Newsnight and Jimmy Savile
There has been a lot written about why I took the decision not to run a story into allegations of sex abuse by the former ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ presenter Jimmy Savile. It has been suggested I was ordered to do it by my bosses as part of a ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ cover-up. It has also been suggested that we deliberately withheld information from the police. Both these allegations are totally untrue and despite consistent strong denials keep getting repeated. I felt it would be useful to share more about what really happened.
The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has the highest editorial standards and with any story an editor has to weigh many things before putting something to air. ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ editors have a lot of power and responsibility and I have never, in the many years I have done this job, ever been told by one of my superiors not to do a story against my will. I would not still be working here if they had.
Why did I pursue this story about Jimmy Savile and why did I drop it?
I decided we should pursue the story because of the nature of the allegations and because the key witness told us the police had investigated the claims but the case had been dropped on the grounds he was too old. This made the public interest case from a Newsnight point of view potentially strong. If we could establish some sort of institutional failure we would have a much stronger story.
Some of the factors on the other side were: Newsnight is not normally interested in celebrity expose. Savile was unable to defend himself. What was the public interest served by reporting it given he is dead? The nature of the allegations and the level of proof required. The fact the incidents were 40 years ago.
We had no evidence that anyone from the Duncroft home could or should have known about the allegations. We had no evidence against the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ. In her original statement our key witness said she was "perfectly certain the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ had no idea whatsoever of the goings on". However, I felt if we could prove the police or the CPS had let the women down in some way we should go ahead.
We did establish the police had investigated the allegations in 2007. However, as the police would be obliged to investigate I wanted to check how they would respond to the allegation that it was not pursued because Jimmy Savile was too old. The CPS told us:
"The CPS reviewing lawyer advised the police that no further action should be taken due to lack of evidence." The additional guidance noted stated. "As this is the case, it would not be correct to say that his age and frailty was the reason for no further action being taken."
This statement specifically denied the allegation that the investigation was dropped because of his age. I felt it was significant the guidance was included and we had not established any institutional failure and I judged it weakened the story from a Newsnight perspective. I took the decision not to publish. There were some of my team who disagreed strongly with my judgement, and others who agreed equally strongly.
However, those who disagreed accepted my decision. There were no rows of any kind as has been reported.
Did we withhold evidence from the police? No. We are confident that all the women we spoke to had contacted the police independently already. We also had no new evidence against any other person that would have helped the police.
Did my bosses order me to do anything? No. I did discuss it with my bosses in News in the same way I do any contentious story we are working on. I was told in the strongest terms that I must be guided by editorial considerations only and that I must not let any wider considerations about the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ affect my judgement.
The fact that the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has the capacity to do this may feel odd to other organisations but it is fundamental to the trust we share with our audience.
Peter Rippon is the editor of Newsnight
Note: On 22 October 2012 the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ issued a correction to the above post. You can read it here.
Comment number 1.
At 2nd Oct 2012, NollyPrott wrote:Damage limitation propaganda exercise ?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 2nd Oct 2012, RobinsonMJ wrote:Fascinating. Just so I understand, what you are saying here is that if the institutional failure had been either the police or the CPS, it would have been a story, but not if the institutional failure had been the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's.
I'm glad that's all cleared up.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 2nd Oct 2012, NollyPrott wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 2nd Oct 2012, shendor wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 2nd Oct 2012, M90R wrote:The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is damned if it does and damned if it doesnt. I welcome your clear explanation of why you investigated the allegations, and why they ultimately weren't broadcast, but there will be foamy-mouthed conspiracy fanatics who will see the above as excuses. The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is damned if it doesnt too. If you had stayed silent, you would have been accused of secrecy and a cover-up.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 2nd Oct 2012, Jolly Rodger wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 2nd Oct 2012, Bob Hughes wrote:@M90R Surely the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ have stayed silent and they have been accused of secrecy and a cover-up!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 2nd Oct 2012, cottingley wrote:We can only consider Peter Rippon blog if we know what it was that Newsnight decided not to show , then if we found they have the same evidence as ITV will air tomorrow ,then I believe he has more questions to answer .So Newsnight should now show us what they decided to cut .
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 2nd Oct 2012, Bob Hughes wrote:@Jolly Rodger I don't think you have been keeping up to date on this. Historically, girls did make complaints and were ignored or dealt with. People at the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ chose to ignore all the signs. His name was in the frame with the Police on at least two occasions. Also, Sir Jimmy was not averse to engaging Queen's Council to frighten off the media.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 2nd Oct 2012, Mary Winston Smith wrote:Or maybe Newsnight reaised at the last minute that some of the few people who still watch it would be offended by this issue being subjected to its usual pointless shouty panel of US neocon, obnoxious writer, ex-Sun journalist, raving MP or anyone else who can be relied upon to know nothing but shout a great deal.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 2nd Oct 2012, Mary Winston Smith wrote:I was told by nurses at a party in the 1980s that Saville was (allegedly) notorious at Stoke Mandeville hospital. Adult women, maybe, but Saville's reputation seems to have been an urban myth for decades.
Still, the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ gave up investigative journalism back in about 1975 so maybe it's no surprise they were the last people to find out what a pest Saville was; he only worked there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 2nd Oct 2012, mandf wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 2nd Oct 2012, CoalitionOfTheWilting wrote:Alluded to for decades.
³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ didn't do a damn thing about it.
For shame.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 2nd Oct 2012, Dinesh Patel wrote:"scandal", "cover up", all the things the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ regularly attacks the Catholic
Church for with regards to child abuse... seems when it's the other ay round the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ doesn't seem to like it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 2nd Oct 2012, rockall wrote:'I must be guided by editorial considerations only and that I must not let any wider considerations about the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ affect my judgement.'
This could be read as a veiled threat. I imagine Peter Ripon decided that criticising the corporation might ultimately be career limiting.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 2nd Oct 2012, NollyPrott wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 2nd Oct 2012, LandOfTheMushroomPeople wrote:Looks the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and the Catholic Church have something in common after all
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 2nd Oct 2012, theSteB wrote:Does Peter Rippon really think that if the CPS had dropped the charges against Jimmy Saville because of his age, that they'd have admitted this? The scandal would have been huge. If journalists never reported something because an official denied it, there wouldn't be a great lot of news.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 2nd Oct 2012, PJohnston wrote:The heart of the matter is institutional wrongdoing at the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ. Peter Rippon didn't think to investigate within the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ.
As for "³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has the highest editorial standards," I have made numerous complaints about ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ omitting information from its output which appears in other media unedited. Editors & journalists regularly censor facts from ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ material to mislead and to obfuscate.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 2nd Oct 2012, ninoinoz wrote:Girls were taken from an Approved School and raped on ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ property. But, you say there was no institutional failure.
You say there was no public interest served by reporting it given he is dead and the incidents were 40 years ago. Funny, what was that programme about Fr. Kit Cunningham on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ earlier this year? There seems to be one rule for Catholic priests and another for ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ employees.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 3rd Oct 2012, Alcuin wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 3rd Oct 2012, MAYDAY wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 3rd Oct 2012, clearsighted wrote:Youdon't acknowledge the very interesting timing of your decision not to publish. My understanding is that your decision was taken in the days before the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ was due to screen programmes celebrating Jimmy Saville's career. I don't know that this issue was important to your decision. But your failure to acknowledge the timing makes me suspicious.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 3rd Oct 2012, bustabloodvessel wrote:Another step down the slippery slope. If the newspaper allegations of a ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ cover-up are true, why not sue?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 3rd Oct 2012, JunkkMale wrote:'2. At 17:48 2nd Oct 2012, RobinsonMJ '
³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ headlined they were appalled they were being accused of something, which came across as more concerned about their reputation than with the victims of the accusations corporation's caught up in.
Poorly phrased wording can do that when media play with them for good, bad or simply inept reasons.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 3rd Oct 2012, jhakasseo wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 3rd Oct 2012, JunkkMale wrote:'7. At 18:25 2nd Oct 2012, Bob Hughes
One gets the impression they feel they only get to ask others questions, or hold them to account. Not so keen on the other way. As with 'interactive' blogs and their modding.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 3rd Oct 2012, JunkkMale wrote:'6. - Jolly Rodger '
Post-mortem 'news' coverage of any individual is a sensitive issue.
However, as a matter of precedent, and consistency, I am intrigued by those who claim certain things are not worthy of such on various bases, be they retroactive time periods or other mitigating criteria, when I doubt the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ would wish to be constrained by such limitations in theirs elsewhere.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 3rd Oct 2012, pbrown777 wrote:I've been watching the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's reaction over the past few days, first, total denial, then damage limitation and now (the day of the documentary) back to denial. This institution loves to stick it to others about its failures pity it can't face up to its own. This blog is a prime example of covering up this humiliating scandal. Shame on you.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 3rd Oct 2012, Peter Nicholls wrote:I think many are misunderstanding what he is saying: he CAN hold the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ to account and CAN report coverups etc. In this case, it wasn't even the case- it was the CPS saying lack of evidence.... Honestly, please read what he writes not what you think he's writing.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 3rd Oct 2012, JunkkMale wrote:³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ record with 'evidence' varies, mind. Badger controversy activist un-named 'source': credible & 2B protected . Ex³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ on-record testimony: 'no one complained/nothing happened anyone aware of', then deploy hounds 2 discredit any not 'moving on'. On the same 'news' day.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 3rd Oct 2012, Robbie777 wrote:Well maybe the work of journalist Leah McGrath in exposing Jersey as a sort of Butlins for rich and powerful pedos will be exposed now. She had her visa revoked for investigating Haut de la garrene, no doubt too many powerful figures, not just saville , have got things too hide.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 3rd Oct 2012, solon wrote:I look forward to seeing the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ report on their own failings to act swiftly and assertively with their own child abusers having witnessed their confident and largely hostile investigations of the Roman Catholic Church. It'll be interesting to see what processes the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ has in place around child protection in the 1970s
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 3rd Oct 2012, southcoastmike wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 3rd Oct 2012, dark_dusky wrote:After watching Louis Theroux in 2000 I was suspicious, then when Jimmy said he couldn't remember being in Isle of Wight even though there were pictures of him I definitely was very suspicious. If I, as a member of the public, thought that I'm sure people who knew him must have been very suspicious.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 3rd Oct 2012, U15445932 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 3rd Oct 2012, Robbie777 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 3rd Oct 2012, PJohnston wrote:Peter Rippon needs to also speak to the matter of the allegations against two living ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ 'celebs' who are alleged to have sexually abused girls at Television Centre. Or is that not in the public interest either?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 3rd Oct 2012, JohnPMarketing wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 3rd Oct 2012, suebphil2 wrote:Interesting ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ news mentioning another connection with another person under investigation round about at the same time?
I worked in a night club and regularly we heard about young girls who would go off with artists, band members etc (groupies ) back to hotels etc. We would get all sorts of stories of what went on.. The people involved all knew they were under age but never asked the question.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)
Comment number 41.
At 3rd Oct 2012, Jude Calvert-Toulmin wrote:30. Peter Nicholls > In this case, it wasn't even the case- it was the CPS saying lack of evidence....
That is the reason given in this blog, yes. But don't forget that, as clearsighted points out in comment 23, the Newsnight in question was pulled *just before a big ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ tribute to Savile was about to be aired.* I hardly think that was a coincidence.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 41)
Comment number 42.
At 3rd Oct 2012, Jude Calvert-Toulmin wrote:Furthermore, Joshua Rozenburg, who was on the staff of the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ for 25 years and still freelances for them, said in an article in today's Guardian referring to this ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ editor blog regarding the CPS:
> There seem to be no issues of law here.
I agree with him. It doesn't seem to be an issue of law at all...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 42)