Erasing "wrong-uns" from history

[brad465]

Many will no doubt be aware now of the downfall of Huw Edwards over the last week. I'm not planning to discuss the specific behaviour he got up to, but with news that the BBC are now removing him from their archives, wanted to ask the question about how much of history involving someone, who later turns out to have been up to no good, should be removed?

This specific example could get very controversial as Edwards was involved in some very prolific public events, including most notably announcing the Queen's Death, presenting the BBC coverage of both the State Funeral and Prince Philip's funeral, the 2019 election coverage and more. If these are erased/heavily modified, that's a huge part of these events' content changed completely, which I think is a step too far. However the sort of action that should be taken will vary significantly between specific individuals, some of whom were guilty of far worse.

Huw Edwards: BBC starts removing former newsreader from archive

The former BBC newsreader pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children on Wednesday

www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC has begun to remove Huw Edwards from some of its archive footage after the former broadcaster pleaded guilty to making indecent images of children.

It is starting with family and entertainment content on iPlayer, according to the Observer, external which first reported on the move.
Until last year, Edwards was one of the main presenters on BBC One's News at Ten and often fronted coverage of major national events.
“As you would expect we are actively considering the availability of our archive," a BBC spokesperson said.
"While we don't routinely delete content from the BBC archive as it is a matter of historical record, we do consider the continued use and re-use of material on a case-by-case basis.”
Edwards resigned from the BBC in April citing medical advice. On Wednesday, he admitted having 41 indecent images of children, which had been sent to him by another man on WhatsApp.
The Observer claimed that the removal of certain content was aimed at "protecting audiences from repeats of Edwards' most visible work in news and on state occasions", including the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II.
A Doctor Who episode featuring Edwards' voice has already been removed from iPlayer.
The episode from 2006 features David Tennant and Billie Piper as the Doctor and his companion Rose Tyler. The pair travel to the future to the London 2012 Olympics where Edwards' voice is heard as part of a televised BBC news report.
A mural of the former newsreader in the presenter's home village of Llangennech, Carmarthenshire has also been removed.
Artist Steve Jenkins, 50, painted over the portrait on Tuesday after it was announced Edwards had been charged.
Cardiff council has also removed a plaque honouring Edwards at Cardiff Castle.

 

[najaB]

I saw that and had similar thoughts. I can see both sides of the argument - yes, those events are our collective history, but at the same time the individuals involved are still around and seeing/hearing him might be a bit much for them to bear.

I think a "happy medium" would probably be to remove them from the general archive and put them behind a warning/information page.

In the general case, it shows the danger of memorialising people while they are still alive, or immediately after their death (thinking of Jimmy Saville).

 

[Hadlow Road]

I saw that and had similar thoughts. I can see both sides of the argument - yes, those events are our collective history, but at the same time the individuals involved are still around and seeing/hearing him might be a bit much for them to bear.

I think a "happy medium" would probably be to remove them from the general archive and put them behind a warning/information page.

In the general case, it shows the danger of memorialising people while they are still alive, or immediately after their death (thinking of Jimmy Saville).

Well, it worked in 1984. And, of course, George Orwell worked for the BBC.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not an easy one this. Remove honours of course - Salville’s knighthood was removed and springs to mind for example.

 

[PeterC]

Well, it worked in 1984. And, of course, George Orwell worked for the BBC.

I must say that the news immediately made me think "refs unpersons, doubleplusungood"

 

[brad465]

Not an easy one this. Remove honours of course - Salville’s knighthood was removed and springs to mind for example.

That honour automatically expired on his death, as it does with any holder. There were statements made intending to review the process but from what I could find this never got anywhere, only that it and many other honours would have been removed had he been convicted in his lifetime. Of course almost all the TV shows he appeared in are no longer shown and other honours such as place names and honorary qualifications were removed, but given the scale and length of time the crimes took place in, hardly anyone batted an eyelid at this level of erasing.

 

[najaB]

Well, it worked in 1984. And, of course, George Orwell worked for the BBC.

Which is why I think that putting the material behind an informational/warning page so that it's still available but with the context fully explained is probably the best way to go.

 

[dangie]

Of course apart from the actual crimes committed, this is very embarrassing once again for the BBC. By removing him from their archives, out of sight, out of mind, they will hope the public soon forget about any connection between him & the BBC.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Which is why I think that putting the material behind an informational/warning page so that it's still available but with the context fully explained is probably the best way to go.

I agree,erasing everything is a waste of time and effort for programmes that are likely never to be shown again. How often is an episode of News at Ten from 2009 going to be shown again for example. Simply don’t show anything with him in unless warned prior to broadcast.
Interestingly a brief glimpse of DLT from 1994 was seen on BBC4 last night.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

DLT?

 

[Darandio]

DLT?

Dave Lee Travis

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Dave Lee Travis

Wow. I did not know. Just read his Wikipedia article - not as bad as Seville though imho.

 

[Ashley Hill]

DLT?

Yes Dave Lee Travis aka The Hairy Cornflake. Ex radio DJ who went down with operation Yew Tree. Of seventeen charges against him he was found guilty of one. And you never see a repeat of Top of the Pops with him in (or Saville),I guess the episodes still exist but just not shown.

 

[Broucek]

Caravaggio (one of the world's greatest painters) was an actual murderer... Should we ignore his paintings?

I tend to see these people as teachable moments. How could Edward Coulson be both a slave trader AND a philanthropist? Discuss!

 

[43096]

Which is why I think that putting the material behind an informational/warning page so that it's still available but with the context fully explained is probably the best way to go.

There's some stuff that really can't be erased from history. He announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II - that was a significant moment in British history.

 

[etr221]

It is perhaps a fundamental of the human condition that we are all - to some extent - saints, and - to some extent - sinners; and should be remembered as both.

 

[Cowley]

There's some stuff that really can't be erased from history. He announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II - that was a significant moment in British history.

Maybe they’ll be able to generate a generic AI version of the perfect BBC presenter in the future to replace all the dodgy ex BBC types, so that we can watch the announcement you mentioned above plus various episodes of Top of the Pops and It’s a Knockout (I’m actually only half joking here).

 

[dangie]

There's some stuff that really can't be erased from history. He announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II - that was a significant moment in British history.

He announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II on the BBC. I’m sure it was also announced at a similar time on many other media outlets. Erasing his BBC broadcast shouldn’t be much of an issue.

 

[najaB]

He announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II on the BBC. I’m sure it was also announced at a similar time on many other media outlets. Erasing his BBC broadcast shouldn’t be much of an issue.

While it's true that there would have been announcements on other channels, the BBC is seen as the 'broadcaster of record'.

 

[deltic]

There should be no erasure, just a reminder of what he did. We haven't erased all news archive footage of Hitler.

 

[Topological]

I find editing of history worrying too.

In the future we may wish to study archives to see if there were "signs" that could have been spotted. Whether there is any differential between person A and B in reporting etc...

In the case of Edwards, we are talking about a very successful broadcaster. There is much to learn from that side.

The presence of material with these "wrong uns" should simply be a reminder that we do not always realise who the wrong uns are, and a reminder that we as a society need to be more vigilant. Erasing that material sweeps the issue under a carpet and does little to ensure that lessons are learned.

Whilst, I have sympathy with the argument that victims may find the presence of certain individuals upsetting, that should not override the scientific need to preserve material. To that end perhaps archives with warnings are needed, but I don't know if it placates the deletion lobby.

 

[Yew]

I would suggest that not having these people in push-based systems is probably a sensible compromise. Don't show a rerun of Top of the Pops with Jimmy Saville on late-night TV, for example; but still have it in the Archive if people want to go and find it to, say, see the first time they saw their favourite band perform.

 

[3141]

Maybe they’ll be able to generate a generic AI version of the perfect BBC presenter in the future to replace all the dodgy ex BBC types, so that we can watch the announcement you mentioned above plus various episodes of Top of the Pops and It’s a Knockout (I’m actually only half joking here).

It won't be long before this isn't a joke at all. It's relatively easy to remove or change voices and/or faces, and thus re-write history, as in 1984, and it will become even easier to do this kind of thing in future. And why? Possibly there are people who know that their images were obtained by Huw Edwards (who so far has been charged but not convicted of those offences), but the images themselves don't accompany any re-showing of events at which he commentated. Such re-showings are infrequent. He is not, as far as we know, the person who set up the arrangements for such images to be taken. I think it is atrocious for the BBC to be editing reality in this way, and trying to make itself appear virtuous in doing so.

Caravaggio (one of the world's greatest painters) was an actual murderer... Should we ignore his paintings?

A brilliant comment! Perhaps, if Donald Trump wins the US presidency again, he will arrange to change the story of the of the January 6th riots so that they show heroic people battling against manifestly false election results in which Biden is clearly the loser.

 

[najaB]

Whilst, I have sympathy with the argument that victims may find the presence of certain individuals upsetting, that should not override the scientific need to preserve material. To that end perhaps archives with warnings are needed, but I don't know if it placates the deletion lobby.

I'm not sure that there's actually a plan to delete the material. They're hiding it from search results for now, and I have no doubt that they're considering options going forward.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Possibly there are people who know that their images were obtained by Huw Edwards (who so far has been charged but not convicted of those offences),

Huw Edwards has pleaded guilty.

Former BBC Anchor Huw Edwards Pleads Guilty To Indecent Image Charges - Arise News

Huw Edwards, ex-BBC anchor, has pleaded guilty to making indecent pictures of children and faces sentencing in September.

www.arise.tv

In a tragic turn of events, Huw Edwards, once the celebrated face of the BBC’s flagship news programme, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to three counts of making indecent pictures of children. This comes after allegations that the former top news anchor and highest-paid journalist at the BBC had paid a young person thousands of pounds for sexually explicit photos—though this specific accusation is unrelated to his criminal charges.
Edwards, 62, was a household name in Britain for over two decades, known for his authoritative presence and dignified coverage of major national events, including the announcement of Queen Elizabeth II’s death in 2022, royal weddings, elections, and the 2012 Olympics. However, he has been absent from TV screens for a year, with his court appearance marking his first public sighting since then. The BBC expressed shock and disappointment over his actions in a statement.
Making his way through a swarm of photographers and camera crews, Edwards arrived at London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court, where he admitted to having received several indecent images of children between December 2020 and August 2021. When asked to plead to the charges, Edwards responded, “Guilty.”
Judge Paul Goldspring announced that Edwards’ sentencing would take place on September 16, noting that all options, including an immediate prison sentence, were on the table.
During the 25-minute hearing, prosecutor Ian Hope detailed how Edwards had received 377 sexually explicit images from an adult male on WhatsApp, 41 of which were indecent illegal images of children. Among these, seven were of the most severe kind, including two pornographic videos of a child potentially aged between seven and nine years old.

 

[birchesgreen]

I don't believe any old media should be doctored, just put a warning message beforehand if you want and make sure the criminal does not get any royalties (if any are available at all).

 

[Western Lord]

Caravaggio (one of the world's greatest painters) was an actual murderer... Should we ignore his paintings?

I tend to see these people as teachable moments. How could Edward Coulson be both a slave trader AND a philanthropist? Discuss!

I am sure that there are hundreds of prominent people from the past whose reputations would be trashed if judged by today's standards.

 

[najaB]

I am sure that there are hundreds of prominent people from the past whose reputations would be trashed if judged by today's standards.

True. Though, what we're considering here isn't 'judging by modern standards' as much as people who are found to have committed actual specific crimes.

 

[Topological]

True. Though, what we're considering here isn't 'judging by modern standards' as much as people who are found to have committed actual specific crimes.

I suppose crime is a contemporary thing. You cannot judge figures from history for committing crimes under today's law that were not crimes in those historic times.

However, there are figures in history who committed acts which are crimes by today's law and therefore would result in the censorship we are discussing for today's criminals.

See Shakespeare's plays (for example)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't believe any old media should be doctored, just put a warning message beforehand if you want and make sure the criminal does not get any royalties (if any are available at all).

Why would you stop the person getting royalties? If the royalties have been legitimately earned through some activity that is legal and has nothing to do with the crime, then I don't see any ethical grounds to deny the person those earnings. Or are we saying that once you've been committed of a crime, you shouldn't in the future be allowed to earn a living?

(Of course if it's income that directly results from the crime, then it's a different matter)