Huw Edwards is in hospital. That shocking news, in a statement from his wife, Vicky Flind, delivered an icy blast of reality to a news story that had bubbled out of control for six days, dangerously so for the BBC.
Although reporters in its News division, where I worked for 31 years, had covered the events rigorously and sensitively, breaking new lines and analysing developments with care, the same surefootedness cannot be said for the BBC’s corporate arm. Their handling of the affair raises serious questions about complaints procedures, staff welfare and privacy.
The BBC’s rationale for not naming Edwards (until his wife did so) remains unclear
When the initial complaint about the News at Ten presenter was received on May 19, alarm bells should have sounded. Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, has said the allegations, in a 29-minute phone call to a member of the audience services team, did not at that stage cross the criminal threshold but were ‘very serious’. Why then did the broadcaster’s internal investigations unit follow up on only two occasions? They emailed the complainant and phoned two-and-a-half weeks later. Neither elicited any response. If a BBC journalist, tasked with looking into ‘very serious’ allegations, had made such cursory attempts to contact a key player in the story their editor would rightly have demanded they try harder. Phone at different times, reach out on social media, send a letter or knock on the door.
It is true that BBC staff, particularly those who are household names, are often complained about – everything from the colour of their ties to the slant of an interview are considered fair game. One former BBC executive told me he was astonished by the volume of complaints when he first started working there. I was on the receiving end a few times, usually about the content of my broadcasts or articles. Some complaints were justified, others not. But concerns about an employee’s conduct are a different matter and the investigations team, which according to Davie handles 250 serious complaints every six months, should have prioritised this one because it related to the most high-profile newsreader in the country and risked causing substantial reputational damage. Instead, it appears the BBC sat on it for almost seven weeks – until the story broke in the Sun.
There’s another reason why the BBC should have paid closer attention to the serious claims made about Edwards: his own welfare. The presenter has spoken publicly about his 20-year struggle with ‘overwhelming’ bouts of depression that would hit him in a ‘strong wave’, leaving him bedridden. Given that background, once the complaint was made, investigators should have informed senior managers that concerns had been raised about the 61-year-old’s behaviour and, at the very least, checked that he was okay – his alleged misconduct might have been a sign of inner turmoil linked to mental health problems. But there is nothing so far to suggest the complaint went further than the investigations department.
Davie has said he and the ten other members of the BBC executive committee, the ‘top team’ which includes the heads of personnel, corporate affairs and news and current affairs, were not aware of the complaint until the Sun’s allegations were put to the press office on July 6. Flind says the first her husband knew about the complaint was on the same day. The director-general has suggested that it is not good practice, from an investigative standpoint, to take a complaint ‘direct’ to the person involved before it has been examined. But when that person has a known vulnerability, other considerations must surely apply. There has now been a tacit acknowledgment, from Davie, that improvements are needed in the way serious complaints are dealt with and flagged to those in senior roles. That is welcome, but it doesn’t go far enough.
After the Sun had published the story, without naming Edwards, the BBC got itself into a terrible muddle about whether it should do so. A ‘guessing game’ on social media rapidly led to other prominent figures, including Jeremy Vine and Nicky Campbell, being wrongly and, in some cases, maliciously, identified as the BBC star involved, yet the corporation failed to clarify matters.
Two days later, when it announced that the presenter at the centre of the affair had been suspended from work and would therefore not be on air for some time, its continuing refusal to reveal his name added to the confusion and created a sense of cover up. And on Tuesday, when the BBC’s annual report was published, it became even more absurd. The document showed Edwards had overtaken Stephen Nolan as the BBC’s highest paid journalist, on a salary of at least £435,000, but the organisation still declined to declare that he was the mystery man under investigation.
The BBC’s rationale for not naming Edwards (until his wife did so) remains unclear. He is the face of news bulletins watched by millions and has anchored coverage of the most significant events in our recent history, including the 2019 General Election, the Queen’s funeral and the King’s Coronation. He is trusted by viewers to deliver news with authority, intelligence and compassion – and is rewarded handsomely by licence fee-payers for his efforts. He has voluntarily given interviews about his family life, mental health problems and exercise regime, among other issues. He is, in short, a public figure. The idea that the BBC could not reveal that he had been suspended due to a ‘very serious’ complaint, which at one point was being assessed by two police forces and later sparked further allegations, is frankly ridiculous – and stretches the notion of privacy rights beyond breaking point.
As a former colleague of Huw Edwards, I wish him well and sincerely hope he recovers so he can address the allegations that have been made against him. At this stage, they are only allegations and we shouldn’t forget that. Well known BBC staff, in particular, are prone to unfounded or vexatious complaints and their employer has a duty to protect them from those as best it can. But the events of the past week must also serve as a wake-up call for the corporation – that the award-winning broadcasters who host quiz shows, sports programmes and news bulletins are not perfect. They are human beings with frailties and weaknesses, just like all of us, and it’s unrealistic to keep that from their viewers and listeners.
Comments