- The Sun’s evolving coverage of the Huw Edwards allegations
- Questions surrounding the evidence and veracity of the claims
- The response from authorities and the impact on the balance between public interest and privacy
One week after the Sun’s initial allegations against Huw Edwards, there are still significant questions and unanswered details regarding the six tumultuous days of claim and counterclaim.
The Sun’s coverage of the story shifted subtly over the course of the week, particularly about the prominence given to a crucial detail, which has raised significant questions.
The media had to strike a delicate balance between privacy and the public interest in reporting allegations of grave malfeasance.
One important statement
It all began last Friday with an article in the Sun that contained a very significant phrase.
The newspaper reported that a prominent BBC presenter had paid a 17-year-old “more than £35,000 in exchange for obscene images”
This phrase appeared at least seven times online over the next three days, out of the Sun’s dozens of articles on the subject.
This line alarmed readers and the media, in part because it implied illicit activity.
It implied the man, who we now know to be Edwards, may have committed a crime if he sent such images to a minor under the age of 18.
Edwards has not yet responded to this or any of the other claims that have surfaced in the past week. On Wednesday, his wife, Vicky Flind, said he would reply to the charges when he was well. She stated that he will remain hospitalized for the “foreseeable future” after recent events precipitated a “serious” mental health episode.
In an editorial published on Sunday evening, the Sun stated that “contact” between the couple began when the younger individual was 17 years old, but did not specify the nature of this contact.
Monday evening was the last time the Sun published the key phrase containing the direct allegation (that the young person had been paid for “sordid images” since the age of 17) online.
This was when it reported on a letter from the young person’s attorney to the BBC denying the substance of the Sun’s story, as well as their parents’ response, which formed the premise of a story in the next day’s newspaper. This article repeated the phrase as well.
The publication of this letter, which asserted unequivocally that “nothing unlawful” had occurred, could have altered the equation.
After this, a Tuesday evening online Sun editorial didn’t indicate the age payments started or the money’s purpose. On Wednesday, the publication stated that the 17-year-old received their first payment. But did not say it was for sexual photographs.
According to The Sun, the story was always in the public interest.
Its statement on Wednesday, after Edwards’s wife named him, stated that its original story did not allege criminality and that the connection was only made by other media outlets.
“From the beginning, we reported a story about two very concerned and frustrated parents who complained to the BBC about the behavior of a presenter and payments from him that fueled a young person’s drug habit,” it said.
If accurate, this first report claimed the presenter committed a crime.
The newspaper also followed up on comments made by former chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal in the Sunday Times, in which he stated that the presenter could be charged with sexual exploitation under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003.
The resulting article was titled, “Top BBC star who ‘paid child for sex pictures’ could be charged by police and face years in prison, according to an expert.”
Questions about evidence
Even though its initial piece highlighted the mother’s accusations, the Sun may have seen evidence before publishing.
Did Sun reporters view and verify bank statements purportedly containing payments from the celebrity or the so-called “sleazy” messages?
Or were they relying on the word of the family member? The article stated that family members who shared their stories had signed an affidavit.
The Sun’s meaning is dubious since an affidavit is a lawyer-supervised legal document.
The Sun responded to the teen’s denial Monday by saying it had seen evidence corroborating the family’s concerns.
The accused young person would strongly dispute this account, whether supported by a legal affidavit or not.
The negation
In a letter sent to the BBC on Monday evening, the young person’s attorney labeled the allegations “rubbish” and stated that “nothing improper or illegal” had occurred.
In addition, it was stated that the young person had sent a denial to the newspaper via WhatsApp on Friday evening, stating that their mother’s account was “totally false and lacked any truth,” but the “inappropriate” article was still published.
However, if the newspaper received a denial, many people questioned why it was not published, as is standard journalistic practice.
With the young person’s solicitors denying the allegations and the unnamed presenter remaining silent, all eyes were on the BBC and law enforcement to investigate.
The authorities converse
On Monday, the Metropolitan Police recommended the BBC to suspend their inquiry while they investigated.
In the meantime, the Sun published an interview with the parents in which they claimed that the BBC was a fraud and that they had informed the BBC about the presenter’s contact with the minor.
Tim Davie, the director general of the BBC, has stated that the organization is managing the situation “responsibly and fairly.”
The parents told the Sun that the police assured them there was no criminal case.
We now know that the two authorities concluded there was no evidence of criminal activity.
The South Wales Police told the young person’s parents that the accusation concerns “the welfare of an adult” in April.
On Wednesday evening, the Metropolitan Police said there was no criminal offence and they would not take any action.
Media critics were quick to point out that this significantly altered the narrative and the balance between the public’s interest in publishing the allegations and the presenter’s right to privacy.
Hacked Off board member Jacqui Hames said readers saw a “suggestion of criminality… screamed out” daily.
In a statement released later that evening, the Sun reiterated that it did not initially allege criminal activity. But stated that its allegations “were always very serious.”
“The issue is conduct that many people would likely disapprove of if true,” he told Newsnight.
