TV Home Forum

The Other Side of Jimmy Savile

ITV Documentary, Newsnight's pulled pieces, Panorama & Utter mess........ (October 2012)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
WE
Westy2
David posted:
I suspect the BBC will arrive at some sort of compromise whereby the remaining Savile episodes of TOTP are "topped and tailed" to remove the presenter in question, similar to the editing style of TOTP 2.


Thats what they should do.

It aint as if they're a stranger to the art of editing TOTP on BBC FOUR anyway!


I'm interested in why you would want them to edit Jimmy Savile out of Top of the Pops. Who would benefit from this?


I want to see the TOTP performances.

The BBC have shown performances minus the presenter links for years on TOTP 2.

I don't see why episodes should be missed because of the appearance of Savile on screen.

They've edited the early evening BBC FOUR showings for the past year or so. (Last night's show was 45 mins in total, but the 730 showing had some acts removed, so the show could fit into 30 mins!)

What's the difference between editing out acts for timing reasons & editing out presenter links?

No difference, in my opinion.
NJ
Neil Jones Founding member

Provided we don't stray into legal disputes, which is unlikely given that Jimmy Savile is dead and cannot be libelled, I see no problem with discussing the programme and no more.


While it is true you cannot libel the dead, a couple of asides are listed here of people who've tried:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4630243.stm

However it was reported a few months ago that a change to the law could have happened, but didn't:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/49522
JW
JamesWorldNews
Whilst I am unable to watch any of the Savile coverage, a post by member Alexia over on Metropol kinda sums up the whole scenario for me. Eloquently written, he offers a commentary probably bordering on ridiculing the masses yet, in fact, he hits the nail right on the head.

As noted, I haven't seen the documentaries referred to in this thread, however, one imagines that they appeal to today's tabloid culture - paraphrasing - feeding the Jeremy Kyle-esque hunger that so many of us have.

Yet, I bet no one actually challenges the simple fact: why didn't the victims report it at the time?

It doesn't excuse Savile's *allegedly* vile behaviour, but it's quite incredible that the media opts to behave in this way when the *accused* is no longer here to fight his corner.

Not being a member on Metropol, I can't post there, but if Alexia reads here: one fine piece of writing, that was.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
Whilst I am unable to watch any of the Savile coverage, a post by member Alexia over on Metropol kinda sums up the whole scenario for me. Eloquently written, he offers a commentary probably bordering on ridiculing the masses yet, in fact, he hits the nail right on the head.

As noted, I haven't seen the documentaries referred to in this thread, however, one imagines that they appeal to today's tabloid culture - paraphrasing - feeding the Jeremy Kyle-esque hunger that so many of us have.

Yet, I bet no one actually challenges the simple fact: why didn't the victims report it at the time?

It doesn't excuse Savile's *allegedly* vile behaviour, but it's quite incredible that the media opts to behave in this way when the *accused* is no longer here to fight his corner.

Not being a member on Metropol, I can't post there, but if Alexia reads here: one fine piece of writing, that was.


Why don't you sign up then?
MA
Marcus Founding member
Whilst I am unable to watch any of the Savile coverage, a post by member Alexia over on Metropol kinda sums up the whole scenario for me. Eloquently written, he offers a commentary probably bordering on ridiculing the masses yet, in fact, he hits the nail right on the head.

As noted, I haven't seen the documentaries referred to in this thread, however, one imagines that they appeal to today's tabloid culture - paraphrasing - feeding the Jeremy Kyle-esque hunger that so many of us have.

Yet, I bet no one actually challenges the simple fact: why didn't the victims report it at the time?

It doesn't excuse Savile's *allegedly* vile behaviour, but it's quite incredible that the media opts to behave in this way when the *accused* is no longer here to fight his corner.

Not being a member on Metropol, I can't post there, but if Alexia reads here: one fine piece of writing, that was.


A lot of them did report it at the time, but were not believed. They were a disturbed child from a broken home living in care. He was a national celebrity, friend of royalty and MP's who raised a fortune for charity. How dare they say horrible things about that nice man.

If you are a child in that position who do you turn to? You feel guilty and dirty. You suppress it. You think you are alone. Only now when you realize you aren't alone and that you might now be believed do you speak out.
JW
JamesWorldNews
Fair comment, Marcus.

16 days later

SE
Square Eyes Founding member
Seems that this is an escalating BBC scandal with the front pages tomorrow, and a 'damning' Panorama documentary tomorrow night on BBC One at 10.35pm.

An unusual circumstance for a BBC documentary strand to be investigating a BBC news programme.

Not sure the new DG will survive this.
Last edited by Square Eyes on 22 October 2012 12:26am
IS
Inspector Sands
Not sure the new DG will survive this.

No, he's not going to walk for this. He was only in the job 3 weeks before this all started. The BBC were slow to react to the accusations but that's really something that can be laid at his feet, especially so early on in the post
SE
Square Eyes Founding member
Not sure the new DG will survive this.

No, he's not going to walk for this. He was only in the job 3 weeks before this all started. The BBC were slow to react to the accusations but that's really something that can be laid at his feet, especially so early on in the post


It's not about his time as the DG, but his time as Director of Vision:

Quote about the Panorama Special:

'The Panorama special, which screens tonight at 10.35pm, claims Helen Boaden, the BBC director of news, warned Mr Entwistle about the investigation and its possible impact on planned tributes to Savile.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bbc-savile-probe-puts-entwistle-under-new-pressure-8219864.html
IS
Inspector Sands
It's not about his time as the DG, but his time as Director of Vision:

Quote about the Panorama Special:

'The Panorama special, which screens tonight at 10.35pm, claims Helen Boaden, the BBC director of news, warned Mr Entwistle about the investigation and its possible impact on planned tributes to Savile.'

Yes but the issue is more about why it didn't go out, which of course wasn't his decision. Unless there's proof that he did put pressure on Newsnight to not show it he should be safe.
GE
Gareth E
Its certainly not every day that you see a recognisable, broadcast journalist (in this case Liz Mackean) being interviewed by a BBC investigative programme investigating the alleged stifling of her own BBC investigation about a former BBC personality.

In terms of the scheduling of the Panorama special - there had been media reports that the BBC would drop New Tricks and show the programme at 9pm, but now its been shifted back to 10.35pm. Ironically, right up against Newsnight on BBC Two.

Have Newsnight even acknowledged the story over the past few weeks? Apart from anything on the front pages?
ET
ETP1 Forever
Dear god, this story is filling up almost the whole this mornings Breakfast News.

Newer posts