Journalists on the paedophile story should be sacked immediately.
YOU know, I am afraid that they still don't get it. The people at the BBC show no real sign of understanding what they have done wrong, let alone making amends.
We have heard an awful lot about the personal Calvary of BBC director-general George Entwistle. We know of the agony of its chairman Lord Patten, who has told us that the resignation of Entwistle was "one of the saddest evenings" of his public life. We have been told of the grief of hundreds of BBC journalists, the anxiety, the anger, their fear for their jobs. Everyone at the BBC is agreed on one thing: that it is a "tragedy". Yes, it is a tragedy for the poor old BBC.
It's tragic for us! say Beeb journalists, who are all interviewing each other in a ludicrous orgy of self-pity. In all this nauseating navel-gazing and narcissism, there seems to be no one - from Lord Patten downwards - who appears to be remotely interested in the person the BBC has injured. Has anyone even begun to apologise, in a fitting manner, to Alistair McAlpine?
To call someone a paedophile is to place them, these days, in a special category. We loathe paedophiles, as a society, because we know more and more about their crimes. They groom and manipulate vulnerable young people. They are cunning, plausible, selfish and ruthless. They cause appalling physical and psychological pain to children - people who should be getting protection and support.
To call someone a paedophile is to consign them to the lowest circle of hell - while they are still alive. It follows that you should not call someone a paedophile unless you are pretty sure of your facts. It is utterly incredible that the BBC's flagship news program decided to level this poisonous allegation against Lord McAlpine when it had not the slightest evidence to support its case. It was sickening to hear the BBC radio newscaster claim - as if it were some kind of mitigation - that Newsnight did not "name" McAlpine. Is it really claiming that it protected his identity?
If so, it shows utter contempt for its listeners and for the intelligence of the public.
On the afternoon of Friday, November 2, it was "tweeted" that a senior Tory politician was to be exposed on Newsnight as a paedophile. It wasn't a vague allegation about a "ring" of paedophiles. It was about a particular individual, who was supposed to have committed a series of specific and vile crimes against a former occupant of the Bryn Estyn children's home in Wales.
"McAlpine" was the name of the mystery millionaire who had surfaced in the 2000 Waterhouse report into the scandal. "McAlpine" was the name the program's makers fed out to various left-wing tweeters and bloggers and within hours of Newsnight's bizarre broadcast, people such as Sally Bercow, media personality and wife of the speaker of the House of Commons, and Guardian columnist George Monbiot were pointing the finger at the bewildered and utterly blameless figure of Alistair McAlpine, 70, who is spending his retirement running a B&B in southern Italy.
You can't really blame the tweeters and the bloggers. "McAlpine" was the steer they were given and it was Alistair McAlpine that Newsnight had in its sights. It was no protection of McAlpine that he wasn't explicitly named in the first broadcast - and it should be no defence of Newsnight, either. A twitstorm, a blogstorm, an internet hurricane howled around the former Tory treasurer. All of Fleet Street started to torment their readers with ever more prominent stories about this Top Tory Paedo, while those on the web could see who was intended. The Prime Minister was dragged in, and immediately instituted an inquiry.
The whole thing became so unbearable that Lord McAlpine was forced to break cover and point out that Newsnight was wrong.
It was not just wrong: it was a slander more cruel, revolting and idiotic than anything perpetrated by The News of the World. The program makers hadn't taken account of the real anxieties about the reliability of their witness. They hadn't shown him a picture of McAlpine. They hadn't even put the allegations to McAlpine! Unbelievable!
And why not? It was, as they say, a story that was too good to check. It wasn't just that it showed Newsnight taking up the cudgels against paedophiles, after the embarrassment of the axed Jimmy Savile expose. It went one better. It pushed all the buttons.
It was like a dream come true for any vaguely resentful and left-of-centre BBC producer. It was a chance to pour unlimited ordure on a man who - in their book - jolly well had it coming. He is rich, he is a toff, he is a Lord, he is a Tory and - joy of joys - he is an EX-AIDE TO MARGARET THATCHER.
The journalism was so shoddy, so cretinous, so ready to let the wish be father to the thought that the Beeb really now has to show that Newsnight was not acting with malice. The BBC cannot minimise what the program has done. There will be people out there who will continue to believe that there is no smoke without fire, that Newsnight would never have broadcast such allegations unless there was something in it.
The BBC owes it to McAlpine to grovel and keep grovelling until the public gets the message. Everyone associated with the "paedophile" segment on Newsnight should be sacked instantly. Then Chris Patten should make a penitential pilgrimage to McAlpine's Italian B&B, on his knees and scourging himself with a copy of the BBC charter. This tragedy is not about the BBC it is about the smearing of an innocent man. The BBC needs to grasp that first.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What happened in the BBC Newsnight episode that smeared Alistair McAlpine?
The article describes how Newsnight broadcast a segment suggesting a senior Tory was involved in paedophile activity, using the name 'McAlpine' as a steer. Although the programme did not explicitly name Alistair McAlpine on air, producers fed the name to tweeters and bloggers, triggering a rapid online and press campaign that identified and attacked McAlpine. The article says the BBC had no solid evidence, did not show him a picture or put the allegations to him, and that the mistake forced McAlpine to publicly deny the claims.
Why should everyday investors care about the BBC smear and media scandals like this?
Media scandals affect more than headlines — they hit trust, brand value and governance. The article highlights leadership fallout (the director-general's resignation and public inquiries) and calls for accountability. For investors, weakened public trust in a media company can translate into reputational risk, regulatory scrutiny and long-term damage to commercial prospects or licence legitimacy.
How did social media and bloggers contribute to the spread of the allegation against McAlpine?
According to the article, Newsnight fed the name 'McAlpine' to left-leaning tweeters and bloggers, and within hours personalities such as Sally Bercow and George Monbiot were pointing the finger. The resulting 'twitstorm' and blogstorm amplified the allegation beyond the original broadcast and turned an unproven hint into widespread public accusation.
What accountability actions does the article say the BBC faced after the false allegation?
The article reports widespread calls for responsible staff to be sacked and criticised the BBC's leadership. It mentions the agony of the director-general George Entwistle and his resignation, public rebukes from chairman Chris Patten, and that the Prime Minister instituted an inquiry. The piece insists the BBC owes a full and repeated apology to the man it injured.
What does this case reveal about journalistic standards and fact‑checking that investors should notice?
The article criticises the journalism as 'shoddy' and 'too good to check' — producers reportedly did not verify their witness properly, failed to show a picture or question the accused directly, and relied on impression and political motive. For investors, this highlights operational risks when editorial lapses lead to costly reputational and governance consequences.
How can reputational damage from a scandal like this affect a media company's long‑term value?
While the article focuses on moral and reputational outrage, it implies that loss of public trust is enduring: 'people will continue to believe there is no smoke without fire.' For investors, persistent distrust can reduce audience loyalty, invite regulatory action or inquiries, and weaken the brand — all of which can harm long‑term financial performance.
What crisis‑management steps does the article suggest the BBC should take to repair the damage?
The article argues the BBC must apologise properly and repeatedly, hold those responsible to account (including sacking those involved in the segment), and have senior leaders make visible amends. In short, it calls for transparency, genuine apologies and decisive personnel accountability to rebuild public confidence.
Can newsroom culture and political bias create investment risk for media organisations?
Yes. The article contends that producers' ideological eagerness — describing it as a 'dream come true' for a certain kind of producer — helped drive the error. For investors, biased newsroom culture can lead to reckless editorial choices, reputational fallout and governance failures, all of which are material risks to consider when evaluating media companies.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
