thegossboss92
Well-known member
The Times view on Huw Edwards: Unpersoning
Erasing the disgraced BBC presenter from the corporation’s news archive would be journalistically unethical and a distortion of the historical record
The Times, Monday August 26 2024, 9.00pm BST, The Times
"In the course of leading his criminal double-life, the disgraced BBC news anchor Huw Edwards wronged many people, not least among whom are the viewing public who placed their trust in him. For decades, Edwards presented himself as a figure of sober authority. As one of the BBC’s highest-paid journalists, it routinely fell to him to address the nation at times of historic significance and occasions of national importance. His career has consequently left an indelible trace in the nation’s social and political history.
In 2011, Edwards presided over the coverage of the wedding of the present heir to throne, Prince William, and Catherine Middleton. Over subsequent years, he contributed to coverage of the 2015 and 2019 general elections, the results of the Brexit referendum, and the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2012 London Olympic Games. He was on air when Nelson Mandela died in 2013. In 2022, there was speculation that Edwards could be in line for a knighthood following his role in conveying news of the late Queen’s death to the world; months later, he was again to be seen on the nation’s screens at the coronation of the King. Added to these august occasions are, of course, the countless bulletins he presided over during his two decades on the BBC’s News at Ten.
Anyone who now returns to archival footage from Edwards’ long career will find it tainted by the subsequent knowledge of his depraved behaviour. His crimes are serious and hard to forget: last month, he pleaded guilty to creating dozens of indecent images of children, seven of which were of the most serious “Category A” type, and two of which involved children as young as seven. Nor is it easy to disentangle Edwards’s image as a professional broadcaster from the sordid details of his wrongdoing. The wish to simply scrub Edwards’s image from the BBC archive is an understandable impulse. But it would be a mistake.
Much of the television the presenter was involved in related to events of lasting importance; its existence cannot be denied or access to it restricted. When the crimes of figures such as Jimmy Savile were exposed, re-runs of their entertainment programmes were justifiably axed. Edwards’s career raises challenges, however, for which there is no clear precedent. Though care must be taken to deny him the exalted legacy he once looked certain to secure, his journalistic work must remain a matter of public record. To attempt to edit him out of the archive would involve falsifying recent history. Airbrushing of the historical record must not become the norm.
Deleting Edwards’ work would also provide a convenient means for the BBC to brush Edwards’s disturbing legacy under the carpet, when many questions remain about how he was able to get away with inappropriate professional behaviour for so long, and about the BBC’s continuing opacity over the findings of an internal inquiry into him.
Among the details about which the BBC has not yet been sufficiently clear is how exactly it intends to handle Edwards’s archival legacy. There is evidence that the corporation has already started deleting footage featuring Edwards from its drama and entertainment streaming services, including a 2006 episode of Doctor Who featuring his voice, comedy panel shows on which he was a guest, and various historical documentaries fronted by him.
Such surreptitious pruning of the archive is a disturbing trend. Edwards’s crimes and breaches of trust cannot be undone. Claiming that this exercise is being conducted to safeguard victims is a convenient excuse for damage limitation. At a time when truth is under attack from online misinformation, including video manipulation, the BBC of all institutions must avoid the temptation to massage reality. In this it should learn from one of its most eminent employees, George Orwell. Huw Edwards cannot be made into an unperson."
Erasing the disgraced BBC presenter from the corporation’s news archive would be journalistically unethical and a distortion of the historical record
The Times, Monday August 26 2024, 9.00pm BST, The Times
"In the course of leading his criminal double-life, the disgraced BBC news anchor Huw Edwards wronged many people, not least among whom are the viewing public who placed their trust in him. For decades, Edwards presented himself as a figure of sober authority. As one of the BBC’s highest-paid journalists, it routinely fell to him to address the nation at times of historic significance and occasions of national importance. His career has consequently left an indelible trace in the nation’s social and political history.
In 2011, Edwards presided over the coverage of the wedding of the present heir to throne, Prince William, and Catherine Middleton. Over subsequent years, he contributed to coverage of the 2015 and 2019 general elections, the results of the Brexit referendum, and the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2012 London Olympic Games. He was on air when Nelson Mandela died in 2013. In 2022, there was speculation that Edwards could be in line for a knighthood following his role in conveying news of the late Queen’s death to the world; months later, he was again to be seen on the nation’s screens at the coronation of the King. Added to these august occasions are, of course, the countless bulletins he presided over during his two decades on the BBC’s News at Ten.
Anyone who now returns to archival footage from Edwards’ long career will find it tainted by the subsequent knowledge of his depraved behaviour. His crimes are serious and hard to forget: last month, he pleaded guilty to creating dozens of indecent images of children, seven of which were of the most serious “Category A” type, and two of which involved children as young as seven. Nor is it easy to disentangle Edwards’s image as a professional broadcaster from the sordid details of his wrongdoing. The wish to simply scrub Edwards’s image from the BBC archive is an understandable impulse. But it would be a mistake.
Much of the television the presenter was involved in related to events of lasting importance; its existence cannot be denied or access to it restricted. When the crimes of figures such as Jimmy Savile were exposed, re-runs of their entertainment programmes were justifiably axed. Edwards’s career raises challenges, however, for which there is no clear precedent. Though care must be taken to deny him the exalted legacy he once looked certain to secure, his journalistic work must remain a matter of public record. To attempt to edit him out of the archive would involve falsifying recent history. Airbrushing of the historical record must not become the norm.
Deleting Edwards’ work would also provide a convenient means for the BBC to brush Edwards’s disturbing legacy under the carpet, when many questions remain about how he was able to get away with inappropriate professional behaviour for so long, and about the BBC’s continuing opacity over the findings of an internal inquiry into him.
Among the details about which the BBC has not yet been sufficiently clear is how exactly it intends to handle Edwards’s archival legacy. There is evidence that the corporation has already started deleting footage featuring Edwards from its drama and entertainment streaming services, including a 2006 episode of Doctor Who featuring his voice, comedy panel shows on which he was a guest, and various historical documentaries fronted by him.
Such surreptitious pruning of the archive is a disturbing trend. Edwards’s crimes and breaches of trust cannot be undone. Claiming that this exercise is being conducted to safeguard victims is a convenient excuse for damage limitation. At a time when truth is under attack from online misinformation, including video manipulation, the BBC of all institutions must avoid the temptation to massage reality. In this it should learn from one of its most eminent employees, George Orwell. Huw Edwards cannot be made into an unperson."
