The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

George Entwistle: a decent man out of his depth

The director general of the BBC failed to convince MPs that he was not guilty of wilful blindness.

BBC director general George Entwistle. Photograph: Getty Images.
BBC director general George Entwistle leaves Portcullis House in Parliament after giving evidence to the media select committee. Photograph: Getty Images.

The director general of the BBC came to the House of Commons this morning to restore his reputation over the Jimmy Savile scandal - and failed. After a two-hour ordeal by MPs on the culture select committee, George Entwistle left to be doorstepped by one of his own reporters and asked if he planned to resign.

Entwistle volunteered to appear to demonstrate he'd got a grip on the increasing chaos within the BBC. Just 12 hours earlier, viewers had seen one prestigious BBC programme, Panorama, sit in judgement of another, Newsnight, and raise serious questions about leadership in the corporation. They heard of furious rows between staff and the Newsnight editor amid suspicion he had been leaned on from above before deciding to axe an investigation into Savile. Enwistle was there today to demonstrate that the BBC had acted properly throughout; that his were indeed the safe pair of hands the BBC needed at this momentous time.

Sadly, what emerged during the confrontation was a picture of a decent man out of his depth in this crisis. It was an obviously nervous DG who was welcomed to the  Thatcher Room by committee chairman John Whittingdale,who is sometimes brighter than he looks. Within minutes, he had Entwistle muttering "maybe's and should's"as he made mild-mannered replies to charges that the BBC seemed rudderless.

If that was't a bad enough start, he was then turned over to the committee's in-house Tory rottweiler, Phillip Davies MP, for whom obtuse abuse is second nature. It was obvious that the DG rarely spends his time in the company of such people, as his every attempt to be pleasant in reply to Davies's increasingly irrelevant questions met with further insults. Having asked him about events in the 1970s, Davies accused Entwistle of a "lamentable lack of knowledge" and sat down to self-applause.

But the director general was on equally rocky ground as he rolled between MPs of all parties obviously unimpressed by his view of the business he now runs. As he confirmed that the editor of Newsnight, Peter Rippon, had been "stood aside" following a series of errors in his recollection of the affair, he was asked if he was "angry". "I was very disappointed indeed," he said, as if anger was an emotion not to be found about his person.

But the best, or worst, had been saved for last when committee chairman Whittingdale finally turned to the matter of who knew what when the Newsnight Savile probe was dropped. As the executive in charge of the eulogy programmes being planned  on Savile, "yes" Entwistle had been told in a brief conversation that Newsnight were looking into the DJ's past. But "no" he had not asked what it was about, he told the increasingly incredulous MPs, because that might have been seen as interference in the editorial process.

This three monkeys approach to management went down like a lead balloon with the MPs. "You are beginning to sound like James Murdoch", said Damian Collins, as the DG denied turning "a blind eye" to the Newsnight investigation. But when chairman Whittingale asked what he thought the programme was investigating, Entwistle replied: "I don't remember reflecting on it". Having agreed early and decisive action was needed, he told the committee the the independent inquiry into Newsnight by Nick Pollard could take four or five weeks. All that remains now is for the chairman of the BBC Trust, Chris Patten, to declare he has "total confidence" in his DG. 

6 comments

Hugh C Markey's picture

Dash it all! There goes management by omission. Will have to re-write the MBA handbook.

Grant Schapps/or that Green bloke

Hugh C Markey's picture

Dash it all! There goes management by omission. Will have to re-write the MBA handbook.

Grant Schapps/or that Green bloke

Artemis Caesar's picture

Utter rubbish Peter. Entwistle has been at the beeb for a while now. Either he knew what was going on or it shows incompetence of the the highest order. The emails if true are damning and would suggest that some at the beeb condoned the abuse of girls because they were not too young- how abhorrent?

Ian Pitch's picture

This current story perfectly illustrates the over-management of the BBC which continues, despite many job cuts elsewhere in the organisation. I worked in post-production for the Corporation for more than 30 years, both on the staff and freelance. In the past, a documentary or drama would be oveseen by a producer and possibly a department head. The principle was that if the right people had been chosen for the project then they could be relied upon to deliver a good programme. But, over the years, the chain of command has grown to absurd lengths. Now, a programme can be viewed by a producer, series producer, department head, commissioning editor and sometimes even channel controller. Changes can be demanded at each stage, often completely contradicting previous ones. But that's the way they all like it - it means that the blame can always be shifted and the waters muddied if it all goes wrong. And we're witnessing a textbook example of that process right now...

dsangdhw's picture

good,good shopping places: w w w.gocntrade.c o m

RH47's picture

What is absolutely fascinating is how the metro-media gang-bang is once again missing the story - or the two stories.

The paedophile practices of Savile and possible associates - the first story, untouched by all the media, involved institutions and the CPS until now - seems to have been forgotten, apart from a few crocodile tears as the victims are exploited to further other agendas.

The second story - of how eyes-for-the main-chance competitors, aided and abetted by the posturing classes in parliament - is avoided for obvious reasons: it calls into question the motives behind the BBC becoming the story.

There are questions that the BBC has to answer, but the majority of them are historical, apart from the issue of the Newsnight investigation. But unless you're a bug-eyed conspiracy theorist or a journalist p'd off with his/her editor dropping your hard work into the wpb, the (possibly mistaken) judgement is easy to explain if hindsight is put to one side.

It's a non-story, unless some form of strategic interference is proved.

I have no brief for Entwistle - I know little about him, apart from the fact that he was in an impossible Aunt Sally position.

The last "scandal" was over the Iraq/Gilligan affair - and we know where the balance of accuracy lay in that one - after a DG's resignation.

Whilst the BBC might be due some criticism, the current hysterical pack mentality is suspicious. Always worth checking the pedigrees and past behaviour of the attack dogs.

Oh - and the Sherlocks of the CMS Select Committee don't yet seem to have called David Cameron or the Tory party chairman to account for the close involvement with and endorsements of Savile (viz Chequers invitations from the Blessed Margaret and an appointment by Edwina Curried Eggs). Sauce for the gander?

Latest tweets