Princess Diana.
It was devastating stuff that took a machine gun to both Bashir’s and the BBC’s reputation and journalistic integrity.
Bashir was denounced as a “deceitful” reporter who had “acted inappropriately”.
The BBC was accused of covering up the incident, giving “evasive” responses to the Press and ignoring the story in its own bulletins.
But Lord Dyson could not say who had ordered the cover up, saying only: “It must have been someone from senior management, but I can’t say who it was.”
Filmmaker Andy Webb has been attempting to get to the bottom of this by demanding the Beeb release documents about its handling of the scandal in 2020 under Freedom Of Information rules.
On Tuesday night the BBC finally — and only after losing an expensive court battle to keep it all secret — released over 3,000 documents relating to the saga.
Some of the detail is eye-popping.
In one email dated July 2020, Bashir, who the BBC had previously insisted had been too ill to discuss the controversy, tells a BBC executive the row would not have become so toxic had executives not been jealous that a “second-generation immigrant of non-white, working class roots” had landed the scoop.
The disgraced reporter went on: “It would have been so much easier if one of the dynastic families (Dimbleby et al) had done it!” Ouch!
But while this accusation may have generated headlines the vast majority of the cache of emails did not.
And that is because it would have been impossible for them to do so, given so many contained redactions, with even whole paragraphs missing.
The BBC, in typically arrogant fashion, says much of what is absent is either “irrelevant” or removed to protect “personal information”.
For those familiar with the tactics of secretive big public sector bodies it smacks of a yet another cover up.
As Mr Webb put it: “With literally thousands of redactions, it’s impossible to determine who said what to whom.”
Which is just how the BBC likes it.
The corporation was set up to “inform, educate and entertain” but it could easily add a fourth “value”: Conceal.
The BBC spent £200,000 on legal fees — that’s 1,257 annual licence fees — trying to stop Mr Webb, and by extension those of us who pay for it, getting access to these emails.
For a broadcaster for ever pleading poverty, this is not just outrageous profligacy.
It is also an egregious breach of its privileged position as a taxpayer-funded entity, one that crows about “accountability” and “trust” on its own website.
The hypocritical BBC, quick to call out the faults of other media organisations, continues to bury its own secrets like a Wuhan virology lab technician.
When faced with an existential threat, especially one that might threaten their jobs, the corporation’s pampered executives pull up the drawbridge.
They don’t care about wasting our money. And they learn nothing from their mistakes.
Track back eight years to the inquiry into Jimmy Savile, who freely roamed the corridors of the BBC for decades, raping and abusing children.
As with Bashir, an independent report was commissioned.
Dame Janet Smith was charged with looking at how on earth Savile had got away with his crimes at the BBC and why no one in power had stopped him.
Her £6.5million report — that took four years to complete — pointed the finger of blame at . . . no one.
Blistering condemnation
Despite a blistering condemnation of the BBC’s “macho culture” and “atmosphere of fear”, not one BBC manager was singled out for failing to stop this monster in their midst.
This despite 117 people at the corporation confirming they had heard rumours relating to the odious DJ’s actions dating back as far as 1969.
Again, we saw how the BBC evades the truth to protect its own.
Dame Janet’s information was based only on what staff were prepared to divulge.
She had no power to compel senior managers to talk.
No wonder the lawyer for some of Savile’s many victims blasted the report as an “expensive whitewash”.
Will we see the same again when the BBC reports on its ongoing investigations into alleged wrongdoing by other stars, including DJ Tim Westwood and the comedian Russell Brand?
Take the Brand case, for example.
The comedian has been accused of a variety of offences, including rape and sexual assault, which he denies.
He worked for the BBC as a radio presenter and the corporation has admitted it has received complaints about his behaviour.
Brand was well-loved at the corporation and some executives fell over themselves to be in his orbit.
So the exact nature of his relationships with those managers will be important to clarify.
Was he granted any special status when it came to complaints?
Did his bosses’ admiration for his talents blind them to any untoward behaviour he may have exhibited?
And will we, the humble licence payer forced to fund this unwieldy corporation, get to hear about it?
Or will that too be deemed “irrelevant”?
The BBC insists it has not acted in bad faith over the Bashir scandal.
But if that is the case, why not release the emails in their entirety?
What do they have to hide?
Unless this self-appointed bastion of broadcasting excellence and trust starts acting like one, it may soon find that it is itself that has become irrelevant.