Huw Edwards #12 BBC Presenter Scandal

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Flowerpotgirl said:
And for three parts? I don’t understand how this warrants 3 episodes. They are making their money while they can. It’s not about the kid clearly.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a flawed assumption that “3 episodes” means 3x30 minutes or 3x60 minutes.

Given that it’s TalkTV I think it’s more likely that it will be 3x10 minutes - think the same vein as Dan Wootton stretching a ten minute interview with Eamonn Holmes over what seemed like years.
 
@Merpedy
Sorry I couldn’t reply to you on last thread.

aaah I get what your saying 😊

why would the parents do an interview before though? Surelythey knew the news paper article would ruin him? So in return that would stop the money? Or am I totally getting it wrong.
 
pommobear said:
According to some people the parents will only be sharing their own experience of being ignored by the BBC, and sharing nothing of their child's experience, so therefore it isn't exploitative or morally icky.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry but nobody said that at all. You’re being completely disingenuous.

What actually happened was that you condemned the TV programme without having seen it, and claimed - without caveat - that the parents had no right to tell their story.

I and others pointed out that if the programme was made in a considered and sensitive way, with the parents giving their own experiences, then it’s strange to be opposed to it.
 
SendReceive said:
I think it’s a flawed assumption that “3 episodes” means 3x30 minutes or 3x60 minutes.

Given that it’s TalkTV I think it’s more likely that it will be 3x10 minutes - think the same vein as Dan Wootton stretching a ten minute interview with Eamonn Holmes over what seemed like years.
Click to expand...
Ok. That I can see. I just can’t imagine there is much beyond “my kid is on crack. He got money for pics from this man. He bought more crack.”
That’s the whole scenario isn’t it?
 
pommobear said:
According to some people the parents will only be sharing their own experience of being ignored by the BBC, and sharing nothing of their child's experience, so therefore it isn't exploitative or morally icky.
Click to expand...
I think that information is better be shared with the BBC as part of their review into the processes tbh. This just seems very unnecessary in general to me

rocket1234 said:
@Merpedy
Sorry I couldn’t reply to you on last thread.

aaah I get what your saying 😊

why would the parents do an interview before though? Surelythey knew the news paper article would ruin him? So in return that would stop the money? Or am I totally getting it wrong.
Click to expand...
That’s also the slightly confusing part to me because by then it already looked pretty bad for the presenter 🤷🏼‍♀️
 
SendReceive said:
I’m sorry but nobody said that at all. You’re being completely disingenuous.

What actually happened was that you condemned the TV programme without having seen it, and claimed - without caveat - that the parents had no right to tell their story.

I and others pointed out that if the programme was made in a considered and sensitive way, with the parents giving their own experiences, then it’s strange to be opposed to it.
Click to expand...
It appears that condemning XYZ without being in possession of all the facts is only OK on one side of the story here and not the other.

I reserve judgement on the interviews until they come out, and if they contain no details whatsoever about the young person's side of the story, and are *only* about the parent's experience of complaining to the BBC, well and good. But I suspect it won't be that.
 
pommobear said:
I think it was before the allegations came out but maybe after the approach? I'm not 100% sure.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Is it a case of departments not talking to each other? A flag ought to have been set up on HE's name and any allegations/revelations concerning his behaviour should have been passed on to Newsnight to be included in their investigation.

The parents' contact details ought to have been passed on to Newsnight. That team would probably have made better efforts to contact them.
 
Merpedy said:
I think that information is better be shared with the BBC as part of their review into the processes tbh. This just seems very unnecessary in general to me


That’s also the slightly confusing part to me because by then it already looked pretty bad for the presenter 🤷🏼‍♀️
Click to expand...
That’s very sketchy, I mean why would the parents story matter? It didn’t happen to them? Surely it’s the child’s story? Can’t believe I’m using the word child but scared to use young man incase I start a war.
Infact I don’t think Iv seen anywhere that it is a boy/man/child/baby/ 🫣
 
rocket1234 said:
That’s very sketchy, I mean why would the parents story matter? It didn’t happen to them? Surely it’s the child’s story? Can’t believe I’m using the word child but scared to use young man incase I start a war.
Infact I don’t think Iv seen anywhere that it is a boy/man/child/baby/ 🫣
Click to expand...

I’m sticking firmly to young person or young adult. I haven’t seen a gender stated myself, and others have seen both used.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top