The BBC’s handling of its suspended star is a mistake

Get free BBC updates

we will send you one myFT Daily Digest Latest Email Rounding BBC News every morning.

A statue of George Orwell welcomes visitors to the BBC’s home at Broadcasting House in central London, along with an inspirational inscription from the unpublished Preface. Animal Farm, But it’s Orwell’s twist of reality 1984 Which comes to mind this week when the corporation is grappling with a scandal involving an unnamed star presenter.

Viewers of Monday’s 10 o’clock news on BBC1 and then Newsnight on BBC2 that evening saw an intense discussion of conflicting narratives by presenters, BBC correspondents and guests about the events leading up to the star’s suspension.

The Sun has claimed the presenter allegedly paid thousands of pounds to a young man under the age of 18 in exchange for explicit photos. The newspaper published the story after contacting the young man’s parents; The person responded through a lawyer that the claims were “nonsense”.

The star has not been named in BBC news programmes, despite hosts, guests and much of the viewing audience suspecting his identity, with rumors circulating on social media for several days. The broadcaster has a long and rich tradition of excellent public service journalism; However, it is treating its audience with a certain degree of contempt.

It is true that the BBC would have a legitimate concern about the welfare of the unnamed presenter and the young man. The story that is still unfolding is also complex in nature. Now a different allegation has been leveled against the star by a different person. But while it remains a legal and ethical minefield, giving the story such prominence and airplay is questionable.

The broadcaster’s hands are tied by confidentiality and defamation laws as well as the employer’s obligations regarding the welfare of employees. Britain’s defamation law has traditionally been so lenient towards claimants that London earned a reputation for defamation tourism, a place where oligarchs and other wealthy types could bring cases to silence their critics.

Application of those laws became even tighter a year ago when Bloomberg News lost a case that reaffirmed earlier privacy precedents, Bloomberg was sued about a criminal investigation by a man named in a 2016 story (and in court it was referred to as ZXC). The UK Supreme Court ruled that as a starting point suspects in criminal investigations have a right to anonymity by media groups until formal charges are made – which can only be overridden by strong public interest considerations.

Media lawyers say the Bloomberg v. ZXC case has stoked news outlets’ appetite for naming individuals in controversial stories. The matter may be one reason for The Sun’s decision not to name the BBC presenter in its original story last week, when it alleged a crime may have been committed.

However, at present there is no police investigation going on in the matter. Indeed, the broadcaster’s director general Tim Davey said on Tuesday that its own internal investigation into The Sun’s allegations would be suspended while police decide what to do.

Such cases are particularly vexing for the broadcaster, which in recent years has suffered legal defeats over the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal and breach of privacy when it broadcast a police raid on singer Cliff Richard’s estate.

If the BBC star hasn’t broken the law, it’s hard to see a public interest in naming her. The problem is that the BBC, inspired by the national press, has breathless coverage of its own staff in its bulletins. It’s a difficult balancing act of trying to cover up the news while moving it, but it has inevitably generated public interest in the story before all the facts are known.

It has also live-blogged the saga on its news website, as it did recently in the Philip Scofield case, when former I.T.V. today morning The presenter quit after an affair with a male colleague. Ukraine finally getting approval to join NATO or Joe Biden’s trip to London this week is little more than BBC bulletins this week. A visitor from Mars watching the BBC these past few days would probably conclude that the story of the anonymous suspended presenter was the most important in the world. If so, as the broadcaster believes, aren’t the viewers entitled to know who it is?

matthew.garrahan@ft.com