BBC bosses have refused to apologise after a tribute story to paedophile Jimmy Savile appeared second on a list of ‘most popular’ stories on its website – below coverage of the death of Robin Williams. Twitter users expressed outrage as the Savile story, filed hours after his death on October 29, 2011, suddenly appeared on the website and shot up the most read story list this morning. The BBC said it was because it had been shared through social media and was automatically added to the BBC’s most viewed story list as it rose up the charts.
I was discussing this with Jon Gaunt over on Fubarr Radio earlier and my point is that I really do believe that the BBC still don’t quite “get” the fact that for DECADES they sheltered one of the most notorious paedophiles this country has ever seen. Sure, they cannot be held responsible for whatever story from the past trends on social media – I get that – but they should still come out and express some contrition over THEIR star – the predatory monster Savile! Thoughts?
No shame. No principles. No regrets.
They should be shut down immediately.
They won’t tell us but how do the BBC decide what stories are most read?
Actually they can be held responsible for which other stories show alongside the main one. To argue that the list is just auto generated is lazy. Surely there are situations where the juxtaposition of stories could be deemed offensive?
‘To argue that the list is just auto generated is lazy’
Also (recalling ‘most viewed’, ignored vs. most pushed by BBC Eds disconnects in the past) the process remains a bit shrouded in mystery, and doubtless covered in a ‘purposes of..’ or FOI exclusion if trying to discover more.
I find it hard to believe that with an entity so PC, and so uniquely funded to afford staff to cover any eventuality, there is not some kind of human oversight and/or over-ride.
That said, it being the 10 week summer hols, they are likely on skeleton, work experience or intern cover pretty much up to Lord Pantone, so it’s possible the entire thing is on auto until a fan/ordure interface, at which point the flights from Tuscany suddenly get packed with backside-covering execs whose first task on getting back is to ensure the claim form goes in.
I worked with airline accounts and the media a lot, and the second anything happened that was going to reflect badly on either, things got pounced on instantly. I concede online adds a whole new level of immediacy, but where reputations are at stake ways are usually found.
ps: Fubar Radio? Really? Apparently so… http://fubarradio.com/
It would be rather odd for them not to have a mechanism to exclude certain stories from the system. They do have to explain why the story itself is accessible.
Funny that – the B-BBC do not hesitate to remove a story if it is deemed undesirable or offensive to a minority group (you know which ones I mean) – so why is a story glorifying the biggest paedo in British history, who’s activities were entirely made possible by the connivance of the BBC not qualify?
Because it’s the BBC and therefore, llke Soviet Russia, incapable of error.
Twitter users expressed outrage, outrage I tell you!
How does the Most Read work? Would it be a little too unsubtle of me to suggest it might be, oh I don’t know, the most read?
Apparently David Vance gets this, he really does, just thinks they should express contrition about Saville. Didnt they do that already though? Not really the same as apologising for the article appearing is it?
Still, kudos to the BBC for not deleting the article from its website and re-writing history.
So you’d be OK with, say, an article on vajazzling appearing next to a story on female genital mulilation?
Whats the connection between Saville and Robin Williams though? I must’ve missed that.
And no, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
Maybe you should tell us what the connection is? The BBC appearing to claim there is a connection because they’ve put a link on the same page. I personally find it pretty offensive to mention Savile on the same page as a much-revered famous actor.
Every major news site (and others) in the world has known of the perils of auto-generated lists of stories for years and years, going back to the 90s. If they have no method of moderation whatsoever, which I find hard to believe considering how many people they employ, then they will get sued one day.
If by a link on the same page you meant they both appeared on the fron of the news page, then Yes, the link is that they both appeared on the front news page.
“Didn’t the BBC already express contrition over Jimmy Savile?”
Did they heck as like.
Is that a rhetorical question, ‘Tom’? If so, have you anything amounting to proof that they did?
‘Appalled’ BBC offers apology to Jimmy Savile victims
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/appalled-bbc-offers-apology-to-jimmy-savile-victims-8448161.html
BBC Director-General issues ‘profound apology’:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216622/George-Entwistle-BBC-Director-General-issues-profound-apology-Jimmy-Savile-child-abuse-victims.html
No, they covered it all up for 30 years.
I have not seen it if they have.
the News of the World was engaged in illigality concerning listening to the unsecured voicemails of celebrities.
Murdoch showed real contrition by shutting the News of the World down.
The BBC harboured and covered up for several vile predatory paedophiles on their payroll for 5 decades. They have hardly uttered a peep of contrition for their own role in this at all.
It says something when Murdoch proves himself to be more ethical and decent than the BBC.
The most read list is generated automatically and there seems to be a group of people who get together to push a particular story to the top.
For example recently they picked an old story about a man who slept with his bicycle.
I dislike the BBC as much as the next man but I don’t think this is their fault.
For them to do anything about this would mean that either they had to manipulate the list or to delete old stories that they wouldn’t like people to see again which I think would be far worse.
Take you point, however,
‘…either they had to manipulate the list or to delete old stories that they wouldn’t like people to see again…
Well, as you mention these techniques, the BBC does have some history.
Jimmy Savile was abusing children in the 1960s, the 70s, the 80s , the 90s and 2000s. He was also chums with Prince Charles, he bought a cottage near Balmoral, obviously he must have been vetted by MI5, he was a marriage guidance councilor between Charles and Diana, curiouser and curiouser…
It seems he was protected by the Elites.
A former senior royal aide has revealed that Jimmy Savile’s behaviour when he visited Prince Charles’s official home at St James’ Palace was a cause for “concern and suspicion”.
”Dickie Arbiter, who handled media relations for the Prince and Princess of Wales while spokesman for the Queen between 1988 and 2000, said the suspected paedophile TV presenter used to rub his lips up the arms of Prince Charles’s young female assistants as a greeting.”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/29/jimmy-savile-behaviour-prince-charles
I love the way The Guardian picks “rubbing lips up the arms of female assistants” as evidence of weird behaviour, and not the more obvious trait of Savile’s of sticking his member in children and dead bodies.
Brian Gerrish , a retired Royal Navy officer gives a talk about the BBC and Jimmy Savile, the organisation is riddled with paedophiles.
Oh dear!
3/10. Must troll harder!
The BBC is the World Champion of PC Twister, capable of going to almost any lengths to obscure inconvenient truths that might offend certain demographics. Meanwhile, they have a link to a generous tribute to a notorious sexual predator and suddenly they can’t do nuffink, guv.
Just the way it is.
That’s the point. They just don’t get it. They harbored a notorious sexual predator for years but they still act as though anyone who points that out is some curtain-twitching squaresville Jesus freak.
The BBC got off scot-free over Saville.
Any surviving BBC bosses from those past decades ought to have ended up in the dock for their actions or rather inactions.
Their defence was they suspected but had no evidence that would hold up in court but you didn’t need evidence to refuse to renew his contract. They could have released him any time they wanted but he was a money spinner and that counted for more.