Crosswords2 mins ago
BBC DG off to pastures new........
George Entwhistle, the Director General of the BBC has just resigned. He has fallen on his sword. An honourable move or was he pushed?
Answers
@jno I sympathise with him to some extent over the timing, but you cannot use that as an excuse in such a high profile series of incidents.
Homer Simpson in a cartoon might be excused a lot by stating "its my first day" - but this guy cannot.
Homer Simpson in a cartoon might be excused a lot by stating "its my first day" - but this guy cannot.
23:27 Sat 10th Nov 2012
Not sure if he jumped or was pushed.
Frankly, I do not think there could have been any other outcome.
Original SoVile Newsnight report pulled at the last moment. George Entwhistle, at the recent select committee grilling, says he was told about the show, but he didn't ask any questions.
Following this huge scandal ,and all the fallout associated with it - following a select committee grilling, following these new systems he supposedly puts in place - another Newsnight report, on the same incendiary topic of child abuse gets aired - and he claims to have had no knowledge of its contents until the following morning?
Any such report should have been red flagged by his management system. Either he was incompetent and the system he put in place failed, or he was guilty of this same seeming lack of interest he exhibited back when the SoVile report was due to be broadcast.
He had even gathered a new nickname - "incurious" george. His position was untenable , and frankly he had to go.
Frankly, I do not think there could have been any other outcome.
Original SoVile Newsnight report pulled at the last moment. George Entwhistle, at the recent select committee grilling, says he was told about the show, but he didn't ask any questions.
Following this huge scandal ,and all the fallout associated with it - following a select committee grilling, following these new systems he supposedly puts in place - another Newsnight report, on the same incendiary topic of child abuse gets aired - and he claims to have had no knowledge of its contents until the following morning?
Any such report should have been red flagged by his management system. Either he was incompetent and the system he put in place failed, or he was guilty of this same seeming lack of interest he exhibited back when the SoVile report was due to be broadcast.
He had even gathered a new nickname - "incurious" george. His position was untenable , and frankly he had to go.
LazyGun, bear in mind he'd hardly been in the job long enough to put management systems in place or make good appointments (it takes ages to appoint anyone anywhere in the beeb). He was almost certainly relying on those left by the previous director general, whose main aim was to sack people and please the government by not seeking a higher licence fee. The more experienced senior people you lose, the more you have idiots working for you. That much wasn't Entwistle's fault.
Being incurious George was, though.
Being incurious George was, though.
@jno I sympathise with him to some extent over the timing, but you cannot use that as an excuse in such a high profile series of incidents.
Homer Simpson in a cartoon might be excused a lot by stating "its my first day" - but this guy cannot.
For the SoVile report, he was vision editor - the SoVile tribute programmes were under his management. Unyet, when told by head of news that newsnight might be running a report on SoVile, he doesnt ask a single question about why? Don't buy it. As an editor, as a media man, no one can be that incurious.
Then, the opposite happens - a poorly validated report, trailed to other media in the 24 hours before broadcast, and allegedly passed up the editorial chain including the lawyers is broadcast and adds to the fuel of the witch-hunt and effectively outs Lord McAlpine. Victim from the report then retracts his assertion, saying this is not the guy?
And incurious george, as editor in chief of the BBC, does not require any such red flag report on a clearly incendiary topic, with such a high profile alleged abuser doesn't know anything about it until after the broadcast? No, that will not wash- incompetence. lack of interest or lack of managerial grip.
His position had become untenable. He had no option but to go.
And to be frank, were I in his shoes, with the BBC becoming the story, rather than the abuse, facing relentless media intrusion and a select committee grilling in another 2 weeks - Cannot blame him if he felt it was time to step down.
Homer Simpson in a cartoon might be excused a lot by stating "its my first day" - but this guy cannot.
For the SoVile report, he was vision editor - the SoVile tribute programmes were under his management. Unyet, when told by head of news that newsnight might be running a report on SoVile, he doesnt ask a single question about why? Don't buy it. As an editor, as a media man, no one can be that incurious.
Then, the opposite happens - a poorly validated report, trailed to other media in the 24 hours before broadcast, and allegedly passed up the editorial chain including the lawyers is broadcast and adds to the fuel of the witch-hunt and effectively outs Lord McAlpine. Victim from the report then retracts his assertion, saying this is not the guy?
And incurious george, as editor in chief of the BBC, does not require any such red flag report on a clearly incendiary topic, with such a high profile alleged abuser doesn't know anything about it until after the broadcast? No, that will not wash- incompetence. lack of interest or lack of managerial grip.
His position had become untenable. He had no option but to go.
And to be frank, were I in his shoes, with the BBC becoming the story, rather than the abuse, facing relentless media intrusion and a select committee grilling in another 2 weeks - Cannot blame him if he felt it was time to step down.
I wasn't defending him or saying he shouldn't go, LazyGun, I was suggesting there were a lot more people who should be joining him.
I'm still wondering about the McAlpine business, though. Since the BBC carefully didn't broadcast his name, are they liable for the fact that others on Twitter did so after their broadcast? If media organisations are to be considered liable for the way public gossip embroiders a news report, that will pretty much put a lid on any serious investigation at all, which will no doubt delight politicians but doesn't delight me.
Of course if there is any evidence that the BBC itself leaked the name, it would be different. But I've heard none.
I'm still wondering about the McAlpine business, though. Since the BBC carefully didn't broadcast his name, are they liable for the fact that others on Twitter did so after their broadcast? If media organisations are to be considered liable for the way public gossip embroiders a news report, that will pretty much put a lid on any serious investigation at all, which will no doubt delight politicians but doesn't delight me.
Of course if there is any evidence that the BBC itself leaked the name, it would be different. But I've heard none.
Here's his resignation if anyone wants to see it. 54 days in the job! I agree, others must go. Any idea who might be the next DG?.
http://
http://
There is some interesting background to the story in a couple of links jno, that are worth reading.
Of interest is the role of the BIJ, and the self satisfied and boastful tweet on the day of the broadcast said they were going to name and shame a senior conservative politician as a paedophile on Newsnight tonight.
I agree that others will probably have to go - but he was so lacking in knowledge about the background and indeed about some of the issues of the broadcast.
And he was absolutely humiliated on R4 today this morning by John Humphries, in an interview where time after time he had to say he was unaware or he didnt know.
Its awful all around... and Paxman has laid into the management at the BBC bigtime over this issue as well.
http://
http://
Of interest is the role of the BIJ, and the self satisfied and boastful tweet on the day of the broadcast said they were going to name and shame a senior conservative politician as a paedophile on Newsnight tonight.
I agree that others will probably have to go - but he was so lacking in knowledge about the background and indeed about some of the issues of the broadcast.
And he was absolutely humiliated on R4 today this morning by John Humphries, in an interview where time after time he had to say he was unaware or he didnt know.
Its awful all around... and Paxman has laid into the management at the BBC bigtime over this issue as well.
http://
http://
the involvement of the BIJ seems to suggest this is a result of (partial) outsourcing. It was a BIJ man who was tweeting about this in advance of the programme. And yet the BBC is the organisation paying the price.
Ideally they'd have a confident director general fiercely fighting their corner. What they had instead was someone who didn't appear to have any idea what was going on and didn't want to have. He's going because, as you say, his position was untenable. But I'm not convinced that it was because the BBC has actually done anything wrong.
Ideally they'd have a confident director general fiercely fighting their corner. What they had instead was someone who didn't appear to have any idea what was going on and didn't want to have. He's going because, as you say, his position was untenable. But I'm not convinced that it was because the BBC has actually done anything wrong.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Climber Needs To *** Into Runny Paste
Crosswords10 mins ago
Editor's Blog25 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul25 mins ago
ChatterBank46 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.