he ‘BBC celebrity presenter’ story that dominated news headlines earlier this month has raised many questions about not just the state of the BBC but also about journalism and editorial standards in the UK media.

Was the story that the Murdoch group’s tabloid The Sun ran about an unnamed BBC ‘star’ presenter allegedly paying a ‘young person’ for pictures really in public interest? Was it handled appropriately? And did the way the BBC then reported on the story feed the social media frenzy rather than bring clarity to the matter?

The Sun ran its front page story on Friday, July 7^, under a headline screaming: Top BBC star taken off air for paying teen for sexual pics. This story quoted the parents of the ‘teen’ but had no input from either this young person or from the news channel.

What followed over the next five days was a frenzied guessing game on social media as users tried to figure out which ‘top BBC star’ presenter was the perpetrator.

BBC’s response helped this happen: instead of a statement saying that this was being investigated and more information would be provided later, BBC set about trying to report and investigate the story when they were the story. This may have been an attempt to gain control of the narrative but it was not a successful one and it certainly raised questions about editorial choices.

The UK media was gripped by this story and treated it as if it was the most important news at the time. It was not. The whole scandal coincided with an interesting development in the parliamentary inquiry into the matter of former PM Boris Johnson allegedly lying to parliament.

He claimed to have forgotten the passcode to one of his phones which is key to the investigation. A former PM’s alleged lies and lack of integrity were, arguably, of greater public importance than the ‘top BBC star story’ yet this news was overshadowed by the media storm.

The way public attention was deflected for a few days, away from the Conservative party and the ex-PM, was extraordinary. What a coincidence that the BBC - an organisation under constant attack by the Conservatives and the Murdoch newsgroup - became the story.

BBC attempted to control the narrative by trying to appear to report and investigate the story. But it was itself the story so that was a bit difficult.

As Sir Craig Oliver, a former editor of BBC News at Ten, commented, “…in trying to ensure they look like they’re covering this in a fair and impartial way they have perhaps gone too far.”

The furore continued: police were investigating, the BBC was reporting fresh allegations about Edwards and the ‘young person’ stated their lawyer.

The speculation only died down after Wednesday when the presenter’s wife revealed his identity; Huw Edwards, a familiar face on television and one of the most senior news presenters on BBC. Her statement also said the presenter had now been hospitalised because of mental health issues.

Was this story in the public interest? As a story of abuse of power and grooming it possibly was but it was handled by The Sun in a questionable way.

The original story, for example, had no input or comment from either the supposed victim or the BBC. Also, the young person themselves, through their lawyers, called the story and the allegations ‘rubbish’ and said they’d earlier told The Sun exactly this: there had been no illegal behaviour but the tabloid omitted this from their story.

The UK media was gripped by this story and treated it as if it were the most important news at the time. It was not. The whole scandal coincided with an interesting development in the parliamentary inquiry into the matter of former PM Boris Johnson allegedly lying to parliament.

The Sun’s entire exposé was based on the alleged victim’s parents’ account. Criminality was not properly established as it was unclear what had happened or when (the young person would have been 17, three years ago which is when they say the objectionable behaviour occurred) but the police (two different police forces) investigated and declared that there was no criminality involved and so they would not take up the matter.

The BBC facilitated this attack on itself by its very poor handling of the matter. The parents in question are reported to have contacted the BBC with their complaints and concerns on May 19. Yet no action was taken until seven weeks later when The Sun informed them they were about to break the story.

When the BBC promptly took Edwards off air, this provided The Sun with the peg it needed: “Top BBC star taken off air.”

Why did the BBC not act upon the family’s complaint? This is difficult to understand because ever since the revelations that their celebrity presenter Jimmy Saville was a sexual predator who groomed and abused scores of victims over many years, (often during filming on its sets) the corporation has been extremely sensitive about the suggestion of any sexual impropriety or abuse of power.

It seems that this complaint from outside the organisation was treated with the same sort of dismissiveness many internal complaints at the BBC are. So there was inaction or dismissiveness in May, and then hasty, almost knee-jerk action two months later.

But one needs to look at the BBC’s reaction in the context of the last two decades: for more than twenty years the BBC has been under attack by the Murdoch press, various governments and the Conservative party.

The Beeb has been on the defensive for more than two decades and has been badly undermined and threatened by the Tory government.

The issue is funding. For years the public service broadcaster has been made insecure about budgets and the licence fee has been much demonised, thanks to the efforts of the Murdoch press and their political allies.

The BBC licence fee is direct public funding for the broadcaster and all UK households owning a TV are required to pay this. Detractors and competitors of the corporation insist that such direct funding is unfair and monopolistic and goes against the principle of consumer choice.

The BBC licence fee is £159 per year - that is just over £13 a month or 45 pence per day in exchange for which the public gets high quality, advertising-free content.

Ad-free is particularly significant - a dependence on ad revenue can lead to advertisers exerting undue influence over news coverage or trying to promote their products or projects in insidious ways. It can also influence editorial decisions and content planning.

The way the BBC leadership responded to the joint Murdoch-Tory onslaught has, to some extent, led it to where it is now. Instead of playing defensive, it should have been aggressive. It should have made clear that the BBC was unique and so the anti-competitive argument against it did not hold. It should have made clear that its role as a public service broadcaster meant that it needed to have secure funding so it could remain editorially independent.

Instead, it has been subjected to constant attacks and its responses to these attacks have undermined its journalism.

As a footnote to this whole episode, another TV presenter became a similar sort of news headline last week as a controversial presenter on the right-wing, pro-Brexit channel GB News faced allegations of sexual impropriety.

This presumably lends some sort of ‘balance’ to the Huw Edwards story, as if to say that was not specifically an attack on the BBC. It also creates further deflection: it keeps public attention on something other than the Conservative government’s actions and the sorry state of Britain today.

Most importantly, this sort of story dominating the headlines continues the process of eroding trust in the media.

The author is a former BBC broadcaster and producer and one of the founding editors of Newsline.