BBC needs to look within too
It is indeed intriguing that the intrusive BBC needs to peep into the mind of a demented Indian rapist, when the news corporation has proprietary rights to a prolific sex offender, who was for decades, neatly tucked away in its closet.
It was only after the death of the BBC television presenter and media personality, Sir Jimmy Savile, at the ripe old age of 86, that seedy details tumbled out about this sexual predator, who had, for years, mauled underage girls and boys on the BBC premises with the gay abandon of a game hunter in the Brazilian jungle. Of these 200 odd cases of assault, at least 34 have been documented as rape.
Savile, ironically a British icon during his lifetime, reportedly had a national free run for decades, during which, in the words of a British police official, he must have 'spent every minute of every day' thinking about his next quarry. The sexual forays were later extended to hospitals, for which he was raising thousands of pounds in charity.
Result: The British entertainer is today remembered less as the host of the BBC music chart show, 'Top of the Pops', and the TV blockbuster, 'Jim'll Fix It,' and more for having sexually groomed an entire generation that wittingly or unwittingly walked into his trap. Most of the victims, in their teens at the time of the alleged assaults, were participants in his TV presentations, the youngest being an eight-year-old boy.
More than anything, it was owing to the all-pervasive culture of secrecy in the BBC and the rigid pecking order of a layered organisation that the truth about Savile's sexual assaults never came to be known during his lifetime. The world woke up to the scandal only after his death, when details about the TV presenter's sexual abuse first began to emerge in 2012 in an ITV documentary. ITV, incidentally, is BBC's rival.
But such is its self-infatuation that the BBC initially made no attempt to internally investigate the shocking allegations. Its tepid response, in the midst of a public outcry, was a statement of intent -- that it was 'appalled' that some of the offences 'were committed on its premises.' Then, almost as an afterthought, it tendered a 'sincere apology' to the victims of these crimes.
No questions were asked that possibly the assaults had less to do with a perverse mindset and more to do with the gender practices, the work environment and 'culture of secrecy' in an institution where teenagers were treated like mannequins that could be groped at will.
Rob Wilson, a Conservative MP, who has been a persistent critic of the BBC's response to the Savile scandal since it surfaced, had remarked: Not only was it nationally disconcerting what had been allowed to take place on the BBC premises, the inertia that had gripped the senior BBC managers, who were possibly privy to the shame, was even more sickening.
If the 'inhouse' Savile affair turned the spotlight on the unhurried and lukewarm response of the BBC managers in dealing with the national shame, the same 'inert' and laidback news corporation went into an overdrive when the British police swooped down on pop sensation Sir Cliff Richard's home in 2014, in connection with an alleged sexual abuse back in 1985.
It was apparent to all that the BBC’s decision to play out this raid as a major news event, complete with helicopter shots, was a 'flagrant violation' of Sir Cliff's privacy and entirely 'disproportionate to the alleged wrongdoing'. Later, it emerged through the release of transcripts to MPs, that not only had the BBC colluded in every aspect of the raid, but also that the entire exercise was orchestrated to grab eyeballs in what was fast becoming an obsession for a nation of peeping Toms. When there was an outcry, the BBC Head of News Gathering was found to be hand in glove with the police press officers in trying to contain the collateral damage resulting from the negative coverage.
The BBC’s response to all these shameful episodes has been, in effect, that it could not care less. It was just this 'don't care two hoots' attitude that marked BBC 4's pigheaded decision to telecast the documentary on Nirbhaya and disregard the Indian government's advisory. All this makes one wonder who the real predator is: the man who assaulted Nirbhaya and then gloated over his act in the British documentary or the news scavengers who rummage through third world countries to satiate their viewers' salacious appetite for rape and abuse?