This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/24/mark-thompson-jimmy-savile-new-york-times

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Mark Thompson in spotlight at New York Times over Savile scandal Mark Thompson in spotlight at New York Times over Savile scandal
(about 3 hours later)
The incoming chief executive of the New York Times, Mark Thompson, is facing new questions over what he knew about the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal when he was director general of the BBC, amid apparent inconsistencies in his public statements. The incoming chief executive of the New York Times is facing new questions over what he knew about the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal when he was director general of the BBC, amid apparent inconsistencies in his public statements.
Thompson, who is due to start his new job on 12 November, has already been publicly rebuked by the NYT's ombudsman, who caused a sensation by questioning his suitability for the role in a blogpost on Tuesday. Mark Thompson, who is due to start his new job on November 12, has already been publicly rebuked by the NYT's public editor, or ombudsman, who questioned his suitability for the role in a blog post on Tuesday. In her article, Margaret Sullivan called for the paper to cover "more aggressively" Thompson's knowledge of the scandal and allegations of a cover-up.
Margaret Sullivan, the NYT public editor, also called for the paper to conduct more vigorous reporting into Thompson's knowledge of the scandal and allegations of a coverup. Adding to his woes with his new employer, Thompson is now attempting to reconcile two apparently contradictory statements over what he knew about a TV report into Savile by the BBC's Newsnight programme. The report was pulled in December 2011 – that decision is now the subject of an independent inquiry. Newsnight's editor, Peter Rippon, has already had to "step aside".
Adding to his woes, Thompson is now attempting to reconcile two apparently contradictory statements about what he knew about a report into Savile, the BBC TV and radio star who died last October, which was being prepared by BBC2's Newsnight programme. The report was pulled in December 2011, the reasons for which are now the subject of an independent inquiry. Newsnight's editor, Peter Rippon, has already had to "step aside". Thompson, whose role as director general also carried the designation "editor in chief", made his first statement about the scandal to the New York Times on 13 October .
Thompson, whose role as NYT director general also carried the designation "editor in chief", told the paper on 13 October: "I was not notified or briefed about the Newsnight investigation, nor was I involved in any way in the decision not to complete and air the investigation. He said: "I was not notified or briefed about the Newsnight investigation, nor was I involved in any way in the decision not to complete and air the investigation. I have no reason to doubt the public statement by the programme's editor, Peter Rippon, that the decision not to pursue the investigation was entirely his, and that it was made solely for journalistic reasons."
"I have no reason to doubt the public statement by the programme's editor, Peter Rippon, that the decision not to pursue the investigation was entirely his, and that it was made solely for journalistic reasons. He added: "During my time as director general of the BBC, I never heard any allegations or received any complaints about Jimmy Savile."
"During my time as director general of the BBC, I never heard any allegations or received any complaints about Jimmy Savile." But in response to inquiries by the Times newspaper in London, which is not connected to the New York Times, Thompson admitted through his spokesman that he was aware that Newsnight was investigating Savile. The spokesman told the London-based Times: "Mark attended a party late last year where a journalist mentioned the fact that Newsnight had been investigating Savile. The journalist said words to the effect that 'You must be worried about the Newsnight investigation'.
But in response to inquiries by the Times newspaper in London, Thompson admitted through his spokesman that he was aware that Newsnight was investigating Savile. The spokesman told the Times: "Mark attended a party late last year where a journalist mentioned the fact that Newsnight had been investigating Savile. The journalist said words to the effect that 'You must be worried about the Newsnight investigation'.
"This was the first that Mark had heard about the investigation. The journalist did not go into what Newsnight was investigating. Mark did not respond at the party but did mention the conversation to senior colleagues in BBC News and asked if there was a problem with the investigation."This was the first that Mark had heard about the investigation. The journalist did not go into what Newsnight was investigating. Mark did not respond at the party but did mention the conversation to senior colleagues in BBC News and asked if there was a problem with the investigation.
"He was told that Newsnight had begun an investigation into Savile but had decided to drop it for journalistic reasons. Mark assumed that this meant that the decision not to proceed had been taken by Peter Rippon."He was told that Newsnight had begun an investigation into Savile but had decided to drop it for journalistic reasons. Mark assumed that this meant that the decision not to proceed had been taken by Peter Rippon.
"He was not told anything about the allegations Newsnight had been looking at. The first time he became aware of the allegations that Savile had committed serious crimes and that some had taken place in the course of his employment at the BBC was when he heard the 'pre-publicity' for the ITV investigation [the documentary that aired allegations of child abuse by Savile]. This was after he had stepped down as director general." "He was not told anything about the allegations Newsnight had been looking at. The first time he became aware of the allegations that Savile had committed serious crimes and that some had taken place in the course of his employment at the BBC was when he heard the 'pre-publicity' for the ITV investigation. This was after he had stepped down as director general."
Thompson's spokesman told the Guardian there was "no contradiction" between the two positions: "Mark told the New York Times he was not briefed on the Newsnight investigation. He wasn't. As he made clear yesterday, he was only made aware of the allegations relating to Jimmy Savile when ITV published pre-broadcast publicity regarding their documentary in recent weeks." Thompson's spokesman told the Guardian there was "no contradiction" between the two positions.
Asked about Thompson's statement to the London newspaper, where he said he had been told Newsnight was investigating Savile, the spokesman added: "He was not briefed or notified of the Newsnight investigation. He was told there was an investigation into Jimmy Savile by Newsnight at a party. But, as he makes clear, he was not briefed on what the investigation was about, the substance of the allegation, how far reporters had got, the editorial decision to drop it etc." "Mark told the New York Times he was not briefed on the Newsnight investigation. He wasn't. As he made clear yesterday he was only made aware of the allegations relating to Jimmy Savile when ITV published pre-broadcast publicity regarding their documentary in recent weeks," the spokesman said.
The spokesman said Thompson stood by both statements, but his position appears to rest on a subtle, semantic difference between the definitions of being "made aware" and being "notified or briefed". Thompson's spokesman insisted to the Guardian that he stood by both statements and said there was no inconsistency between them. But Thompson's position appears to rest on the difference between being "made aware" and being "notified or briefed". The BBC journalist who spoke to Thompson at the party, Caroline Hawley, told the Times of London on Wednesday that while she could not remember exactly what she said, she was likely to have given the "broad context" of the allegations.
The convulsions over which BBC executives knew what and when is in danger of overshadowing the initial story into the abuse conducted by Savile over his 40-year career as a radio DJ and TV host. Rob Wilson, a Conservative MP, told the Times: "Mark Thompson has already had to clarify his version of events once. He originally implied that he knew nothing about the Newsnight investigation, before admitting that a BBC journalist had told him he had reasons to worry about it. Now there are questions about whether he was told more about the subject of the Newsnight investigation than he has previously admitted."
George Entwistle, Thompson's successor as director general, gave a faltering performance before a committee of MPs on Tuesday, where he was accused of a "lack of curiosity" over the Newsnight investigation. The allegations were eventually aired earlier this month on rival network ITV. The inquiry into which BBC executives knew what and when is in danger of overshadowing the initial story into the abuse conducted by Savile over his 40-year career as a radio DJ and TV host. George Entwistle, Thompson's successor as director general, gave a faltering performance before a committee of MPs on Tuesday, where he was accused of a "lack of curiosity" over the Newsnight investigation. The allegations were eventually aired earlier this month on rival network ITV.
Thompson has said that he will return to London to face MPs if he is called upon. Thompson has said that he will return to London to face MPs if he is called to appear. His position at the New York Times was put under significant strain this week when Sullivan, the public editor, asked whether he was the "right person for the job," given the importance attached to integrity at the paper. She suggested that the NYT should cover the story more aggressively. In her blog post, she asked: "How likely is it that he knew nothing?"
His position at the New York Times was put under significant strain this week when Sullivan, the public editor, asked whether he was the "right person for the job," given the importance attached to integrity at the paper. She suggested that the NYT should interrogate the story more vigorously. In a blogpost, she asked: "How likely is it that he knew nothing?" Questioning Thompson's suitability, Sullivan wrote: "How likely is it that the Times Company will continue with its plan to bring Mr Thompson on as chief executive? (It's worth noting that as public editor, I have no inside knowledge on such corporate matters.) His integrity and decision-making are bound to affect The Times and its journalism — profoundly. It's worth considering now whether he is the right person for the job, given this turn of events."
Questioning Thompson's suitability, Sullivan wrote: "How likely is it that the Times Company will continue with its plan to bring Mr Thompson on as chief executive? (It's worth noting that as public editor, I have no inside knowledge on such corporate matters.) His integrity and decision-making are bound to affect The Times and its journalism – profoundly. It's worth considering now whether he is the right person for the job, given this turn of events." The New York Times referred questions about Thomson's comments to his spokesman. The NYT's vice president of corporate communications, Eileen Murphy, said it would not comment on the public editor's questioning of Thompson's suitability.
The paper referred questions about Thomson's comments to his spokesman. The NYT's vice president of corporate communications, Eileen Murphy, said it would not comment on Sullivan's questioning of Thompson's suitability. "The public editor is an independent voice in the newsroom and she is doing her job. We do not make a habit of commenting on her columns," Murphy said. Asked about Thompson's suitability for the role, she said: "We're not commenting given that he doesn't work here yet."
"The public editor is an independent voice in the newsroom and she is doing her job. We do not make a habit of commenting on her columns," Murphy said. Asked about Thompson's suitability for the role, she said: "We're not commenting, given that he doesn't work here yet."
An NYT newsroom source said people at the newspaper had been "completely blown away" by Sullivan's decision to query in public Thompson's suitability as incoming CEO.
"Not just the newsroom, but the entire building is in shock. It's a really big deal," said the source, who asked not to be named. There was not a widespread feeling of concern over Thompson's appointment, they said.
"To begin with, everybody thought he was the great hope, because he'd done great things at the BBC and [the NYT] had wanted him and they got him. The Savile story is so recent; it post-dates his appointment. But it is absolutely not the New York Times's modus operandi to back away."