When a senior member of the royal family or high profile public figure dies, on-air BBC presenters change into black clothes and put on black (or extremely dark navy) ties. This was one of the first indications on September 8th, 2022 that something was wrong and that Queen Elizabeth II’s health may have been severely ailing. Huw Edwards – a now disgraced former BBC anchor – announced the death of the queen at 6.30pm that same day. And so one of the defining events of contemporary British history will now be refracted through the prism of Edwards, his navy tie, and his staggering fall from grace.
On Monday, Edwards received a six-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to accessing indecent images of children. He will also be placed on the sex offenders’ registry for seven years. The case was heard in July, when the news anchor confessed to possessing several images – obtained via WhatsApp – of underage victims (mostly teenagers but one as young as seven). This followed a separate story published last year in the Sun that found Edwards had paid a 17-year-old man £35,000 in return for explicit messages.
The sentence has been criticised for its leniency. “Fury” one headline in the Telegraph reads, “as Huw Edwards avoids jail.” Elon Musk stuck his oar in (as usual) declaring Britain’s “misplaced priorities” when it comes to sentencing (that people have been sent to prison for tweeting during the recent riots while Edwards has avoided jail time has been a particular sticking point). Tory leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat saw political capital in the whole affair – writing to the UK attorney general seeking a sentence review. Plenty of lawyers have defended the sentence as standard for an offence like this, but public perception of the justice system is important. And it is clear the public are dissatisfied.
There are plenty of angles to be interrogated here. The downfall of a newsreader – once beamed into the homes of millions during era-defining events – has a particularly shocking hum to it. The deification of media figures tells us something about the dangers of turning the news into a vehicle for celebrity. And then there is the Sun’s story and the incredibly tricky questions it raises about public interest versus right to privacy (the Met didn’t pursue any action in the wake of the report). And of course at the centre of this all sit the victims.
Ireland has been surpassed as ‘the largest open-air lunatic asylum in the world’
Nanci Griffith: From a Distance review – harrowing account of the country music star’s life that ended in isolation and alcoholism
Patrick Freyne: I joined a gym this year. Here’s how working out is working out
‘Show some respect’, Brian Cowen told Gerry Adams in furious Belfast meeting, records show
But this is also a story about the BBC and the shortcomings in its governance.
Edwards was the corporation’s highest paid journalist, paid between £475,000 and £479,000 between 2023 and 2024. After the Sun investigation was made public in July, Edwards was suspended, but continued to receive his salary (this seems fair now as it did then). But this is where it gets murky and more difficult for the BBC to defend itself: the corporation became aware that Edwards was arrested and that the charges were “serious” in November, but his licence fee-funded salary did not stop coming. Now, the culture secretary is urging Edwards to return the £200,000 or so sum he received between his arrest and his formal resignation in April 2024.
And here is the rub: just as with sentencing, public perception of how the BBC manages moments like this matters hugely. The BBC functions on the licence fee and is integral to the architecture of the British state. It has more reach and more power than any other media outlet there. It is no wrong thing that its stars are handsomely paid (talent is expensive) but the privilege to pay so well should come with the highest standards in transparency and probity. The BBC has not met these. Nor has it learned, it seems, from the lessons of the serious crises that beset the organisation with Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile – two moments in the BBC’s history that seriously undermined public goodwill.
All sides of the spectrum suspect the BBC is biased against their particular cause. It must be exhausting for the organisation – everyone can find fault in it
The BBC is a highly defensive organisation. It is easy to understand why. Precisely because it is so prestigious, central to British life and expensive to maintain, it becomes a culture wars whipping post for the press. On one side it is condemned for its slavish devotion to political correctness; from another it is seen as stuffy and staid, a vestige of the 20th century media habits. All sides of the spectrum suspect the BBC is biased against their particular cause. It must be exhausting for the organisation – everyone can find fault in it.
Because of this, it is too quick to jump to its own defence, to protect its senior talent far beyond a level necessary or appropriate, to see an attack on its personnel as an attack on the BBC’s own values. This completely warps its judgment. And it seems this is no small part as to why the BBC mismanaged the Edwards fall out in such a clunky and murky manner. Positive public perception and public goodwill matter – without them, institutions like the BBC will find their foundations are built on sand.