It Says Here

A free press is something that should be celebrated. Despite the proliferation of news that is available online the sales of newspapers in the UK remain relatively healthy.  

The best-selling of them remains ‘The Sun’, a tabloid that is sadly synonymous with the worst excesses of the more sensationalist end of the market.

A story that the British press, tabloid and broadsheets alike, have been covering recently has been the worrying allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile; the former DJ dying at the age of 84 last October.

The allegations themselves are extremely disturbing. Equally disturbing is the idea that Savile’s predilections for young girls, if indeed he had them, were well known and there was a failure to act upon that knowledge.

The fact that Savile is no longer here to answer these allegations adds a different dimension to the story, but its’ right and proper that the allegations are reported.  

Should the allegations be subsequently proved then Savile can only be posthumously punished through the blackening of his name and reputation. Those organisations though that may have turned a blind eye to them could, and should, be called to account.

It’s a sensitive issue and one that should be covered with balance and be free from hypocrisy.

The latter is a charge that can very easily be levelled against The Sun newspaper.

Their online edition makes reference to Savile’s “sick lust”, “predatory” actions and “depravity”. Emotive terms certainly, but ones that you couldn’t possibly argue weren’t accurate if it found that there is substance to these allegations against him.

What then of my charge of hypocrisy against The Sun?

I apologise for reproducing the image below but it central to my argument.

The cutting shows an image of the singer Charlotte Church, then aged just 15, and makes salacious reference to the breast size of a girl still in her early teens; the paper even refers to her as a child.

Jimmy Savile may well have been guilty of an appalling abuse of trust. It could then be argued that his employers, including the BBC, were complicit in that abuse of trust if they chose to turn a blind eye to it.

Could it not also be argued that The Sun was guilty of an abuse of the free press in publishing that picture of Charlotte Church?

Is it not harder to take their indignation over Savile’s alleged crimes seriously when they themselves thought nothing of drawing attention to the breast size of an adolescent girl much the same age of those allegedly abused by Savile?