23/10/2012 BBC World News

You are watching and BBC World News. We are bringing new special

coverage today or George Entwistle the. He is being questioned about

the decision to drop Newsnight, an investigation last year, and we

their editor if they want to. is the point of the director-

general being editor-in-chief if he does not have editorial control?

The director-general has editorial accountability and responsibility

but it does not have direct editorial control. The BBC is a big

organisation, there are many strains of journalism, and

responsibility for journalism is devolved down to them. But would a

programme bringing forward serious criminal allegations about somebody

who was an icon in this country, created as an icon by the BBC, for

very vulnerable people as a result of his BBC celebrity status, would

the preparations for broadcast of a programme like that not routinely

have gone to the editor in chief? No. I would have expected it to be

referred to the line manager, which I understand it was, and I might

have expected it to be made to the Divisional Director, which it was,

but not necessary to the editor in chief. David would be able to

provide a perspective on this, but the editor in chief becomes

involved in relatively few final editorial decisions. I can

understand that but if this doesn't qualify, I wonder what the Bar is?

It would certainly have got to divisional director level. Had the

investigation proceeded to where it would be transmitted, at that point

it would be referred upwards. does that kick in? We know the

editor had asked his team to prepare for transmissions. The BBC

press office had been briefed. Does it go 10 minutes before

transmission? Had it been commissioned, and were it to

proceed to transmission in the way the editor had original planned, it

probably would have been referred to senior management. The most

sensitive and delicate investigations, some of the biggest

ones I have been involved in, eventually get up to director level

and sometimes even director-general level. I was in charge of the

investigation into Robert Maxwell when I was at Panorama, and that

went to the director-general at the time. Some of the most potentially

defamatory investigations would get to that point but only if you were

intending to proceed with them. A lot of investigations are not

proceeded with... Newsnight was preparing for broadcast within a

matter of weeks and so it would have been late in the day, it may

have been totally proper for this never to have gone to the director-

general before it went to air from what you say? Rather than having

individual slots for documentaries on Newsnight, you own a chunk on

BBC to see you have enormous flexibility about what to put in

there so it is rarely the case that an editor for Newsnight would say,

I am intending such and such definitely for that date. It would

be intended for a certain week, for example. I am inferring from what I

saw on Panorama last night, it seems that Peter Rippon's

enthusiasm for the idea was higher and then became low, and therefore

I would not expect him... We need to know why. Absolutely but I would

not have expected him to be committed to a date and a

particular timescale. One of the things I think that some of the

contributions that Panorama from last night thought this was

strange... It sounds strange that not only was the programme not

considered ready for broadcast but that the investigation was dropped

altogether and that nothing was done as a result of the

investigation that had taken place. Is that not stray inch? On the

basis of what I now know, I am surprised nothing further happened.

-- is that not strange? The editor was not ready to proceed with the

idea, but there were clearly some good journalistic material, and

even if it was not a prospect for immediate transmission, a continued

investigation my tap been appropriate. There were eyewitness

statements about a criminal offence. -- might have been appropriate. Two

separate points. Journalistically, it is important to say one of the

questions that is important for the Pollard review is why the

investigation was stopped rather than continuing, and then the

question of what should have happened court replete with the

information the investigation had discovered -- what should have

happened in the corporation? I understand this will be included,

the management of the Newsnight investigation covers the aftermath

of the Newsnight investigation as well. So it will cover the whole

period? We have made it clear to Nick Pollard that he is allowed to

go wherever his investigation takes him, so, yes. I have a statement

issued by BBC News and current affairs, a publicist to a

journalist making inquiries on October 13th, which says "the

independent review will not revisit the Newsnight editor's decision".

The at is absolutely not true. We have said that Nick Pollard is

entitled to look at anything he wants to look at. So at the news

department it was wrong? I don't think that is right. OK. There may

not have been an escalation and awareness of the case against Jimmy

Savile, ween may not have been sitting in this room is... I accept

that. It is a matter of great regret to me. I remember reading

the blog about three weeks ago before I was asked to do an

interview on BBC Radio Kewstoke and the blog was clearly written to try

to shoot down some of the allegations that it was expected

that ITV might level against the BBC, in particular regarding an

alleged cover-up, but she did not have to be a member of the National

Union of Journalists to realise that the blog baked more questions

than it answered, for the very simple journalistic fact that the

main story about Jimmy Savile being a paedophile had not been aired.

Not an angle regarding whether the CPS or the police had decided to

pursue a prosecution or the reasons for dropping them. That central

journalistic fact does not seem to have got to journalists at the BBC

about asking more questions. Peter Rippon, with a full understanding

of everything that had been available, made the decision he

made about the investigation not proceeding. The principal purpose

of the blog was to address the particularly prevalent allegation

at that stage, was that he had come under unreasonable managerial

pressure to drop the investigation, and Peter Rippon was clear in that

blog and stands by that that he did not come under managerial pressure,

in appropriate managerial pressure. But the blog raised questions that

did not seem to be answered. you spell out what you mean? I have

just... I have just... I have just given you an example. The central

question, what the investigation was about, which was about Jimmy

Savile being a paedophile. That became the substance of all our

efforts of the inquiry the following week. Declaring question

was obvious as soon as you read the blog -- and the glaring question.

That story had never been run. agree but it was one the following

day by ITV. I see from Panorama last night that you what e-mails on

November fifth by Meirion Jones to say that the explanation you were

giving was wrong and you explained what she went through to come to

the changes that you made yesterday. In essence, what you have done over

the past three weeks is do the basic journalism in fact checking

that you should have done before you make statements in the first

place. Is that correct? What we have done is try to get to the

bottom of why there was the significant disagreement inside

Newsnight on what the purpose of the investigation had been, and it

is not a situation I have ever encountered before, that there

should be a dispute inside a programme of such virulence.

Normally we would expect a programme team and their editors to

reach an understanding of what the programme was going to investigate

and our concern came to be to insure that rather listening to

individual accounts that may have been sold but apparently clearly

contradicted each other, was to get reliance on other documentary

evidence to ensure we had an accurate overall picture before

week published anything again. already made statements on the

basis of a blog that ask questions even to a one-eyed Albanians. Do

you not feel it is rather strange that the BBC makes public

statements, which are broadcast to the public and the world, without

going through the same processes of checking that it would do in

broadcasting something like Newsnight? Will you change that in

the future? As I have explained, I would absolutely to have expected

that the editor of a programme would give a definitive and

accurate account of what had taken place on a programme. The lesson

for everybody, those who opposed to write a blog in the future, that

they need to recognise that a publication on behalf of the BBC

must be honest, accurate, and clearly that is not what happened

on this occasion, which is a matter of regret and something we have had

to put right. Or we will move on shortly to conversations you had

about the tributes. In terms of your recollection of what happened

in the editorial chain, have you, since the affair broke, asked

people such as Helen Boaden and Stephen Mitchell what they knew

about the Newsnight programme and who they can they get to? -- who

they spoke about that too? Helen Boaden's understand was conveyed to

her by the editor of the programme, which is consistent with what was

put in the blog. In terms of the central allegations that Newsnight

was going to make, which is about Jimmy Savile being involved in

sexual activity with under-aged girls. Did she know that was the

content of the programme? I do not know the full extent of the detail

of her knowledge of the investigation but I do know that

she had at least one conversation with Peter Rippon, where she came

to understand what the nature of his reluctance to go ahead was.

do you not know exactly? Because by that time it became clear to me

that I needed to know, I had already decided I needed to set up

an external review and I did not feel it was appropriate for me to

prejudice that reviewed by effectively launching my own set of

inquiries inside the BBC alongside batch. One of the e-mails, when

Peter Rippon seemed to go cold on the story, it was copied to Stephen

Mitchell. I don't know if that was routine. Do you know from what

stage Stephen Mitchell was in touch with Peter Rippon and Helen Boaden

and whether those conversations went further two Mark Thompson?

do not know whether they went further. My understanding is that

conversations with Stephen Mitchell took place, I would not know

exactly when they first took place but there were a number of

conversations during the production of that item, but all the detail we

are gathering we are making available. There are relatively few

individuals, just like the blog not raising any questions that seemed

obvious, this seems to be another example of an amazing lack of

curiosity on behalf of the journalist? On behalf of which

journalist? You as a journalist and the BBC, full of journalists.

approach was to recognise that if this was to have proper justice

done to it, it would not be appropriate for me to run an

inquiry alongside the independent At the same time, you have set up a

process, you have set up inquiries, they have changed as time has gone

on, but then, Panorama decides to wade in - this begs the question of

who is in control at the BBC, doesn't it? Panorama's right to

decide what it investigates is its own right. It is appropriate that

Panorama should never take a broader, corporate picture, it has

to make its own mind up about what to do. That is something I am proud

of, not something I'm his arc -- regard as chaotic. Panorama is

editorially independent. It never seemed to me anything other than

entirely appropriate for them to decide what they wanted to

investigate. Would you agree that having looked at Panorama last

night, it might seem to the outside world as the BBC at war? You have

got a producer, reporter and presenter against an editor, who

chose not to appear, but it seemed to be moderated by Kevin Marsh, the

former editor of the Today Programme, it looked like the BBC

at war. There is no question in my mind that there was a significant

breakdown in communication on Newsnight, on the subject of this

investigation. It seems the editor and a two lead journalists were not

reconciled in their understanding of what had happened, and I think

that is what you saw in Panorama. You watched the programme last

night? Yes, I did. I thought it was a strong programme. Editorially,

did you think it had any defects? No, I thought it was a good edition

of Panorama. Can I run one past you? When it came to one of the

points on which the blog was convicted, which was the issue of

whether Newsnight had got evidence that would have provided fresh

details for the police, when that question was asked by the Panorama

presenter of the Newsnight producer, it rather skipped from the question

of evidence generally to evidence about a new person, rather than

Jimmy Savile. It skip to Gary Glitter, and the argument was made

by the producer that it would have been difficult to do anything with

that, because Gary Glitter was alive, and secondly, nobody could

identify the girl with whom he allegedly had sex in Jimmy Savile's

room. That was a sleight of hand, or sleight of vision, to me, as a

viewer, because the issue really was evidence in general, including

evidence about Jimmy Savile, and clearly we know now that the Karin

Ward interview was not known to the police. Other people have come

forward who were not known to the police, and yet the presenter of

Panorama did not give the producer of Newsnight any challenging

questions over why that evidence was not provided by them to the

police. They sort of Gloucester over it. I thought the reporter did

pressed to a degree. I accept your point. It has been a matter of

absolute importance, in my view, for the Pollard review, to look at

the question of what should have happened to the evidence which

Newsnight had after they had decided not to proceed, in respect

of the police. You will recognise that there was a question, not only

about what the presenter and producer may have done, but also

the editor of the programme, and indeed, a Panorama programme not

testing them on that. And to my mind, this casts some doubt about

the objectivity of the Panorama programme, and it has looked to me

to reinforce that it is BBC at war. I was pleased to see that the

programme tackled the question of what should become of the evidence

in respect of the police. I regard that as an important question for

the Pollard review to address. one final question, and the real

question here is, some leading groups will look at this and look

at what happened with Panorama and think, this would never happen in

our organisation. You say is his strength, but do you not grant, it

begs the question of who is in control of the BBC, who is in

charge? Are you an editor in chief, as would be understood at a

newspaper, for example, or are you just a managing director, with lots

of editors and editor-in-chief below you, who do not bring you

problems? No, I am editor in chief, and in the end, I take

responsibility for, and accountability for, all the BBC's

journalism. But that is not the same as expecting every

journalistic decision within the BBC to be referred to me. I regard

the Independent right of the editor of Panorama to decide what he

should investigate, even when that concerns the corporate affairs of

the BBC, to be in a double. It is a really important thing that he is

allowed to do. -- inalienable. Did Peter Rippon clear his blob with

anybody before he published it? I understand it was cleared with Mr

Mitchell. It was effectively a corporate production, involving our

legal advisers and me and the Post Office. Has Peter Rippon agreed to

that being published, did he challenge any of it? It was not up

to Mr Ripon to agree to it, but it was shown to him. Did you watch the

ITV documentary? Yes, I did. appreciate these things have to be

done thoroughly, but there was still quite an element of time

between the documentary and your announcement of inquiries, nine

days later - why do you think your director generalship took so long

to make that decision? The thing which was uppermost in my mind,

from the day before the ITV documentary, because it was the day

before that I contacted the police, was to make sure that any think of

criminal significance was dealt with by the BBC, in an appropriate

relationship with the police. If we were not careful, we might rush to

set up an internal review process of some kind, which would find

itself dealing with criminal allegations which it was not

qualified to deal with, and not capable of preserving evidence

properly and are not able to compel witnesses. So I gave my main

attention to that business, of co- operating as fully as possible with

the police. That involved a number of conversations between me and the

police. I made sure the BBC investigations unit understood how

it would relate with the police. We worked solidly on that for the

first few days after the ITV documentary was said. By the

following Monday, it was clear to me, and I agree, I should have made

it more clear that I was always prepared to see an internal review,

which is what I announced on the Monday morning, and that week, we

worked to make sure the shape of those reviews was properly

considered. We were able to announce those by the end of the

week. If I take you back to your role previously, you word director

of... Vision. And in the run-up to Christmas, this whole tribute was

about to happen across not only television, but also covering his

work that he did on Radio, I think what is still surprising, and it

has been reflected already, is that if Helen Boaden had said to you, we

are looking into Jimmy Savile... have not got on to that yet. I do

not want to get into that. right, I will get back to that.

couple of things that you have said - if I understood you correctly,

you have confirmed today that the decision to drop the Newsnight

investigation was referred up to Helen Boaden and Steve Mitchell, is

that correct? I do not know that the decision to drop it was

referred up, but there were definitely conversations about it.

David Jordan said a few moments ago something which puzzled me, which

was that this investigation, or the Newsnight programme, had not

actually been commissioned, but as a understand it, it have a

transmission date of 7th December, and was killed on 5th December, so

it must have been commissioned. think what I meant was that it had

not been given the final go-ahead to go to wear. There were obviously

plans in process. If it made its target, if it was eventually OK, it

could go to wear. So, you would like to correct your earlier

evidence? Clearly, you have to go through those processes before it

goes to wear. So, it had been commissioned? What I meant by

commission was, it was not a final programme, there was never a final

script, and therefore, it had not got the final go-ahead. Can you

give this committee an assurance that the BBC will not do a deal

with Peter Rippon, involving him going quietly and you not

completely trashing his version of events? I think it is up to that a

premature to talk about what will happen. Can you give us that

assurance, that no deal will be made? Can I explain what will

happen? Peter ripper will take part in the Pollard review. The findings

of that review will be made available first to the BBC

executive, before being passed to the trust. The task will then be to

make an immediate decision about whether any disciplinary

consequences should flow from the Pollard review. I do not think it

would be fair to say anything else which would prejudice that process.

You have preferred a lot to the Pollard review, but do you accept

that the BBC cannot hide behind or wait for the Pollard review - you

have to get a grip on the facts, establish the facts and act on

those quickly and decisively for the sake of your organisation?

agree that in the process of providing everything the Pollard

review needs, we will go through that process and to our best to get

a picture of what went on. George Entwistle, the boss of the BBC,

facing questions from a cross-party group of MPs. He has said,

significantly, that he does not believe necessarily that there was

a cover-up. He said that Peter Rippon, the editor of Newsnight,

has said that he was not put under any significant managerial pressure

to drop the Newsnight investigation into the Jimmy Savile claims, but

he has expressed a number of times disappointment in Peter Rippon's