Unless there's more to the tale, The Sun may rue BBC scandal coverage
Having urged The Sun to back its reporting and name the supposed BBC scandal presenter it devoted days of coverage to, as the dust settles Gordon Young, editor-in-chief and co-founder of The Drum, wonders if it was all worth the commotion.
To paraphrase a classic heading, it is ‘The Sun Wot Lost It’. The publisher took a massive gamble on its ‘BBC Presenter story’ and as things stand not only has its reputation taken a battering but the paper looks legally exposed. Worse, it has galvanized pressure groups such as ‘Hacked Off’ to campaign for increased press regulation.
Now before we dig into the legal technicalities of this issue it is worth remembering at its heart is a real person with a real family. And that person, Huw Edwards is in hospital receiving mental health treatment, with his wife attributing a recent "episode" to the rolling story. Even if he engaged in activity some believe was morally questionable as things stand - assuming no law was broken - then that is a private matter for him and his family - thanks in part to how the courts have interpreted article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights in the past.
Advertisement
It is an old piece of legislation but recent case law is transforming the look and feel of the tabloid press. Cliff Richard for example, successfully - and ironically in the current context - sued the BBC, arguing that helicopter footage of a police raid on his home breached his privacy.
More recently the Supreme Court held that an American businessman had a right to prevent any mention being made of the fact that he was under investigation in relation to claims his company had been involved in corruption. Recent case law suggests that even when criminal activity is suspected, the Human Rights legislation may apply, never mind when somebody is simply involved in a good old-fashioned sex scandal - the stock and trade of the tabloid press of yore. It is not difficult to imagine The Sun running the presenter story with relish just a few years ago, and splashing his name in 72pt size across the front page.
Today, however thanks to Article 8, 'he has the right to private life'. That is slightly contradicted by Article 10, which also establishes a right to freedom of expression. This defense can only really be tested in court, and a key component is whether the information is in the public interest. So a public figure breaking the law, for example, would be a key part of this defence. Many suspect this was The Sun’s strategy - and that it would have been more than disappointed to hear that two police forces who assessed the allegations decreed that, based on the current evidence, there was no case for Edwards to answer. So far at least.
Advertisement
However, you can not help but think that - its legal team in any case - suspected the evidence The Sun held was weak. How on earth can you explain its decision not to name Edwards immediately? What is the point of doing an exposé on someone without naming them? The other legal hurdle is of course libel law. But again, why publish such serious allegations, when you are not confident of defending yourself in court?
It all seems very odd - I am trying to imagine how this idea was pitched ‘We have a great story on Huw Edwards, but can’t quite get it to stand up, so how about we just don’t name him?’ Surely any editor would respond - ‘well how about we don't publish before we have all the evidence we need?'
So where does this leave us? The Sun looks to have scored an own goal. Unless new information emerges - its reputation has taken a hit.
But there could be consequences for journalism as a whole. Many were voicing concern about how the Human Rights Act is being interpreted. They fear legitimate investigative reporting is being impeded and there is a chilling effect across journalism as a whole. But this sorry saga may mean the runaway privacy bandwagon will only now build momentum.