On Saturday night Mr George Entwistle stepped down as director-general of the BBC after less than two months in office. Most of Mr Entwistle's record breakingly short term of office was spent fire-fighting following the making of very serious allegations about the late Sir Jimmy Savile. This particular story has not reflected well on the BBC, not least of all because the opportunity was missed to air a programme which would have drawn attention to allegations against Savile whilst he was still alive.
What eventually did for Mr Entwistle was the broadcasting last week of a Newsnight programme which led to the erronous and mistaken levelling of serious sexual allegations against Lord McAlpine who was not only innocent of the alleged offences but also had no opportunity to commit them either. It was a sloppy piece of journalism in which basic checks were not made, too much reliance was placed on the testimony of a man who was mentally ill, and the accused was afforded no opportunity to defend himself. Time was when standards of BBC journalism were the envy of the world. In the light of this particular episode such a claim is difficult to defend.
What eventually did for Mr Entwistle was the broadcasting last week of a Newsnight programme which led to the erronous and mistaken levelling of serious sexual allegations against Lord McAlpine who was not only innocent of the alleged offences but also had no opportunity to commit them either. It was a sloppy piece of journalism in which basic checks were not made, too much reliance was placed on the testimony of a man who was mentally ill, and the accused was afforded no opportunity to defend himself. Time was when standards of BBC journalism were the envy of the world. In the light of this particular episode such a claim is difficult to defend.
Although not personally responsible in any direct sense for the programme in question, Mr Entwistle correctly judged that as the man in overall charge of the BBC, he had no choice but to stand down with immediate effect. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we must allow Mr Entwistle the benefit of the doubt and assume that he jumped before he was pushed. However the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, newspaper editors as well as ordinary men and women in the street, are entitled to some consternation at the size of Mr Entwistle's pay-off. We are advised that it is £450,000.00 – the equivalent of a year's salary. That figure alone does not include a substantial contribution towards his pension. Licence fee payers, who account for a substantial proportion of the UK adult population, may well wonder whether rewarding failure is a prudent use of their hard earned money or not. Dare we hope that this is the beginning of the end – if not the end itself – of a very unhappy episode in journalism and public service broadcasting?