Responding to scandal: A tale of two media outlets

The Jimmy Saville scandal has shaken the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to its core after the news organisation was criticised for mishandling the alleged paedophile case.

Britons have been shocked that a celebrity of his stature could be a serial offender, allegedly sexually abusing a vast number of under-aged girls, over many years. They also questioned how the news organisation has handled these claims. The BBC, after all, has been regarded as one of the most trusted organisations internationally.

The scandal happened after the Metropolitan Police in the UK launched a criminal inquiry into the allegations against Saville. The TV presenter was accused of abusing hundreds of youngsters, mainly girls, over a 40-year period, sometimes on BBC premises.

Although he died in October last year at the age of 84, the case does not end there because the allegations have raised questions about how the BBC handled – mishandled – these allegations at key times. And there has been claims of others committing offences as well.

This extraordinary incident shows how the behaviour of one individual can affect the integrity of an entire organisation. This case has shocked the British public, with people appalled to see a much-loved and respectable institution tainted in this manner.

As well as the police probe, British Prime Minister David Cameron has made strong remarks to set the tone of public sentiment. 

Now, it is reported that a British judge will investigate the culture of the BBC during the years that Saville worked here. In addition, there will be an investigation at Newsnight to ascertain why that programme’s news editor dropped a broadcast report about Saville. 

For some, these developments seem unimaginable, given that this man’s flamboyant style and charitable work. Whatever the outcome of the investigations, Saville is likely to be remembered more as a sex offender now.

Coincidentally, Thailand has also seen a case involving a TV celebrity whose image has been synonymous with a major network embroiled in a scandal. 

 

THAI public less concerned about matters of fraud?

TV Channel 3 was been under significant pressure lately after the Anti Corruption Network released an open letter, asking Channel 3 to reveal its stand on alleged corruption involving anchorman Sorayuth Suthassanachinda, the most popular and the highest-paid TV anchorman in Thailand.

The letter, signed by ACN chairman Pramon Sutheewong and sent to Channel 3 operator BEC World Plc, reminded the management of its obligations to transparency and the fight against corruption. “The ACN is spearheading an awareness campaign to wipe out corruption complacency, which condones graft violations for the sake of self-gain,” the letter said.

However, Channel 3 has so far done nothing to prove its intention to play a leading role in rooting out corruption. Its executives 

admitted that it was a difficult business decision because Sorayuth’s programmes have made major profits for the station, to the tune of millions of baht.

So far, the station has shrugged off the ruling by the National Anti-Corruption Commission, even though the anti-graft body found cause to suspect fraudulent transactions between Sorayuth’s news production house, Rai Som, and MCOT, a listed company in which the state holds a majority stake.

It is very interesting to see the different reaction of the two media organisations to scandals involving top celebrities. While BBC executives appear to be taking responsibility for letting the Saville scandal happen under their noses, Channel 3 executives insist that Sorayuth will stay on. Why? Because of the amount of money his programme has brought to the station.

The different response is also attributed to the reaction of the public, who are the most effective at putting pressure on stations. Britons view the sex abuse allegations as gravely serious and want responsibility and accountability from people in charge. Thais, meanwhile, can easily ignore a scandal about fraud. A local weekender even suggested in a front-page headline that Sorayuth was attacked by Thai press associations for his fraudulent acts because others were envious of his fortune and fame, even though ethics is an integral element for the media company to earn respect. 

Sorayuth’s case should have set a precedent for society on how well-known organisations and media people can be exemplary models for the public on how to take an initiative to combat corruption. Unfortunately, for now, money seems to talk the loudest for the people who run Channel 3.