Disgraced, convicted and now sentenced, a chapter has closed: there will clearly be no return to public life for Huw Edwards. But what of his employer, the BBC, whose reputation allows the greatest recognition and respect to those it considers stars, possibly more than any other broadcaster?
The ability of well-known, powerful figures, usually men, to abuse the trust placed in them is not unique to the BBC, of course. But the BBC’s history, as well as the universal funding mechanism it is currently fighting to continue, makes it imperative that, this time, the corporation learns the lessons of past scandals. The BBC’s lowest point was clearly after the revelations about Jimmy Savile, who had been allowed to hide far more atrocious sins in plain sight and to die a hero. But it must still ensure that it is in a strong position to weather further scandals.
The corporation announced an independent review into its workplace culture in August, after Edwards first pleaded guilty to possessing indecent images of children. With the review panel not yet appointed, it seems as good a time as any to look at what the corporation can do to avoid another scandal involving its best-known and best-paid staff.
So many of the scandals that damage the reputation of the BBC involve “talent” – men such as Edwards but also Rolf Harris, Savile and far lesser offenders who nonetheless broke the rules, such as Martin Bashir – given special treatment because they happen to be good on the telly. These are men not only paid enormous amounts of money, but also placed on the sort of pedestal that silences dissent. Any review of BBC culture must first give its less powerful employees a genuine avenue to raise any concerns or complaints.
The success and fame of Edwards, and all “front of house” presenters, rely on teamwork, yet researchers, producers, technicians and others are seen as far more expendable – with many believing it will be career-ending if they complain.
The power imbalance does not just affect junior members of staff when it comes to stars such as Edwards, whose career outlasted those of many of his bosses. The relationship between managers and presenters afforded public acclaim is unlike those in other, more hierarchical, jobs. The talent is often paid more and treated with kid gloves, which makes tough questions harder to ask.
The psychiatrist’s report cited in court traced a turning point back to 2018, when some BBC editors did raise concerns over Edwards’ social media activities after he took to posting images of himself bare-chested boxing on what was described as a “thirst Insta account”. Yet nothing much seems to have been done, even though the court heard that Edwards took two months of sick leave in 2018 “following an anonymous denunciation”. To be fair, BBC bosses did not know the reason and could not enquire into mental health concerns he had not been open about.
Yet it does again raise questions about the lack of action between 2018 and Edwards’ arrest in November 2023 – an arrest after which he continued to be paid a salary amounting to £200,000 until he resigned.
No star should be afforded the sort of long leash that allows them to become both very grand and unmanageable. The power imbalances that insulate on-air talent at the BBC must be addressed, and no employee should be above scrutiny if there are complaints or concerns over their conduct.
The BBC has now allowed a roster of great presenters including Clive Myrie, Reeta Chakrabarti and Sophie Raworth to replace Edwards on the News at Ten. It should also ensure, going forward, that the image of a wise and trusted presenter is not always a male one.
But the change that BBC management will find hardest to make is that of the siege mentality it adopts when criticised. Under attack from commercial rivals, headline-hungry politicians and an ageing army of loyal licence-fee payers, many scandals are met with a circling of the wagons rather than an honest appraisal of the difficult decisions that have to be made. Whether over Strictly or Edwards, this approach tends to leave newsroom staff so furious at being left in the dark that the ensuing coverage of internal problems takes on the tone of a tabloid witch hunt.
The crimes of Edwards are his alone, not the BBC’s, as should be the punishment. Child safety organisations have spoken of a “hidden pandemic” of sexual exploitation and abuse in our society, a warning that suggests the problem is far from one that affects hubristic presenters alone.
But the BBC is too important to be allowed to just shrug its collective shoulders and kick the issue into the long grass of yet another review. A genuine rebalancing of power structures and behaviour is urgent, especially for a new generation who are increasingly choosing not to pay the licence fee, yet need the BBC to continue as this nation’s most trusted voice more than ever.
Jane Martinson is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
