I don't think anyone envies Martin Bashir at the moment. I can only hope that he and his family are not looking at social media or the right-wing press, as they will feel themselves under siege. This is not to excuse Bashir's conduct 25 years ago. He has been exposed - need I tell you what you know already? - as having forged bank statements to facilitate an interview with the late Diana, Princess of Wales. When this issue surfaced last November, I was very suspicious. 25 years to expose such wrongdoing seemed very strange, and the explanations for this seemed unconvincing. It looked to me that the story had broken as a red herring to deflect pressure from the government for its handling of the pandemic and as a handy stick with which to beat the BBC.
Understandably, Diana's sons are deeply upset at the results of the Dyson Report. Prince William has made a deeply emotional speech blaming BBC bosses, as well as a "rogue reporter". Harry has blamed a toxic media culture for his mother's death. As Jonny Diamond, BBC Royal correspondent comments: "In the past, of course, it's been Harry that's been so angry with the media, William appeared to have made his peace with it, but the second in line to the throne has launched a visceral attack on the BBC, a sign of his deep hurt and deep dismay."
It's certainly ironic that the tabloid press, which upset Harry and Meghan so much that they left the UK, are now attacking the BBC for using tricks favoured so much by those same newspapers. Have we forgotten the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone, Squidgygate and the phone call by Charles to Camilla in which he spoke of how, if reincarnated, he would like to come back as a certain intimate feminine object? And does the Bashir scandal, dating back so many years, invalidate present-day BBC reporting from around the world? Does it render BBC coverage of the Windrush scandal, the negative effects of Brexit and the disgrace of the track and trace system dishonest and fraudulent? Well, there is one man who might think so...
As if you hadn't guessed! Boris has just spoken with concern and gravity on this issue. According to the BBC (the same):
"The BBC should take "every possible step" to ensure that nothing like its deceit of the Princess of Wales to secure an interview ever happens again, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said".
Boris Johnson, as we know, is just the man to be aware of how harmful dishonesty in journalism can be. He was sacked from The Times for fabricating a quote from his godfather. His career as a columnist for The Telegraph was somewhat spoiled by the fact that he persistently wrote untrue articles about the European Union. He received £275 000 a year for this latter job, describing his salary as "chickenfeed". Yes, just the man to judge Martin Bashir and the BBC.
. I would be amazed, however, if he and his cronies are not looking at how they can use Bashirgate, to coin a phrase, as another stick with which they can beat the BBC. They have already made several moves in this direction. The first was the appointment of Richard Sharp as BBC chairman. This must have caused Boris great satisfaction, as The Byline Times points out:
Earlier today, it was announced that former Goldman Sachs banker Richard Sharp is set to be appointed as the chairman of the BBC’s board of directors".
"We were initially told our proposed programme was too risky and that Palmer was too clever to get caught. But we weren’t deterred.
We asked two drug barons we had met while filming a Cook Report in Burma’s Golden Triangle to pose as opium growers who needed drug money ‘cleaned’.
It worked a treat. We had Palmer on tape offering to launder $160 million of opium profits for them twice a year, even boasting that his rates were the best in the business".
Yo Parrygate, you are paranoid but you ought to be because the knives are out for the BBC. Less than perfect as it is, it remains a jewel that we need to fight for
ReplyDeleteI'm utterly bored with the royal family and I did not watch the Diana interview. (I similarly didn't watch the Meghan and Harry one either.) However, I note that Diana was a 34-year old woman, mother of two children, when she consented to be interviewed - definitely not a child, she wasn't coerced, and was therefore perfectly capable of deciding what questions she might choose to answer.
ReplyDeleteI have little doubt that de Piffle Johnson's expressed concern about this interview from 1995 has nothing to with Diana but is related to the fury he feels when asked questions about his own feckless and sordid private life with its trail of abandoned women and children. Clamping down on probing journalism would suit him very nicely.