Wednesday, October 24, 2012


Over in the UK todays 'big scandal' is, understandably, the BBC coverup of the Jimmy Savile affair (the now-deceased preformer was, apparently, effectively able to utilise the Corporation as a procurement agency to provide him with underage girls for sex).

The BBC's current Director General appeared overnight at a parliamentary inquiry into the affair .

What astounds me is a comment half way through this report . . .

"But Mr Entwistle defended the BBC's handling of the crisis which has engulfed the Corporation since the allegations over what he described as the DJ's "disgusting activities" emerged.
He said: "There is no question in my mind this is a very grave matter. "This is a very grave, serious matter and I cannot look back on it with anything other than horror that his activities went on as long as they did."
So far well and good. But look at what he says next, about the failure of the Newsnight executive producer.
"He did not publicly dispute the claim by Peter Rippon, the show's editor who said the investigation was cancelled for editorial reasons . . . 
Asked if he was "angry" that Mr Rippon had written a blog about the pulled investigation which turned out to be misleading, Mr Entwistle said he had been "very disappointed".
"I would absolutely expect the editor of a programme to give a definitive account of what happened on a programme," he added."
Is that all? A 'definitive account'? Those in my tutorial will be well aware of what I think of this sort of PR spin and language. 
What Entwistle appears to mean is better described by an old Anglo-Saxon word, 'triewth'. This is the crux of journalism. 'Truth'. 
Was what Rippon wrote true? No, because it failed to encompass the essence of the affair. It was spin - the opposite of truth and the opposite of journalism. 

No comments:

Post a Comment