BBC crisis: head of news and deputy ordered to 'step aside':
So says the Telegraph, reporting on the fact that the two people at the top of "News" in the BBC (under the Editor in Chief, or Director General as we know him) and to be hastened out the door (in the nicest possible way, of course).Why are these people 'ordered to step aside'? Are people of their quality above being sacked?
Despite a crisis at the BBC; despite dubious decisions having already been made on this subject, by this programme; and (I hate having to admit this, because it shouldn't matter who you defame) because the person who was defamed was "important" (and most particularly VERY rich and this capable of suing the backside off their organisation), someone in management, no, everyone in news management ought to have been taking a very close interest in what was going on, making sure that they didn't make the crisis any worse.
They weren't. And they allowed the crisis to get much worse.
They enjoy their titles and their ridiculous salaries and expenses, and as long as they don't have to do much REAL managing, everything runs relatively smoothly; they can concentrate on political correctness and H+S and countless meetings about nothing very much. But the moment they are called upon to do even the most basic of management tasks, they fail dismally.
If I were Chris Patten their feet wouldn't touch the ground as they were dismissed for complete and utter incompetence. Half an hour to empty their desks under supervision, then escorted to the car park clutching their box of personal effects.
It's not about revenge or enjoying the misfortune of some stuffed shirts. It's about the importance of making sure that this is looked into properly and the people who did such unspeakable things, whether in the BBC or elsewhere, and who got away with it because they were "stars" or "celebrities" or "senior politicians", are made to pay. Every time the BBC messes up they make it less likely that they will do this, despite one of the largest news organisations in the world.
Hopefully Channel Four will manage to fill the void.
As for Georgie's pay off being double what they were obliged to give him, and costing the licence payer well over £1 million, I'm astounded. He apparently, according to Mr Patten, deserves it because of the fact that he will continue to give assistance to the Savile inquiry.
Doubtless so will many other people. Will they all be paid such exorbitant rates for their assistance? I somehow doubt it
And far more importantly what about the children raped on the BBC premises, and about which the BBC did nothing? What will they get?
