Jimmy Savile, the BBC and ITV: a study of identities, representation and relationships

1

The case of Jimmy Savile, the BBC and ITV:

a study of identities, representation and relationships

Daniel Bates

Dissertation presented for the degree of MAMedia and Cultural Studies at the University of

Sunderland in 2013

2

I confirm that this is an original piece ofwork, written entirely in my own words, with

the exception of those quotations fullyacknowledged within the text

3

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thankeveryone who placed any input into the writing ofthis dissertation; if it were not for the support andguidance from various individuals it would not havebeen completed.

First I would like to acknowledge my dissertationtutor, Barbara Sadler, who guided my thoughts in theright direction throughout the dissertation.

I would also like to thank all of the lecturerson the MA Media and Cultural Studies course, asthrough taking this course it has gave me newperspective on life in numerous ways. Particularly Iwould like to thank module leader Vicky Ball, aswithout her compromise I would not have been able topartake in the course.

Finally I would like to thank my friends andfamily for supporting me throughout the writing ofthis dissertation. I would like to show particulargratitude to my mam, for if it wasn’t for her

4

incessant ‘encouragement’ I would have not completedmy work.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Theoretical Issues 6

Chapters 14

Chapter 1

BBC, ITV and the Savile Scandal 15

Institutions 15

Discourse Analysis 23

Summary 33

Chapter 2

5

Savile’s ‘Synthetic Personality’ – Public and Private

Transcript Conventions 35

Introduction

Following the Jimmy Savile scandal in October 2012 there has been a

continuous uncovering of crimes in regard to sexual assaults and

paedophilia which took place from the 1970s onwards to more recent

times. These crimes were committed by well-known entertainers who

had worked consistently throughout the years in the more established

television institutions of the BBC and ITV.

This study aims to investigate the different aspects of

representation surrounding this scandal and examines the identities

6

and relationships it produces. First of all there will be a study

into the institutions which were affected by the events that

unfolded with a direct link to hegemony. Secondly there will be an

analysis of the representation and self-representation of Jimmy

Savile on television with the aim of exploring the differences in

his public and private representations. The BBC’s decision to

broadcast two tributes to Jimmy Savile while holding back a Newsnight

investigation into the allegations of sexual offences, which was due

to be broadcast in the same week, shows a conflict of ideas and

beliefs. There also seems to be a distinct difference between the

private and the public life of Jimmy Savile which was established

through different documentaries on television creating contrasting

representations.

The representation of one view while marginalising another

interpretation represents a ‘crisis of hegemony’ within the

institution of the BBC. This being highlighted as ITV sought out to

broadcast the counter-hegemonic ideals that the BBC presented with

ITV broadcasting their documentary named Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy

Savile revealing the scandal that Newsnight had been investigating.

Effectively the BBC had to regain consent after their decision to

not broadcast the Newsnight programme through different programming,

mainly through the news media and documentary. The broadcast on the

BBC of a Panorama programme with in depth access to the internal

7

events (including interviews with those involved with Newsnight and

colleagues of Jimmy Savile within the BBC) challenges the notion of

preservation of the BBC’s reputation and aligns them with the

universal belief which was initially presented by ITV. This

documentary being incredibly critical of the BBC and the role

decision makers higher up played in the decision to with-hold this

information from the public.

These events show the struggle between competing ideas and

beliefs within each of the institutions, the BBC being a publicly

funded service is supposed to represent the beliefs and ideals of

the public whereas ITV being a commercially funded service but is

constrained by the ideals of the BBC, so is therefore subordinate.

So not only does this scandal expose the continual conflict of power

between the two institutions and the belief and consent of the

public, but also the conflict between the institutions for supremacy

in regard to the ideological issues that are linked to Public

Service Broadcasting and Commercial broadcasting.

Another aspect of representation that will be studied is self-

representation and the blurring of the public and private. Jimmy

Savile was a self-publicist and the way in which he portrayed

himself on the television and in the public; as opposed to his

private life which was largely unreported or even known. This links

to hegemony as Jimmy Savile’s power was determined by how he was

8

represented in the public; with the offences that he committed

throughout his career he managed to separate his private life from

his public image. Although there was always questions asked about

Savile's behaviour he was always seen as a 'national treasure' and

someone who was celebrated, so the way in which he represented

himself, particularly in interviews, was paramount to the way in

which the different television institutions continued to represent

him, whether it be in news reports or the tributes broadcast by the

BBC.

In studying Jimmy Savile’s representation there will be a

discourse analysis concerning the way in which Jimmy Savile

conducted himself within television interviews. An analysis of the

transcripts of the chat show/interview Is This Your Life (1995) and

documentary interview When Louis met… Jimmy (2000) will help establish

the way in which Savile was able to continue his more familiar

representation when faced with difficult questions relating directly

to his private life. The Louis Theroux documentary also allows a

direct representation of Savile’s private life and is perhaps one of

the only times that Savile produces a more honest image of himself.

Research conducted between 24th to the 26th of November by the

agency ‘Conquest Research & Consultancy’ ‘found that 49% of

respondents trust the BBC less than they did before “recent events”’

(Guardian, 2012), the Guardian article continues:

9

‘Of these, 19% of the 300 surveyed say theytrust the BBC "much less than before", while 30%trusted the corporation "slightly less thanbefore"… A significant minority – 33% – also blamedthe BBC for "Jimmy Savile's behaviour"… Almost half– 48% – of respondents felt the Savile affair was"the worst crisis" in the BBC's history… But,perhaps most ominously for the publicly fundedCorporation, over 54% agreed with the statementthat the £145.50 a year licence fee is a waste ofmoney and should be abolished’ (Guardian, 2012)

Judging from these figures researched, it is clear that the

trust of the public has been affected by the scandal; even so far as

to say that the BBC was to blame for the crimes that Savile

committed and that the licence fee is a ‘waste of money’. This

scandal was detrimental to the reputation of the BBC, Jimmy Savile

shared a close link with the BBC and this is evident in this

research carried out as it becomes clear the public have made this

association after the scandal unfolded.

This scandal was unprecedented, there had not been such a

scandal revealed in British television history. The police

investigation, Operation Yewtree, which followed on from the ITV

documentary Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile uncovered an enormous

amount of sexual abuse throughout the television industry. The

revealing of Jimmy Savile’s private life became the main catalyst

for other entertainers to be exposed which included It’s a Knockout’s

host Stuart Hall, singer Gary Glitter and also more recently

Australian/British 'national treasure' Rolf Harris to name but a

10

few. Allegations continued throughout 2012 and 2013 and the news

coverage throughout all of the media networks was wide ranging as

information from Operation Yewtree filtered through as more

entertainers were suspects to the allegations.

Operation Yewtree as an investigation had its main focus on

the sexual abuse that had taken place within the BBC premises and

the hospitals that Savile had access too. The investigation was not

just limited to this though. Operation Yewtree was also concerned

with ‘claims against Savile and others; and claims against others’

(BBC News, January 11, 2013), which allowed for the investigation to

be not wholly focused on BBC entertainers and crimes committed on

the BBC premises. There was, however, a definite focus on the BBC as

most of the celebrities that were involved had exclusive ties with

the BBC.

Operation Yewtree produced a thirty page document which

detailed the crimes of which Savile committed, including:

‘Savile offended at 13 hospitals, including Great Ormond Street, with one offence recorded at Wheatfields Hospice in 1977

A total of 14 offences were recorded in relationto schools

Savile's youngest victim was an eight-year-old boy, and the oldest was a 47-year-old woman

The earliest allegation is from 1955 in Manchester and the last is from 2009

11

Offences were carried out at the BBC between 1965 and 2006, including at the last Top of the Pops recording

Peak offending took place between 1966 and 1976 A total of 450 people have made sexual abuse

allegations against Savile since October - of whom 73% were under 18, with most aged 13 to 16

There is "no clear evidence" he operated in paedophile ring, although "whether he was part of an informal network" is still being investigated’

(BBC News, January 11, 2013)

Overall there is said to be a total of 589 alleged victims of

abuse with no arrests made to date in line with Operation Yewtree.

Stuart Hall has been charged with ‘one offence of rape and 14

offences of indecent assault’ (Mirror News, 22 January 2013) however

it was not linked with Operation Yewtree, but it is clear that these

allegations came to light in relation to the scandal that was

investigated by Operation Yewtree.

A separate inquiry was produced investigating the conduct of

the BBC lead by Nick Pollard, ‘the former head of Sky News’ (The

Telegraph, October 16, 2012), called the Pollard Report. The internal

investigation into the BBC was an insight into the way in which the

BBC conducted itself while Savile was being scrutinised by Newsnight.

The report dealt with how the structure of the BBC had failed with

regard to the broadcasting of two Jimmy Savile Christmas tributes

while Newsnight were creating the documentary into the Savile

allegations, which was eventually dropped by the BBC. The Pollard

12

Report also examined how the BBC dealt with the scandal after ITV

produced their own documentary about the sexual abuse surrounding

Savile. This lead to a damning report by Nick Pollard who concluded

that ‘the decision to drop the Newsnight investigation was

“seriously flawed”’ (The Guardian, December 19, 2012), it was also

critical of the way in which the 'News Division’s management and its

publicity teams seemed to have kept a lid on the rumblings of press

interest about the story'. Pollard dismissed that it was an

attempted BBC cover up but accepted that 'no-one seemed to grasp

what should have been done with this information' leading to

editorial errors all around different departments of the BBC. This

does lead to the idea that the BBC were wary of what effect this

information would have on the reputation of the institution.

Both of these investigations produced an incredibly negative

presentation of the BBC, both with the entertainers that represented

the institution and also the managers and directors that ran it

before, during and after the time of the scandal. These

investigations also unveiled a huge amount of information about

institutions, particularly the BBC, who have been the producer and

representative of the morals and beliefs which are supposed to

represent the British public. So for crimes of this nature to be

revealed (when paedophilia is now a much more sensitive topic than

it might have been in previous years) this may link to a change in

13

culture with regard to morals and beliefs on an individual level,

but also on a public level.

Theoretical issues

The theoretical frameworks which will be employed to conduct

an analysis of the issues will be operating in the disciplines of

Media and Cultural Studies. The theoretical framework that will be

used is critical discourse analysis, which enables an investigation

into different signs used in different texts which can then be

related to identity, representations and relationships. When

studying representations Saussure (1960) and Barthes (1972) provide

the original framework that is still used in representation theory,

with Barthes providing us with the term semiotics. The semiotic

approach treats popular culture as 'activities and objects as signs,

as a language through which meaning is communicated' (Hall,

1997:36). Through this critical discourse analysis you can establish

the different identities and relationships that are proposed to be

represented.

During the second chapter there will a continuation of the

theoretical framework of critical discourse analysis but it will in

relation to Televised Chat and the Synthetic Personality (Tolson, 1991). This

14

will be in regards to the representation that Savile is identified

by and also the self-representation that he produces to disassociate

from his private life. Tolson sees that there are different types of

‘talk’ developing throughout the different categories of programme

which involve talk. With this insight Tolson argues the ‘importance

of genre’ when discussing discourse and establishes that like ‘live

commentary’ or ‘news broadcasts’ have their own form of discourse

which have their own norms and expectations, talk shows have

developed their own talk and Tolson labels this ‘chat’.

Stuart Hall (1997) is considered one of the pioneers of

representation theory, working with Paul du Gay (1997) they deduce

that there is a ‘circuit of culture’ (du Gay, Hall, 1997:1) and with

this there is a relationship between representation and culture as

‘culture is about ‘shared meanings’’ (Hall, 1997:1). ‘Shared

meanings’ are created through language:

‘In language, we use signs and symbols –whether they are sounds, written words,electronically produced images, musical notes, evenobjects to stand for or represent to other peopleour concepts, ideas and feelings. Language is one‘media’ through which thoughts, ideas and feelingsare represented n culture. Representation throughlanguage is therefore central to the processes bywhich meaning is produced’ (Hall, 1997:1)

15

Although Hall considers that using the term ‘‘shared meanings’

may sometimes make culture sound too unitary and too cognitive’

(Hall, 1997:2) he does sum up how meaning can be ‘shared’ when

talking about systems of representation. It is true that everybody

has different and individual thoughts which might associate one

object with another, Hall gives the example of a bird being similar

to a plane as they fly in the sky; physically they are both

different however there are ‘different ways of organising,

clustering, arranging and classifying concepts’ (Hall, 1997:17)

which in this example has allowed for there to be an association

between a natural animal and a man-made object.

Hall talks about how there are two systems of representation,

the first relating to the example above, where 'all sorts of

objects, people and events are correlated with a set of concepts or

mental representations... without them we could not interpret the world

meaningful at all' (Hall, 1997:17) and since that we 'share broadly

the same conceptual [map]' in relation to our 'mental representations' it

allows people to have 'shared meanings and shared conceptual maps'

(Hall, 1997:18) .

Language is the second system of representation as it makes us

'able to represent or exchange meanings and concepts' (Hall,

1997:18) and to enable this exchange we express meanings and

concepts through signs, which are 'words, sounds and images which

16

carry meaning'. 'Language' is used in the broadest sense as it takes

into account not just spoken and written words, but also visual

images for example 'the 'language' of fashion, of clothes, or of

traffics lights' (Hall, 1997:19):

'Any sound, word, image or object which functionsas a sign, and is organised with other signs into asystem which is capable of carrying and expressingmeaning is, from this point of view, 'a language'.(Hall, 1997:19)

Hall distinguishes that signs and the transfer of language is

not ‘real’ but is an interpretation of the 'real'. He gives the

example of an image of a sheep on a screen and a physical present

sheep. The physical sheep is there, it exists in three dimensions;

however the image exists in two dimensions. Both are signs and both

are a shared conception of a 'sheep' but the image of the sheep is

an interpretation of the 'real life' sheep, it 'bears resemblance to

the real thing or 'looks like it' in some way' (Hall, 1997:19). So

although we conceptualise, say images on the news, as real life as

we share similar conceptual maps, it is in fact an interpretation of

real life.

Hall then lays out three different approaches to

representation theory, them being: 'reflective or mimetic approach',

'intentional approach' and 'constructionalist approach'. The

reflective approach focuses on indicates 'true meaning as it already

17

exists in the world' (Hall, 1997:24), much like the example of the

sheep and the news above.

Intentional approach relates to the individual's

interpretation of the signs meaning that we are 'the sole or unique

source of meanings in language' (Hall, 1997:25) Hall considers this

flawed as language is shared among everyone who have the same

conceptual map in common. This would mean that 'our private thoughts

have to negotiate with all the other meanings for words or images

which have been stored in language' leaving no negotiation for the

'shared linguistic conventions and shared codes' (Hall, 1997:25)

which are so evident in language.

The last approach is the 'constructionalist approach' which:

'…acknowledges that neither things in themselvesnor the individual users of language can fixmeaning in language. Things don't mean: we constructmeaning, using representational systems – conceptsand signs' (Hall, 1997:25)

This would mean that 'social actors' use the conceptual system

shared among us to construct meaning through their 'culture and the

linguistic and other representational systems' (Hall, 1997:25). Like

much of representation theory this links to Saussure where

particular words, sounds (and images) 'stands for, symbolises or represents a

concept' (Hall, 1997:26) that functions as a sign, or how Saussure

established, a 'signifier' and the 'signified'.

18

The first and third theories provide a more rational approach

to representation that is involved within this research. The

'intentional approach' suggests that 'Language is a private game'

which could not be interpreted differently to that of what the

'author intends they should mean' (Hall, 1997:25). Language and

representation evolves through communication, and without the

changing 'shared meaning' through language there could not be

hegemony. For instance, the representation of Jimmy Savile before

the scandal broke; his image connoted him as a charity worker,

children’s entertainer, BBC entertainer and 'national treasure', to

name but a few. This representation was thought of widely by the

public, but these connotations are not fixed, as with language. When

the scandal broke the language surrounding his image changed,

changing the 'shared meaning' which was related to him, creating a

more negative representation.

Hegemony is another theory that will be explored within this

study. Representation relates to hegemony, as hegemony could not

happen without representation. Hall was influenced heavily by

Marxism and Antonio Gramsci, who are both coined as introducing this

theory to political science. Antonio Gramsci was a leading Marxist

theorist and used the term hegemony to distinguish the dominance of

one social class over all the others. Gramsci describes hegemony as

a:

19

''…spontaneous' consent given by the great massesof the population to the general direction imposedon social life by the dominant fundamental group;this consent is 'historically' caused by theprestige (and consequent confidence) which thedominant group enjoys because of its position andfunction in the world production.' (Gramsci,1971:12)

There is an 'implied distinction between consent and its

opposite, coercion' (Allan, 1999:84) and this is 'legally' enforced

'on those groups who do not 'consent' either actively or passively'

(Gramsci, 1971:12). Gramsci associates this enforcement with, for

example, the use of Police and the armed forces to preserve ‘law and

order’ and that this ‘power… is more commonly exercised over

subordinate groups by means of persuasion through ‘political and

ideological leadership’ (Allan, 1999:85)

Gramsci recognises that there are three aspects ‘of the

cultural dynamics of hegemony’ and these have had an

‘extraordinarily influential’ effect on the research carried out

when ‘examining the operation of the news media in modern societies’

(Allan, 1999:85).

The first aspect of hegemony that Gramsci notes, reiterated by

Allan (1999) is that ‘hegemony is a lived process’ (1999:85) in that, as

Williams (1989b:57) explains, it is ‘a lived system of meanings and

values’ where ‘a whole body of practices and expectations, over the

20

whole of living: our senses and assignments of energy, our shaping

of perceptions of ourselves and the world’. This then constitutes

that hegemony produces a ‘sense of reality for most people in

society’ in which ‘the contradictory terrain upon which the ‘lived

dominance and subordination’ of particular groups is struggled over

in day-to-day cultural practices’; hegemony is an embodied process

within the ‘cultural practices, activities and [the] rituals of

individuals’(Allan, 1999:85). As a lived process it is constantly fought

and contested between the dominant and subordinate groups, in the

case of the Savile scandal the 'sense of reality' created by

institutions such as the BBC had to be re-evaluated due to the

crimes that he committed.

Secondly, ‘hegemony is a matter of ‘common sense’’ in that there is an

‘unconscious way of perceiving and understanding the social world’

(Allan, 1999:86). ‘Common sense’ can be ‘inherited from the past and

uncritically absorbed’ (Gramsci, 1971:422), however ‘common-

sensical’ beliefs are far from being ‘fixed or immobile’ rather that

they are in a ‘constant state of renewal’ (Allan, 1999:86). Hall

(1977:325) contributes that ‘[y]ou cannot learn, through common

sense, how things are: you can only discover where they fit into the

existing scheme of things.’ This changing of ‘common sense’ and the

renewal of ‘ideals and beliefs’ constitutes to why beliefs and ideas

21

can change as it is these ‘common sensical’ values that are relevant

to most of the people present in society.

Finally, Allan (1999:86) stresses that ‘hegemony is always

contested’. As hegemony is a lived process there is an ‘active process of

negotiation’ (ibid:86) between the subordinate and dominant groups

within society which ‘can never be taken for granted by the ruling

group… Consequently no one group can maintain its hegemony without

adapting to changing conditions’ (ibid:86). This addresses that

there is never one group in complete power and it is up to the

ruling group of society to maintain power through ‘adapting to the

changing conditions…which will likely entail making certain

strategic compromises with the forces which oppose its ideological

authority’ (ibid:86). In essence, if the dominant ideology produced

by the ruling class is resisted and challenged enough by the

subordinate, the dominant group has to adapt their ideas and beliefs

to gain consent of the resistant subordinate group.

It is clear that representation theory and hegemony relate to

each other, as without representation in its most basic form (the

transfer of signs and symbols - language) there would not be the

ability to correlate our own ideas and beliefs onto one another.

This would mean that not only would representation be static, also

there would be no challenging of the dominant ideas. ‘Common

22

sensical’ (Allan, 1999:86) beliefs would be fixed, forever

distinguished by the dominant group, forever unchallenged.

These theories help understand many aspects which are related

to the Jimmy Savile scandal. Through representation there can be an

agreement between every one of 'shared meaning', with the public and

with the institutions that are involved. Through signs and language

images can take on different meanings that can evolve through

different conceptual maps which are shared by everyone. Previous to

the scandal Jimmy Savile is positively represented through images of

his charity work and his work with the BBC, this is then contrasted

after the scandal where the image of Savile is much more associated

with a 'sexual predator'. The discourse and images surrounding

Savile at this time create a much more negative representation of

his identity and relationship with the institutions that he was

involved with.

Representation and hegemony link together when studying this

scandal as it shows how the changing representations were used to

gain consent of the public. It also shows the relationships between

the institutions that were involved; the BBC being dominant to ITV;

however it was ITV that uncovered the story which had a drastic

effect on the reputation of the BBC. This scandal exposes the

struggle between the morals and beliefs which are associated with

broadcasting in Britain.

23

In the second chapter there will also be a focus on critical

discourse analysis but in relation to 'television chat' and the

creation of 'television personalities'. Tolson uses the two

television chat shows from the mid-80s as examples to examine, the

two shows being Wogan (1984) and The Dame Edna Experience (1987), in

arguing this ‘transformation’ he contributes that ‘there are at

least three main identifying features of this speech genre [chat]…

‘First, there is often a topical shift towards the‘personal’ (as opposed to the institutional), ortowards the ‘private’ (as opposed to the public).Secondly, this shift may be accompanied by displaysof wit (e.g. foregrounding lexical ambiguities) orhumour (double entendres, ect.). But thirdly… inany context ‘chat’ always works by opening up thepossibility of transgression.’ (Tolson, 1991:180)

In identifying these three main features of ‘chat’ Tolson

argues that ‘chat’ within an interview does not ‘reproduce norms and

conventions, rather it flirts with them’ creating the opportunity

for the interviewee to put questions to the interviewer. In this

twisting of the conventions of a normal interview Tolson argues that

because of this ‘television personalities’ are constructed. A

'television personality', such as Savile, can create their own

conventions which are independent to the individual, which then the

audience can recognise and become comfortable with their breaking of

the normal rules and codes. An example of talk which demonstrates

the generic conventions of talk is a news interview, which is well

24

structured conversation based on presenting information in a way

easy for the audience to decode. 'Chat' however is much more

'informal and conversational' (Scannell, 1988b) producing a much

more 'spontaneous' and sporadic structure, which for the audience is

much harder for the audience to decode. Tolson sees this as an

'institutionalized variant of conversation' where ''text' meets a

'social situation'' (Tolson, 1991:179) and the mixture of these

conventions of talk produce the genre of 'chat'.

Using Tolson’s identification of ‘chat’ as a speech genre there will

be an analysis of the way in which Jimmy Savile structures his

discourse in interviews which complies with the conventions of

‘chat’. Like Tolson there will be an examination of two different

types of interview which involve ‘chat’ as the main talk and

discourse, these examples being Is This Your Life (1995), broadcast on

Channel 4 with the interview being conducted by Andrew Neil, and the

second example being When Louis met… Jimmy (2000) which was broadcast

on the BBC. In using these examples there will be an assessment of

the self-representation by Jimmy Savile and the way in which he

pervades more private questions with his own public self-image.

25

Chapters

In the first chapter there will be an exploration into the

history of the initial set up of the BBC, establishing why the BBC

was set up and the morals and beliefs that the institution held.

There will be an expansion into the creation of the first commercial

television network (ITV) in the UK, taking into account the

political struggle within parliament between the two conflicting

ideologies of the Conservative and Labour parties of the time. This

will expose the reasons to why and how commercial television was

created finally ending the monopoly of the BBC. It will also uncover

the relationship between public broadcasting, commercial television

and the state ultimately unveiling a hegemonic structure with

commercial television being subordinate to the BBC.

26

In this chapter there will also be a discussion of the Jimmy

Savile scandal in relation to these institutions. There will be

insight into the changing representations around the case, prior and

after the scandal. There will be a discussion into Newsnight’s

decision to drop the investigation and ITV’s broadcast of the

information and this will link into the morals and beliefs

associated with both of the institutions with a focus around the

alignment of national identity.

The second chapter will focus on 'television talk' and how

Savile created a 'Synthetic Personality' when in a television

environment. Two certain program genres will be used to deduce this,

one being a television chat/interview program called Is This Your Life

(1995) and the other being a documentary program which produces a

lot of 'talk' called When Louis met… Jimmy (2000). By using both of

these programs there is an exploration into Savile's public and

private representations, establishing Savile's television

personality.

Chapter one – BBC, ITV and the Savile Scandal

27

Institutions

When public service broadcasting was first established in Britain in

the 1920s the mandate that was developed was that it should be a

‘national service in the public interest’ (Scannell, 1990:13) and

that through broadcasting there can be unification across all

sections of society. John Reith, one of the first managing directors

of the BBC, considered the responsibility of broadcasting and how it

could align itself for the public interest. He concluded that

broadcasting should ‘not be used for entertainment purposes alone’

(et. al, 1990:13) as ‘he who prides himself on giving what he thinks

the public wants is often creating fictitious demand for lower

standards which he himself will then satisfy’ (Reith, 1925:3)’

(Scannell, 1990:13). Instead Reith felt that broadcasting should

contribute a higher standard of morals, avoiding the ‘vulgar and the

hurtful’ (ibid., 1990:13). This inhibited the ideal that the

broadcasting of a public service should serve as a ‘cultural, moral

and educational force for the improvement of knowledge, taste, and

manners’ (ibid., 1990:14).

Reith believed that in broadcasting huge public events, for

example the first time King George V made a speech on the radio, had

the effect of ‘making the nation as one man’ (Reith, 1925:4) binding

together all parts of society with ‘shared idioms of public,

corporate, national life.’ (Scannell, 1990:14) The lower parts of

28

society had previously been excluded from such events as they did

not have the access to broadcasting that the upper classes had. This

cementing together of different social background is confirmed by

the characteristic of ‘unified control’ or in how Reith suggested

‘the ‘brute force of monopoly’, rather than focusing on any

‘regional or sectional interest’ (Franklin, 2001:20). In creating

this one monopoly in broadcasting it restricted ideas of creating

another institution from which to broadcast from as a way of

guaranteeing ‘a public service in the national interest’ (Scannell,

1990:15). Interestingly Reith also contributed the idea that unity

of control was ethically essential to enforce that ‘one general

policy may be maintained throughout the country and definite

standards promulgated’ (Reith 1925:10).

It is clear that from the outset of the BBC that they wanted

to remain the dominant institution within broadcasting. As an

institution the idea was to have a positive effect on British

society, introducing culture, education and entertainment of the

highest moral standing which would be more associated with the

ideals and beliefs of the middle and upper classes of British

society. As:

‘Raymond Williams has identified ‘the idea of serviceas one of the great achievements of the Victorianmiddle class, and one that deeply influenced latergenerations’ (Williams 1961:313-17). It wascertainly a crucial component of the ideal of

29

public service… Victorian reforming ideal ofservice was animated by a sense of moral purposeand duty on behalf of the community, aimedparticularly at those most in need of reform – thelower classes. It was institutionalized in thebureaucratic practices of the newly emergingprofessional classes… At its best this passion forimproving the lot of those below was part of agenuinely humane concern to alleviate the harshconsequences… But it did nothing to change thebalance of power in society, and maintained thedominance of the middle class over the lower ranks’(Scannell, 1990:22)

Although Reith was an advocate of public opinion the overall

judgement by the BBC was to forbid the institution to deal with

public controversy, for example in 'the General Strike of 1926 the

BBC refused to allow representatives of the trade union movement'

(McNair, 2013: The changing political environment section, para. 2)

have access to the airwaves to represent the British miners' case,

who were in opposition to the then Parliament. In doing this the BBC

were serving the national interest from the ideological backing of

the dominant class. Monroe E. Price suggests that ‘national identity

can easily become a camouflage for a series of controls’ (Monroe,

1995:41) and with the BBC’s almost exclusive relationship with the

monarchy and the state Monroe defines ‘national identity as the

collection of myths, ideas and narratives used by the dominant group

or coalition to maintain power in society’ (Monroe, 1995:40).

However this ‘control’ cannot be seen as a definite way of

maintaining power as ‘television audience membership is not a matter

30

of compulsion or necessity, but is principally voluntary and

optional’ (Ang, 1991:18). By the BBC aligning with national identity

they are inserting it into the everyday culture of the public,

winning ‘the support of the people while maintaining the power of

the dominant groups and the oppression of the people’ (Kerr,

1990:74).

With the introduction of the first British commercial

television channel, Independent Television (ITV), it was named

‘Independent Television’ due to its independence from the BBC who

held a monopoly of broadcasting in Britain before ITVs creation. ITV

was subjected to the regulations prescribed in the Television Act

1954, ITV had to withhold the responsibilities to inform, educate

and entertain while having to maintain a high standard of

programming. ‘It was an extension of public service broadcasting,

not an alternative.’ (Scannell, 1990:18) With these regulations, set

by the state, it was implicated that there is no direct competition

between the two channels; it gave the public a choice of which

channel that they wanted to watch, and in turn this gave the general

public power. The contest between the two to gain the ratings plays

the two institutions against each other in a hegemonic structure for

the consent of the general public and also a power struggle between

the two institutions.

31

From the outset, trying to establish a commercial television

network in the UK was a struggle which was political in nature.

Edward Buscombe (2000) explores the historic debate between the

conflicting ideas which were presented in parliament prior to the

creation of ITV. Indeed, from the outset commercial television was

resisted by the National Television Council, where there was

‘emphasis… placed on the need for ‘pressure and publicity’ to

counter the ‘pressure’ from vested interests’ (Buscombe, 2000:63).

Primarily the National Television Council wanted to uphold the moral

responsibility that broadcasting had in society, with members of the

National Television Council signing a letter to The Times stating that

‘if television was placed on a ‘commercial basis’, ‘the power of

television for good’ would be lost’ (2000:64) which was echoed by

the Daily Sketch, commenting that ‘[o]nce sponsored radio and

television are admitted…nothing is sacred’.

The National Television Council was firmly against the

introduction of a commercial television channel and was aligning

themselves in this way as a pressure group towards the government.

In a pamphlet, called Dear Viewer, which sold 60,000 copies that ‘set

out deliberately to appeal to ‘thinking’ people’(Buscombe, 2000:64);

implored to the reader ‘to exercise all the influence you have, as a

free citizen of the most democrat country in the world, to prevent

this barbarous idea from being realised’ (ibid:64). The National

32

Television Council had very influential members on its committee

which included several MPs, Lords and Ladies and they would use this

influence in challenging the introduction of commercial television.

Weeks later a rival organisation was set up, the Popular

Television Association; their belief was that commercial television

would ‘awaken the national conscience to the dangers, social,

political and artistic, of monopoly in the rapidly developing field

of television’ (ibid:64). The Popular Television Association gained

support from the Conservative back benches which then filtered

through to the majority of the party who by the time of the next

general election saw the introduction of commercial television as a

potential ‘‘vote winner’ at the next general election’ (Buscombe,

2000:81). However, for this to happen there was extended discussion

with regard to the effect that commercial television could have on

culture and society.

As with the introduction of the BBC as an institution, who

felt that the ‘national interest’ was at the core of its beliefs and

morals, arguments associated with this topic were discussed at

length. There was an argument that if the BBC’s monopoly was broken

it could provide ‘freedom from the BBC’ (Buscombe, 2000:70) however

there were concerns in relation to who the power of broadcasting

would be handed to, as Maurice Cranston comments that this freedom

would only be ‘in exchange for bondage to the powerful advertisers,

33

the makers of razor-blades, deodorants, malted milks, tonic wines

and so on’ (2000:70). There was definite concern about the

relationship that the advertisers would have on the programming

output. The introduction of competitive television was seen as a

problem, not only would the quest for ratings produce ‘vulgar and

the hurtful’ (Scannell, 1990:13) but there would be ‘a desire for

material gain’ (Buscombe, 2000:70). The state felt that if

commercial television was introduced there would have to be

restrictions place upon it to ensure that they were broadcasting in

line with the beliefs and ideals which are associated with the BBC.

A new television channel had to be ‘prompted by some sense of public

service’ (Buscombe, 2000:70), a new commercial television channel

had to align with ideals and beliefs associated with the ‘national

interest’.

To prescribe these restrictions the government announced the

Television Act of 1954 which introduced a new Independent Television

Authority. The regulations that were placed on new commercial

stations were:

‘…to be managed by companies licensed oncontract, were to provide programmes which had tobe predominantly ‘British’ and which were notoffensive to ‘good taste and decency’… The newsservice had to be ‘accurate and impartial’,political broadcasting had to be responsible, andreligious broadcasting, like BBC religiousbroadcasting, had to be ‘representative of the mainstreams of thought’. (Buscombe, 2000:83)

34

By regulating commercial television in this way they were

with-holding the identity of the BBC, maintaining its supremacy and

higher status. In handing down the morals to ITV that were included

the original charter of the BBC, there is a continuation of

dominance. This also creates identity for the two institutions as

ITV would always produce the morals and beliefs of the BBC. ITV

would not be allowed to deviate from these beliefs which would mean

it would always broadcast in the 'national interest'. Indeed when

ITV was set up it was split into regions with assigned franchises to

provide programming, this formed a different identity to that of the

BBC where it has been argued that ‘as soon as ITV was launched...

offering new cultural forms based on elements of working-class and

regional cultures' (Morely, 2013: Dallas with Tailfins: The vulgar

politics of taste section, para. 2). Programmes like Coronation Street

provided a representation of Northern working-class communities,

which made ITV very popular, but also created an identity for the

institution. This lead to the BBC being associated more with the

middle and upper-classes, and ITV working-class. Having these

associations only highlights how the BBC holds dominance in

broadcasting, with the upper and ruling classes always being

associated with dominance.

35

By the time the Television Act had come to pass, there were

206 amendments to that of the original, with not one Labour

amendment carried through. The Labour party felt that this was ‘a

Government which represents a minority in the country [and was]

forcing through a Bill which… would have been defeated had there

been a free vote of the House’ (2000:86). Although the monopoly of

the BBC was to be broken, the newly created Independent Television

Association, which took charge of the regulation of commercial

broadcasting, had within its ‘constitutional structures’ a model

which ‘drew very heavily on [the] BBC’ (2000:89) and was under more

constraints from the Post Office than the BBC ever had. ‘The Economist

suggested that… they [ITV] were more likely to be frightened of

‘authority’ than any other BBC producer would ever be’. In

structuring the commercial television in this way the government

were designating that the new ITV service would always be

subordinate to the BBC. The BBC would always hold the most power

within broadcasting in the UK as the ‘principles’ associated with

the BBC would be held by other commercial networks who were

broadcasting.

The struggle to get a commercial broadcaster on the air shows

a political and cultural battle of morals and beliefs, and if it

were not for a compromise and ordering of commercial television, it

would have not come into being. Although it operates as a commercial

36

network, ITV is a broadcaster providing a public service in the

‘national interest’; it is regulated much like the BBC with the

Independent Television Association set up by government. It is very

much different to the American system of commercial broadcasting and

this is what the government wanted to disdain from. This created a

structure of power within broadcasting in Britain, not only with the

competition for ratings between the two broadcasters, but also a

negotiation of power between the two institutions. This is evident

in the struggle to establish a commercial broadcaster as there was a

constant negotiation of ideas and beliefs when setting up the

network. These ideas were made by the dominant class, the decision

makers, and they felt that there should be a definite moral

structure which should be placed on any broadcaster in the UK.

From this we can establish that Gramsci’s writings on hegemony

can be related to the broadcasting structure within the UK. The BBC

established a service which firstly is ‘a lived system of meanings

and values’ creating a ‘sense of reality for most of the people in

society’ (Williams, 1989b:57):

‘…as such, is the contradictory terrain upon whichthe ‘lived in dominance and subordination’ ofparticular groups is struggled over in day-to-daycultural practices’ (Allan, 1999:85)

37

Broadcasting on such a large scale to the public has enabled

the BBC and other institutions to construct and broadcast their own

ideology to the nation; which is evident in how Reith wanted to

introduce morals and values which are associated with the dominant

classes in society to the more subordinate classes. The BBC has a

huge effect on the ideology of other broadcasters which is apparent

when looking at the development of commercial television in Britain.

Secondly the BBC constitutes a ‘matter of common sense’ which is an

‘unconscious way of perceiving and understanding the social world as

it organises habitual daily experiences’ (Allan, 1999:86).

Broadcasters like the BBC understand that ‘common sensical beliefs’

are not fixed within society and they are constantly changing. It

allows individuals to realise where they fit into daily life and

common day experiences. Stuart Hall elaborates that:

‘You cannot learn, through common sense, how thingsare: you can only discover where they fit into theexisting scheme of things’ (Hall, 1977:325)

Through broadcasting, different institutions can present a

certain structure of the social world which the individual can

associate and fit within. In setting up the BBC as a broadcaster

with certain morals and beliefs it was felt they could benefit the

nation through values associated with the dominant classes. Through

broadcasting and programming they are representing perceptions of

38

the world which are associated with their ideology. Furthermore, the

BBC's morals and beliefs were transferred onto commercial

broadcasting through parliament and a separate regulator, so even

though there was more choice in what to watch on television, the

same beliefs and values were held by all institutions involved.

Finally, hegemony is constantly being fought and contested

between the dominant and the subordinate. Hegemony is ‘an active

process of negotiation’ which can ‘never be taken for granted by the

ruling group’ (Allan, 1999:86). Gramsci established that:

‘…a cultural battle to transform the popular“mentality” and to diffuse the philosophicalinnovations which will demonstrate themselves to be“historically true” to the extent that they becomeconcretely – i.e. historically and socially –universal’ (Gramsci, 1971:348)

Since the second point of common sense is constantly changing,

being challenged and resisted by all groups that are involved; this

maintains that one group is not completely in power as hegemony is a

continual process of trying to win and maintain consent.

Institutions can only remain dominant if they have the consent of

the public and they can only do this if they understand the changing

beliefs, values and world that the public live in.

Within the British broadcasting system the regulations which

were set by the state is still the basis for the present system that

39

is in operation today. It has been noted that with the introduction

of commercial television and the competitiveness for ratings, it has

led to television programmes ‘designed to get the largest possible

audience, and that to achieve this they appealed to a low level of

public taste’ (Scannell, 1990:18). However, with the regulation of

commercial television there has been a maintaining of the original

morals and beliefs of the BBC. In sharing and regulating these

beliefs the BBC maintains it power over the other broadcasters. So

although the monopoly of the BBC has been broken, its ideas can be

broadcast through many of the other networks that the public can

access.

In more recent times, the commercial market has taken over

broadcasting with a wide range of specialist television channels

which cater more towards the individual. Commercial television has

developed to break free from the regulations which were first

associated with the BBC, meaning there is much more freedom for

television channels to broadcast programmes which would be

associated with a ‘low level of public taste’. The implications of

this is that the commercialisation of broadcasting has turned it

into a ‘private commodity rather than a public good’ (Scannell,

1990:26) which is a u-turn to what Reith intended in the first

place. This is not the case for the major institutions who broadcast

through channels one to five as they are still regulated with the

40

same principles associated with the BBC; the BBC maintains its

dominance over morals and beliefs.

Discourse analysis

Bearing all of this in mind, the Jimmy Savile scandal exposes

the hegemonic structure between the broadcasting institutions in

Britain. It reveals the struggle to gain consent of the public

between the BBC and ITV, but the conflicting decision that ITV took

to broadcast the scandal, while the BBC held it back, relates to the

need for institutions to broadcast for the ‘national interest’,

which in this case the BBC did not do. Essentially ITV broadcast a

topic underlining the mistakes made by the BBC which was in the

‘national interest’, while the BBC had the ability to do this before

ITV. ITV could be seen as doing it either for commercial gain or in

line with the beliefs and values they are regulated by, or both.

There is much debate as to why the BBC decided not to uncover these

crimes committed, but in not broadcasting this information it had a

detrimental impact on its reputation, especially in context of the

two tribute programs that were to be broadcast about Jimmy Savile.

In doing this the BBC failed to implement one of the key Reithian

values, this being to 'inform'. Savile was a major identity for the

BBC and through broadcasting had been a symbol of British culture.

For the BBC not to 'inform' the public of his wrong doings shows how

they did not act within the ‘national interest’, instead it allowed

41

for ITV to challenge the BBC and take it upon itself to inform the

nation of Jimmy Savile’s and the BBC’s wrongdoings. Another Reithian

value which was present in the development of the BBC was the

withdrawal from public controversy, which may be one explanation to

why there wasn't the utmost attention paid to this investigation by

the BBC.

It is understood that before the whole scandal was unveiled

Jimmy Savile was seen by the BBC as a ‘national treasure’ who had

worked with the BBC for over 50 years, being a main feature for

landmark programmes of the corporation which included Jim’ll Fix It and

Top of the Pops. Savile had close connection with the Royal family as

well as the government of the time, more famously Margaret Thatcher

(Daily Mail, 2013). There is no doubt that Savile held power within

the BBC and with a negative representation of Savile it would not

only have a damaging effect on his self-representation but also that

of the reputation of the many institutions which he served, such as

the BBC, the NHS, the Royal Family and the state. This would mean a

complete re-assessment of the relationship and role to which Savile

played with regard to the BBC, along with the state and the NHS to

name but a few.

While Savile was alive he was very adept at presenting a

particular version of himself to the public and this has undoubtedly

influenced the way in which the public have perceived him during his

42

lifetime. He has done this in two ways; the first being his very

successful high profile fund raising for charity. The second being

his very particular control of his public image, in other words, the

way in which he presents himself with the images that he made

available. These two aspects have created a prevailing meaning of the

person Jimmy Savile which has been constructed by his

representation. It is important to stress how these meanings that

were constructed by Savile created a positive representation as it

made him a powerful character to the point of being considered

beyond reproach; suggesting that this is how his victims were

disbelieved when they initially reported his crimes to the

authorities. Following his death it became apparent there was no

control over the representation by Savile, it was the institutions,

broadcasters and charities that inherited the control and initially,

after his death, represented the construction that Savile controlled

himself previously. It wasn’t until ITV stated that they were going

to broadcast a documentary into Savile’s wrongdoings that the

prevailing meaning changed around the person Jimmy Savile. This

meant that the previously thought constructions of Savile’s positive

self-image were presumed to be a mask for the crimes that he had

committed, producing a negative representation of his previously

positive construction. For instance, an image of Savile in a

hospital (appendix 1) would initially been a construction of a

43

positive representation; however the meaning surrounding became

negative in the time after the scandal.

In studying the way in which the BBC dealt with the scandal

before and after it was uncovered it is interesting to examine how

the information came to light. An investigation by the BBC programme

Newsnight made major contributions in exploring the private life of

Savile and the crimes that he had committed. The investigation took

place while Savile was still alive by the BBC programme and

continued after his death. There has been a lot of discussion as to

why Newsnight decided not to broadcast their investigation into Jimmy

Savile, with a conclusion in the Pollard Report (Pollard, 2012:22)

that 'it was not done to protect the Savile tribute programmes or

for any improper reason', however The Pollard report does state that

in ‘particular, crucial information about the basic facts of the

case was not shared. Even when concerted efforts were made to

understand it, no-one seemed to grasp what should be done with the

information.' (Pollard, 2012:23). There is criticism into the

journalistic values of the BBC, which has come under fire before.

Andrew Goodwin comments (1990:43) that 'television have

encountered more and more problems in knowing how to represent [the]

world. As consequence, television news has found itself embroiled in

numerous controversies about its handling of contentious stories'.

Goodwin continues by saying that there is a:

44

'…lack of journalistic tradition in the BBC, whichto this day rarely 'breaks' a story. TV news hasbeen marked by a consistent lack of interest in'investigative' journalism. This is relevant to thediscussion of bias... for one mechanism that mightgenerate bias in television news is the tendencyfor television to respond to a news agendaestablished by the press.' (Goodwin, 1990:43/44)

Although Goodwin ends by saying that the BBC's response is to

the newspaper's agenda this could easily be linked to other

television institutions, and in the case of the Savile scandal, ITV.

If what Goodwin produces is accurate to how the BBC sets it agenda

with its own investigative journalism, the Jimmy Savile scandal

would provide good evidence to this. After all, this information

about Savile was investigated by the BBC which led to a police

investigation from the actions of the BBC. The BBC's inability to

deal with information that had such importance on their reputation

and their relationship with its watchers allowed ITV to access a

huge amount of consent from the public by bringing to light the

Savile scandal.

In the initial BBC news reporting of the scandal there is no

mention of any connection to the institution of the BBC. Through the

news report named ‘Decades of Savile abuse revealed’ (BBC news,

2012) the discourse seems to be carefully selected to disassociate

any blame to the BBC, failing to mention any of the crimes committed

on BBC premises but instead mentioning the other institutions linked

45

with Savile, for example, ‘Duncroft, and approved school for girls’

(BBC news, 2012). It also fails to remark about ITV, with the

reporter saying instead ‘but what did change things was when those

women from Duncroft spoke on a TV documentary’ (BBC News, 2012).

This shows that in early reporting from the BBC into this case they

had not yet set their agenda when reporting this story. This means

that they would not mention ITV when reporting about their

documentary and also would not associate any blame to the BBC, even

when there was clear criticism of the BBC in the ITV documentary.

The only clear agenda that is set in this news report is that

of ‘national identity’. There is a clip with a Commander of the

Metropolitan Police, Peter Spindler commenting that Savile was a

'predatory sexual offender across the whole of the UK, it could be

said that he groomed a nation' (BBC News, 2012). The police are an

institution that are associated with ‘national identity’ and are

assumed to be a trusted source for information. In saying that

Savile had 'groomed a nation' the police and the BBC are expressing

that this scandal has affected all of the public, producing an

agenda that constitutes a shared opinion held by everyone. This

phrase is coming from an institutionalized authority which defends

the ‘national interest’ and also maintains the morals and beliefs of

the ruling class. Indeed Savile did commit a lot of crimes, but it

46

was the access that people had to him through broadcasting which

lead to the scandal to have such and effect on the public.

If it was to be taken that the BBC deliberately held back the

information surrounding the Savile case it could only be seen as

agenda setting. The 'phenomenon of 'agenda setting' [helps]

structure public perception... by omission as well as inclusion'

(Goodwin, 1990:48), the BBC had planned to show two Jimmy Savile

tribute programmes over Christmas in knowledge of the information

that had been investigated by Newsnight. ITV produced the story in

the programme Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile, knowing full well that

the BBC news team had held it back. This established ITV’s agenda to

be incredibly critical of the BBC and not only set the agenda of ITV

but also the agenda of the BBC. From the broadcast of the ITV

documentary about Savile the BBC had to maintain an opinion which

was shared by both the public and other television institutions. It

was essential for the BBC to be extremely critical of itself, as a

public broadcasting service it has to ensure that the public see it

as a useful uncorrupted service for it to gain license fees, public

audiences and also the public trust. The BBC should be upheld as an

institution with regard to the national interest, which includes

certain morals and perspectives accordingly.

For the BBC to contest for their power they had to associate

themselves with the overwhelming opinion held by the public, other

47

television institutions and the media. Of course there was an

immediate representation of Jimmy Savile in the BBC news after the

scandal that he was a 'sexual predator' (BBC News, 2013) or

suggesting that we didn't know 'the real Jimmy Savile' (BBC News,

2012), however the BBC as an institution had a lot of explaining in

respect of how the BBC could let this happen as Jimmy Savile had

been definitive character of the BBC for so many years. So although

ITV released their investigative program Exposure, the BBC had to

follow suit with their flagship investigative programme Panorama. In

this instance Panorama can be seen as a bit of programming to restore

the consent of the public. Evidence of this is that it was a double

length version of Panorama (normally thirty minutes) and it was

extensively advertised and covered in the media before it was even

broadcast. Added to this it was called Jimmy Savile: What the BBC Knew,

which, separating itself from the BBC, makes itself subordinate to

the institution. This would suggest that some of the programming on

the BBC has its own ‘brand values’, with trusted status and its own

morals and beliefs which has allowed for separation. In this

instance, the examination of the Savile scandal by Panorama

highlights how the BBC is being ‘objective’ as they are

investigating their own institution through their own programming.

This Panorama programme broadcast interviews which both damaged

the BBC and Savile as it explained the behind the scenes of the

48

institution and Savile's life before and while working for the BBC.

There are interviews with colleagues, friends and victims of Savile

explaining either rumours or first-hand experience of when Savile

had committed sexual offences.

In one interview with Martin Young, a reporter for BBC

programme Nationwide, he explains (with input from the narrator), of

an incident of when it was confirmed to him that the rumours about

Savile were true. The interview reads like this:

Martin Young: I think in a sense it was thebeginnings of celebrity culture, Jimmy could havewho he wanted. Jimmy appeared to just pluck onefrom the masses...

Narrator: Martin found Savile in his camper vanlying on the bed with a teenage girl, they wereboth fully clothed, but for the reporter itconfirmed the rumours he heard were true.

Young: I thought he was a pervert, yeah...

Interviewer: did you think about reporting it, oranything like that?

Young: No, it never even crossed my mind, and Itake my share of the blame for that.

(What the BBC Knew, 2012)

There are similar examples from various different interviews

explaining how they were concerned with Savile's activity. Paul

Gambaccini, another figure head of BBC radio, is interviewed in this

documentary citing similar events instigated by Savile. The

interview says:

49

Paul Gambaccini: They would come back from theseSavile's Travels outings and they would report thatunpleasantness had occurred.

Interviewer: What sort of unpleasantness?

Gambaccini: We were told that he would go off witha institutionalised young woman.

Narrator: A senior Savile's Travels member of staff evengossiped openly about their stars illegal behaviour

Gambaccini: I'm sure he regrets it now, he had abig mouth and would talk to the record companypromotion people about 'things that went on in thecaravan'. So you see, there was no real attempt tocover up the fact that things did go on.

Narrator: Again though, he never thought to reportSavile.

Gambaccini: So what, I, a junior DJ am supposed toget up there and say 'my senior's a perv'. They'regonna laugh at me... It never occurred to me.

(What the BBC Knew, 2012)

Gambaccini did come under some criticism in the press for

knowing this information and not divulging it, however the

documentary does not dwell on this opinion. The documentary aims to

gain the trust of the public by explaining everything that would be

hurtful to the BBC's reputation.

Not only does this expose the behaviour of Savile but

establishes that representatives of the BBC were well aware of the

happenings. This was one of the main focuses of the media; in

regards to how could they let this criminal activity happen without

anyone knowing; however the interviews within Panorama clearly

determine that it was common knowledge within the BBC that Jimmy

50

Savile was a paedophile. The continual presentation of BBC employees

who either knew or had some clue about what Savile had done is of

course extremely damaging to the BBC's reputation, however it was

essential for Panorama to expose this. In releasing this information

it must have been known that there would be a backlash both with the

individuals (BBC employees) divulging the information and the BBC as

a whole; but the BBC had to release this information to associate

with the agenda which was felt by the public in order to gain back

their trust and consent.

Even though the interviews deal with individual employees of

the BBC who may have been to blame, the focus of this Panorama

programme highlights the way in which the BBC represented and used

Jimmy Savile's image, the narrator comments:

'...any doubts about Savile's record during hisradio days was soon forgotten as his televisioncareer took off. The BBC bought into Savile'ssexually suggestive style in a big way... [Italicsadded]'

(What the BBC Knew, 2012)

The institution of the BBC is represented as a whole

throughout the documentary withdrawing blame from the individuals

who may have been in error at the time (albeit some of the

individuals do confess to wrongdoing in the past).

51

It is clear that through the discourse within Panorama the BBC

are aligning themselves with other television institutions, namely

ITV and their own Jimmy Savile documentary. The interviews and the

narration continue throughout the program to be increasingly

critical of the BBC and of course Savile. This is unsurprising as

there could be no way of the BBC protecting itself from this scandal

but by giving the public in depth information about the scandal and

the running of the BBC, Panorama seeks to gain the trust of the

public again through BBC programming. The documentary also shows the

agenda that the BBC have set in regards to the scandal, as in

previous news reports there was no blame put upon the institution or

any mention that ITV made a documentary exploring Savile's crimes

and the faults of the BBC. There had to be a change in agenda as

there would be a continued public outcry, which is evident when you

look at the research carried out by Conquest Research and

Consultancy contributing that '54% agreed with the statement that

the £145.50 a year licence fee is a waste of money and should be

abolished’ (Guardian, 2012). If this research provides an accurate

representation of the feeling among the public, it was up to the BBC

to provide and explanation to gain the trust of the licence payer;

this explanation being in line with the public outcry and the agenda

of other institutions.

52

Images have provided good evidence of the changing

representation of Jimmy Savile. For crimes of this nature to be

committed there is certainly going to be changing connotations

around different images of Savile, due to where he committed his

crimes and the access that he had to different British institutions.

If you take for example this image of Savile from a BBC News report

(2011), the report was a tribute to Savile after his death (Appendix

1).

This image of Savile wheeling a patient in a hospital was used

to provide a positive representation of his charity work in

hospitals. In this report it shows him wheeling this patient around

the hospital while the reporter explains about his extensive charity

work. Through using ‘cultural objects… [and] cultural practices’

(Hall, 1997:36), such as an NHS hospital, it helps to ‘convey

meaning’ (ibid.) which is shared among the public. These shared

concepts have a bearing on the meaning being produced, forming a

positive representation. This being before the scandal there was no

shared concept that he was a 'sexual predator', but looking at the

image now there are connotations of 'evil', 'sinister' and

'controlling', due to the fact he has full control of the woman's

movements and he is in an institution where he committed some of

these sexual crimes. These images have been used for both a positive

and negative representation, and broadcasters have used these

53

changing emotions linked to these images to enhance the sinister

aspect of Savile's personality. This suggests that images of Savile

and the concepts in the images are ‘arbitrary’ as the meaning within

the image is not fixed.

These negative connotations can also arise from the way in

which the news reports the story through language. For example in

the Guardian they produced the headline ‘The evil of Jimmy Savile

was not his alone’ (Guardian, 2012). By using ‘evil’ as a pre-

modifier the reader of the text responds to the named person

negatively, influencing the shared concept and meaning held by the

public.

The following image (appendix 2) comes from an ITN news report

where the subject is ITV defending their broadcast of the

documentary after coming under criticism for Jimmy Savile's family

who claimed that it was a lack of respect. The image is in a similar

context to that of the previous image but it is used to represent

Jimmy Savile as a criminal and the children in the picture as the

victims. With the scandal being uncovered the conventions

surrounding images of Savile change completely, associating less

with his charity work, with much more focus on the crimes he

committed. With these similar images and in their different contexts

it shows that 'meaning can never be finally fixed' (Hall, 1997:23)

due to the changing circumstances around Savile's public and private

54

representation an image of Savile in a hospital is now associated

with crimes and not charity. This again highlights meaning can

change surrounding an image. Different shared concepts around

produced post-scandal in light of the new knowledge of his private

life becoming public. For instance there is a focus on the boys in

the image as the crimes Savile committed were on minors, but also

the construction of Savile has changed, from a relentless charity

fund raiser to a ‘sexual predator’.

It also has a negative representation of another British

institution, that being the NHS. There seems to be a focus on

hospitals when portraying Savile and his crimes. The NHS is a symbol

of the national identity of Britain, 'during the post-war period [it

has become] a source of national unity in Britain' (Béland,

2010:94). Through this 'national unity' using the image of Savile in

hospitals doing his charity work links the public together through

this institution. The NHS is such a recognisable institution in

Britain, in which devotion and criticism has come in equal measure

from the public. Although this is a negative representation of the

NHS, the continued image of Savile in this institution is used to

present how Savile 'conned the nation' while he was committing these

crimes. The image has been used both in as both a positive and

negative representation, with the latter to highlight how 'sinister'

Savile was, even when he was involved in charity work.

55

Summary

In this chapter it has been established that from the

beginning of commercial television there has been conflicting

opinions about the role that it should play in society. Initially in

the set-up of commercial television there was structure put in place

to maintain the power of the BBC in broadcasting by placing the

morals and beliefs, originally associated with the BBC, onto ITV as

a way of ensuring that broadcasting continued to be in the Reithian

ideal of ‘the national interest’. These morals and beliefs were

produced by the dominant class in society to be used in broadcasting

so that ‘one general policy may be maintained throughout the

country’ (Reith 1925:10), that being of a higher standard of morals

which served as a ‘cultural, moral and educational force for the

improvement of knowledge, taste, and manners’ (ibid: 14). For the

BBC to uphold their ideals and beliefs they had to be transferred

onto the new commercial broadcaster. This does not maintain the

BBC’s dominance as there are conflicting beliefs associated with

ITV’s commercial nature as it needs to make profit to run as a

broadcaster which counters Reithian values which is evident in ITV’s

broadcast of their own Savile investigation.

56

What this created was a hegemonic structure where commercial

television was subordinate to the BBC and there is a constant

negotiation of power between the institutions and the public. What

the Jimmy Savile scandal does is expose this structure, as the

unwillingness of the BBC to broadcast their investigation into

Savile lead ITV to do the opposite. This generated anger and

confusion from the public as they questioned why the BBC would

abstain from broadcasting this information and also how someone who

is a defining character of BBC would be allowed to get away with

these crimes.

This had a drastic effect on the BBC’s reputation and in order

to regain the trust of the public they had to change their agenda in

order to match that of the publics’ opinion. Through programming

like Panorama the BBC had to give an insight into the BBC’s

wrongdoings, even if this would be more damaging to the reputation

of the BBC. In explaining the BBC’s wrongdoings it shows the BBC as

being ‘objective’ in their assessment of the scandal which has

helped gain the consent of the public back. It would be hard to

irrefutably say that the BBC has complete won back the consent of

the public, however from the public outcry surrounding the scandal

it can be definitely said that the BBC’s reputation as a broadcaster

57

and the structure of how its run has been held with negative

opinion, leading to the suggestion of a reassessment how the

structure of the BBC is run.

In analysis of different images of Savile you can deduce that

‘'meaning can never be finally fixed' (Hall, 1997:23) as different

representations over time produce different meanings from a text.

Post scandal, all representations of Savile in the media are

negative, where before the scandal they were mainly positive. In the

example given it shows that similar images can produce different

connotations depending on the context. This shows how the shared

concepts around images of Savile were depended on the knowledge that

the public knew, exposing the way in which Savile constructed his

representation.

58

Chapter 2 - Synthetic Personalities – Public and Private

Transcript conventions – adapted from conventions used in Scannell(1991) and Woods (2009)

( ) - If empty, indicated indecipherable utterance,otherwise best guess at what was said

[bold] - Verbal description of non-verbal behaviour(2.0)- Latency between or within utterances in

secondsword - Word is cut off abruptly(.) - Brief untimed pause within or between

utterances= - Latching together separate parts of continuous

utterance or indicating that B's utterance follows Awith no gaps or overlaps

[ - point at which overlap occurs between speakersword - stress added to word or syllableWORD - Extreme stressCo:::lons - Stretching of vowel of consonant sound.↑ - Rising intonation↓ - Falling intonation' - Brief pause at a syntactically relevant point.hh - Audible inhalationhh - Audible exhalationheh – Laugh token! - Excited intonation

59

This chapter is a case study regarding the 'synthetic

personality' (Tolson, 1991) of Jimmy Savile and the way he uses this

personality on television, particularly in interviews, to avoid

difficult, private questions while maintaining a 'personality' that

is 'fun' and 'not to serious'. Jimmy Savile presented himself on

television as a 'larger than life' character with continuous charity

work and television programmes, such as Jim'll Fix It, which benefited

participants in the program and invited the audience to be involved.

Savile clearly worked extremely hard on his public image which

afforded him a knighthood and a direct relationship with powerful

people in society, including royalty. Savile became a part of the

national culture, a recognisable figure in his appearance, his

characteristics and also his distinctive use of 'talk'.

Essentially ‘synthetic personality’ is the performance of a

person on the television or in the media. In Tolson’s study of

personality he has a particular focus on language when assessing the

‘synthetic personality’, however it can easily be related to the

whole construction of self-representation of a person on television.

60

Indeed, in the case of Jimmy Savile there is a distinct difference

between his public and private representation which would suggest

that the ‘personality’ that he produces on television differs from

that of his private personality.

The two programmes that I am using to distinguish Savile's use

of talk are Is This Your Life (1995) and When Louis Met... Jimmy (2000). Is This

Your Life was a hard talk chat program which was broadcast on Channel 4

and hosted by Andrew Neil. It takes some of its format from This is Your

Life, a BBC program which takes a sentimental look back on a certain

celebrity’s life. However Is This Your Life does not take a sentimental

outlook, instead it interrogates the interviewee on difficult

aspects of their life looking to find out more private and

controversial answers. When Louis Met... Jimmy is a 'docu-interview'

hosted by Louis Theroux which gains an exclusive insight into Jimmy

Savile's 'private' life. The camera and Theroux follow Savile for a

number of days during which he goes about his daily life. Theroux's

style of interviewing is very intrusive, as is the nature of the

programme; however it enables the viewer to access aspects of

celebrities’ lives that they would otherwise have rather kept

private.

Both of these programmes produce a large amount of 'talk' and

Tolson (1991) felt that this type of broadcast talk, it is 'forms of

talk which are designed both to inform and to entertain, appear

61

serious and sincere, but also sometimes playful and even flippant'

(1991:178). This development of 'talk' within certain talk shows

throughout the mid-1980s transformed the 'notion of personality' on

television which then 'gave rise to certain effects across the

public sphere of broadcasting discourse’ (Tolson, 1991:178). Tolson

establishes that this type of talk within certain talk shows and

interviews contributes to a new genre of talk which he labels as

'chat'.

'Chat does not simply reproduce norms andconventions, rather flirts with them, for instance,it opens up the possibility of the intervieweeputting questions to the interviewer.' (Tolson,1991:180)

Savile used this development of 'chat' on television to his

advantage when he came under scrutiny in interrogating interviews

when asked about his private life. He also uses it to continue to

display his television personality engaging with his 'caricature' of a life

loving man but being extremely difficult to break down in an

interview. Savile also ‘chat’ to guard his ‘true’ self when coming

under scrutiny from the interviewer, as he had done through carious

different representations of himself. Using analysis from the two

programmes selected there will be study into how Savile breaks the

rules and conventions of normal broadcast talk to produce the genre

of chat when he is interviewed.

62

It is important to establish that Jimmy Savile does have a

public and private representation. His continued criminal activity

throughout his career while maintaining a high status in society can

only contribute to this fact. While in both programmes Savile is

asked difficult questions about his private life, the way in which

he evades the questions with his ‘chat’ contributes to his

television personality, a personality that the audience has come to

expect. Through Savile’s broadcast career he created an

‘institutional identity’ where ‘his… identity [was] mediated very

largely through talk’ (Scannell, 1996:118), this included many

catchphrases which are familiar to the audience, such as ‘now then,

now then’, ‘goodness gracious’ and ‘how’s about that then?’ to name

a few. Talking broadly about identity, Tolson asserts that:

‘In the process of speaking in this way, anindividual takes on a public identity, a form of‘subjectification’, in so far as he or she thenbecomes recognizable as a certain kind of subject.’(Tolson, 1991:195)

Savile uses the audience’s ‘subjectification’ of him to his

advantage, especially in the programme Is This Your Life as there is a

studio audience he can work with. In the following example Savile

uses both his ‘zany’ identity and the audience’s reactions to

deflect any difficult questions from Andrew Neil.

Neil: Well have you had lots of female / relationships?

63

Savile: I would hope so; being alive a long time I would hope one would have had lots and lots of them

Neil: but(.) but you remem[berSavile: [but i've got this

terrible mem(.) but unfortunately no, and anyway, I never have been a grass, and a gentleman never grasses on ladi[es

Neil: [but we're not asking for names, we're just asking for the general principle[shot of Savile peeling a banana]

Savile: no(.) noNeil: we just want to know if you lived this playboy life of the DJ

[Savile proceeds to eat the banana][nervous audience laughter]

Savile: yeah, give or take a few nice ladies, but I mean, you know, er, you... a gentleman never speaks of ladies, er, I don't know where you've come from, Idon't know what your circles are but my circles ladies are very, er, you don't grass on them

(Is This Your Life, 1995)

In this interview Savile produces some bizarre behaviour which

would never be associated with this sort of interview. This question

is deemed a difficult question as Savile will never give access to

the information about his love life or his relationships with women.

Savile obviously knew that Neil would bring this topic up or at

least a difficult topic for him to answer. Savile had pre-planned to

bring a banana on stage to deflect the question; this produces a

reaction from the audience of nervous laughter as they attempt to

‘decode’ his actions in the context of this interview. During this

interview Savile shows a ‘sustained and highly self-reflexive

metadiscourse’ where he ‘not only invoke[s] the cultural knowledge

of the viewer [he] also draw[s] attention to the construction of

64

[his] own performance’ (Tolson, 1991:183). Savile is in full

knowledge of the character the audience know while he is performing

on television. There is even reference to this in the interview

where he indicated his television personality under questioning by

Neil.

Neil: Is it just a visage all [the -Savile: [yes, yesNeil: all this playboy image?Savile: yes, i'm ve[ry -Neil: [or is that answer part of the visage?Savile: no:::: [face audience] you can't win here

[Savile laughs and nervous audience laugh]

(Is This Your Life, 1995)

When Savile says ‘no’ he uses an elongated vowel sound on the

‘o’ to show sarcasm when answering the question which would suggest

that his personality on television is a ‘visage’ rather than his

true persona. Tolson describes this as ‘Personality as performance’

Savile offers a ‘critique of his own television personality’ (Tolson,

1991:186); although Savile does not answer out right the question,

the insinuation is that he ‘constructs’ his ‘playboy image’ for the

television, admitting that ‘that his television personality is a

sham’ (ibid.). This construction is accepted and understood by the

audience ‘which implicates the ‘knowingness’ of the viewer’ who

clearly no longer see personalities on television ‘reducible to

‘people as they really are’ (ibid:185). The audience accept that

65

there is a distinction between the public and private character,

even when there is a display of authenticity in the interview. Later

there will be discussion of this within When Louis Met… Jimmy where

there is explicit evidence of Savile creating his ‘synthetic

personality’ through the media.

The ‘space for interviewees to negotiate their role’ (Tolson,

1991:194) is another key feature of ‘chat’ within talk shows and

interviews. In the Is This Your Life interview and also in the programme

When Louis… Met Jimmy ‘we can observe interviewees challenging the

presuppositions in interviewers’ questions’ (ibid.). In both of the

interviews Savile partakes in Savile challenges the interviewer not

only to induce ‘chat’, but to maintain the ‘power’ in the interview,

in such a way to conduct the conversation. An explanation for him

producing this ‘chat’ is to deflect any knowledge of his private

life coming out. In the Is This Your Life interview Savile’s attempt to

quash Andrew Neil’s questions about his private life proves to be

unsuccessful as Neil seems determined to carry through the interview

with the normal conventions of a ‘hard talk’ interview:

Neil: At an early age you began spinning discs. Being a DJ of course didn't just bring you fame, it brought you girls, lots of girls -Savile: did it?Neil: well I think it did [you said it didSavile: [goodbye, nice to see you

66

[Audience laughter]Neil: we spoke [to a long-time friend of yours -Savile: [goodbye (.) did you?Neil: who knows about these things.

(Is This Your Life, 1995)

Savile’s attempts of negotiating with Neil are unsuccessful as

there is no effort by Neil to humour Savile as Savile tries to form

a ‘chat’ structure within the interview. In this interview Savile

and Neil fight against each other in order to gain control of the

interview, Savile uses his own ‘synthetic personality’ to produce

humour to break the conventions of the interview, whereas Neil is

forceful in his discourse to maintain fluid interactions between the

two participants. The same cannot be said about in the interactions

between Theroux and Savile, where the context of the interview is

different as the interview is conducted in Savile’s personal space.

In this example Savile conducts the interview completely, giving

Theroux suggestions of how to interview him, it reads like this:

[Louis is looking through Savile’s kitchen cupboads]

Louis: Can I show you what, I was looking for a mug just now can I show you what I’ve found? [Louis holdsup a bottle of rum]

Jimmy: Er, yes you can show me what you’ve foundLouis: A secret stash of booze [that’s been touched - Jimmy: [Now then, now ask me, ask me

what they are… no, no, no, no, no, you see, a good interviewer always asks questions, he never ‘opinionates’ before the answer ‘cause the answer might make him look a bit silly

Louis: yeah, so what’s the answer?

67

Jimmy: now then, ask me the question first [take the first bottle Louis: [why… why do you have a

bottle of Captain Morgan rum in your, erm, for a ‘T-totaller’ that looks (.) that looks odd

Jimmy: No, no, no, you see you’re ‘opinionating’ again, now are you asking the question or are you telling me?

Louis: (.) ermJimmy: Which you doing?Louis: Why have you got Captain Morgan rum in your cupboard?Jimmy: Because, my eldest brother (.) Vince, who is in

his 80s, thirty six years Royal Navy, and now lives in a super home, here in Leeds

Louis: Yea[hJimmy: [And he dearly he loves the rum. Now you

see, isn’t it better when you ask questions?Louis: Well it is and it isn’t because I thought we were having a conversation JimmyJimmy: Well we are having a conversation

(When Louis Met… Jimmy, 2000)

In this instance it shows how Savile is trying to control the

conversation by telling Theroux that he is being too subjective

rather than objective in his interviewing style. Although there is a

plausible answer to the question which Savile provides, the

aggressive way in which he tries to guide the interview contributes

to his deflection from difficult questions from the interviewer. In

interviews, Jimmy Savile seems determined to mask his private life

and any accusation that is made by the interviewer is met by either

an attempt at humour or the accusation that the interviewer is in

68

the wrong for asking probing questions, these are both features of

his ‘chat’ in interviews and he uses them consistently.

In this documentary there is an explicit insight into how

Savile maintains his ‘synthetic personality’ with an understanding

by Savile that there is a difference between the images he portrays

to an audience on television (and in public) to that of a private

image. Savile understands that his ‘television personality is a

‘construction’’ (Tolson, 1991:186) and there is evidence of this in

this brief scene:

[Theroux is witnessing Savile pack his suitcase in his roombefore he boards the train to Liverpool]

Louis: I helped Jimmy pack for a celebrity cruise he was taking later that day

[Dialogue]Jimmy: The basic ingredients - Louis: Liverpool, is that where the cruise is startingfrom?Jimmy: Yes -Louis: Cigars-Jimmy: Cigars… rightLouis: ( ) (.) liner -Jimmy: Hang on (1.0) cigars, bigger ones for the TV and newspapers Louis: Why is it better to have bigger one for the TV and the newspapers?Jimmy: Because it sticks out more on the television

(When Louis Met… Jimmy, 2000)

Savile distinguishes that an element that identifies his

character (the cigar) on television has to be more significant than

it is in ‘real life’. His image, as well as his performance has to

69

be exaggerated and in this example it suggests that Savile is ‘self-

reflexive’ (Tolson, 1991:186) in the role certain aspects of his

image have on the television. Similar to the example in Is This Your Life

where there is a suggestion that Savile knows that his television

image is a ‘visage’ this example provides clear evidence that he

exaggerates his image for when he makes television appearances.

The only time in the documentary when there is a remotely

‘true’ representation of Jimmy Savile’s private personality is when

Theroux is away from the camera and the camera is rolling, unbeknown

to Savile. What he says is quite revealing and leads Theroux to

confront him later in the programme where he explains that it was a

‘joke’. This is a rare insight into a private representation of

Savile as his tone of voice differs from when he is being

interviewed by Theroux and the topic of conversation shows a harsh

reality of his past.

[Camera facing Savile sitting on his sofa, the cameralooks like it has been hidden. Will (the producer) is outof shot]

[voice over]

Louis: Although I’d gone to bed Will stayed up latewith Jimmy… he began talk about his work as adancehall manager in the 50s

[dialogue]

Jimmy: In the dancehalls I invented zerotolerance, I wouldn’t stand for any nonsense

70

whatsoever, ever (.) Ever, ever, ever. I was alwaysin trouble with the law for being heavy handed,always. But I couldn’t care less about that

Will: Rejecting people who were mucking about?Jimmy: No, I never threw anybody out. Tied them up and

put ‘em down in the bloody boiler house until I wasready for ‘em, two o’clock in the fucking morning.They pleased to get out, no one got slung out of myplace.

Will: ( )Jimmy: Oh aye yeah, oh aye, bollocks to them, yeah.

You tie ‘em up and when they come back, and I was thejudge jury and executioner[camera edit]

Jimmy: You know er, if a copper came in and said‘yous were a bit heavy with them, with that kid orthose two guys’, (.) or whatever, I’d say, ‘yourdaughter comes in here, she’s sixteen, she’s notsupposed to come into town, but she does and shecomes here. I’d presume you’d like me to look afterher, if you don’t want me to look after her, tell meand I’ll let them dirty slags do what they want toher’ (.) ’alright Jim, alright, alright, alright’↓alright then, don’t give me a ↑ fucking hard timethen, ↓ ‘yeah you’re right, you’re right, you didn’tgive the bastard half enough, thank you, goodbye’ ander, (.) I never got nicked. *laughs* and I’ve neveraltered (.) I’ve got a zero tolerance me.

(When Louis Met… Jimmy, 2000)

This is undoubtedly a different side to Jimmy Savile; the way in

which he is talking and things he says completely differs to when he

is being interviewed. He uses much harsher language and the

intonation on his voice is a tougher Yorkshire accent. He abstains

from using any of his catchphrases and the topic of conversation is

a damning insight into his past. It is a far stretch away from the

constructed personality that is familiar to audiences. For example,

71

the image provided in the previous chapter (appendix 1) produces the

‘saintly’ image of Savile. Images of this sort were prevalent in the

positive construction of Savile’s ‘synthetic personality’ and were

used by Savile to guard his ‘true’ self. With this dialogue in When

Louis Met… Jimmy he believes that the situation private, therefore he

is less guarded in his behaviour. This behaviour exposes Savile’s

‘true’ personality which then submits his television personality is

‘synthetic’.

Later in the programme Theroux confronts Savile about this

conversation and Savile tries to rectify the situation:

[Savile and Louis are walking on a country road in Scotlandwhile the camera watches from a distance]Louis: It’s just that you maybe didn’t think you were

being taped when you said something you didn’t mean to and I didn’t want to appear to be sneaky

Jimmy: I don’t know whatever I said, I dunno, I dunno what Isaid Louis: YeahJimmy: I can’t remember what I said Louis: Basically this thing about, erm, taking people downstairs and tying them up. Jimmy: Right (1.0) that really is a figure of speech,

isn’t it? (.) It’s rather like saying, er, ‘↑oo::: Icould kill him’ ↓ you couldn’t kill him at all, it’sa figure of speech.

(When Louis Met… Jimmy, 2000)

It is clear that Savile regrets what he said to Will (the

producer) while he was being filmed secretly. He tried to reiterate

and change what he meant he said, however it is clear from the

72

footage that he wasn’t using a ‘figure of speech’. When Savile is

explaining the situation when he was filmed secretly he reverts back

to the familiar ‘personality’ in that the intonation in his ‘talk’

is much more humorous, for example the elongated ‘o’ and also he

makes it harder for Theroux to produce and answer, unlike when he

was talking Will.

This instance of the presentation of Savile’s ‘private’

personality exposes the contrast between his public and his private

life. Savile who was normally associated with his charity work and

his television career (at the time of filming) is shown to be quite

a ‘devious’ character in his past. The limited access and

representation of Savile’s private life in the media would suggest

that the personality he constructed and the discourse he used in

interviews masked the events that were exposed after his death.

Summary

By using Tolson’s theory of ‘synthetic personality’ there have

been a distinguishing of Savile’s public and private life in light

of the knowledge and information that has been releases after the

scandal. At times Jimmy Savile uses his form of ‘chat’ to construct

his self-representation as ‘zany’ character as in the interview with

Andrew Neil he tends not to take the situation too seriously. In

73

doing this he is acting in a way that stays in line with the

personality that he constructs for the television. Savile also has

an understanding that his personality on the television differs from

the one that he has in real life. Savile and Neil have a

conversation about television on television, or ‘metatalk’ (Tolson,

1991:186), about the character he plays and how it may be a

‘visage’. This suggests that Savile has an understanding of his

representation that he constructs on the television, displaying

publicly his ‘synthetic personality’. This is also evident in When

Louis Met… Jimmy as in the dialogue it is noted that he uses bigger

cigars for the television, he is constructing his television

personality through recognisable symbols.

By using ‘chat’ Savile tries to guard his ‘true’ self from the

interviewer, but also tries to control interviews to disassociate

from his private life. He does this through either a display of

humour, or in the case of When Louis Met… Jimmy, outright tells the

interviewer what to do. Savile wants to continue to construct a

positive representation of himself by guarding himself from

difficult questions about his private life. This, however, could not

be done when Savile thought that he was not being filmed, his

private personality in this example exposes a contrasting

representation that that of his ‘synthetic personality’.

74

Conclusion

The aim of this dissertation was to study the certain aspects

of the Jimmy Savile scandal to assess the relationship between the

two institutions, ITV and the BBC, in the creation of commercial

television and what bearing this had on the representation of Jimmy

Savile when the scandal broke. What this did expose is that there

was a conflict of morals and beliefs between the two different

institutions, one being a publically funded broadcaster the other a

commercial, which in itself produces contrasting reasons to why they

are broadcasting. ITV broadcast in order to gain rating to produce

profit, whereas the BBC broadcast for the public in relation to the

‘national interest’. The way in which broadcasting is structured in

Britain means that the BBC’s morals and values are placed on the

other broadcasting institutions maintaining their dominance over the

others constructing a hegemonic structure between the institutions

and also the public. The Jimmy Savile scandal exposes this structure

as the BBC holding back the information about Savile lead to ITV

producing their own documentary on the wrongdoings of Savile and

also the BBC. This shows that although ITV have the morals and

75

beliefs of the BBC designated to them they felt that it was in the

‘national interest’ to release this information even if it would

have a detrimental effect on the reputation of the BBC. Also it

could be associated with trying to gain ratings as there was

scepticism in the BBC to run the story for reasons related to

reputation and a ‘lack of journalistic tradition in the BBC’

(Goodwin, 1990:43/44).

The release of this information did have a negative effect on

the BBC’s reputation as Savile was one of the key representatives of

the BBC. The BBC then had to align with the agenda felt by the

public and the rest of the institutions, which Goodwin (1990)

asserts is common practice, in order to gain the trust and consent

of the public. The BBC broadcast their Panorama documentary, What the

BBC Knew, in order to explain their wrongdoings surround the Savile

scandal.

In regards to the representation there has been a complete re-

assessment of the representation of Jimmy Savile after the scandal.

Previous to the scandal he was thought of as a ‘national treasure’,

raising millions for charities and being a ‘querky’ television

personality. What the scandal has exposed is that Savile constructed

his representation in a way that he could hold power so that any

accusations against him would be dismissed. Savile, though his self-

76

representation, was able to only display his public life with a

display of his private life kept to a minimum.

In the second chapter there is a discussion of Savile’s

‘synthetic personality’ (Tolson, 1991) where there is an assessment

of how Savile uses this to guard his ‘true’ personality. Savile

evades difficult questions by using certain techniques and gestures

in his discourse. This also ensures that Savile is in control of the

interview, meaning he does not have to answer the difficult question

put to him about his private life. It is only when Savile is in a

private situation his ‘true’ self is presented. This exposes the

difference between the public and private aspects of Savile’s

personality and shows that he does want to hide his private life to

the cameras.

Limitations/Further Research

There have been a few limitations in this study which there

will be a discussion of now:

First of all, from this study there cannot be a complete assessment

how this has damaged the reputation of the BBC as at present there

has not been any empirical research done into this. If there was

further research done into this topic it would be interesting to see

if the BBC has gained trust back off the public after the scandal.

77

Another limitation is a personal one, because of my age I cannot

give a complete view of the representation of Savile as I did not

live alongside his career at the BBC. There could be a study by

someone who has first-hand experience of watching Savile’s career

unfold and assess his representation after the scandal in more

detail.

There could also be research into the representation and

relationship of the other broadcasting institutions in Britain, for

example Channel 4, Channel 5 and other cable networks such as Sky.

This would give a complete assessment of the relationship between

the institutions and a much broader study into Jimmy Savile’s

representation.

78

Bibliography

Allan, S. (1999) News Culture, Open University Press,

Ang, I. (1991) Desperately Seeking the Audience, Routledge

Beland, D. Lecours, A. (2010) Nationalism and Social Policy: ThePolitics of Territorial Solidarity, Oxford University Press

Franklin, B. (2001) British Television Policy: A Reader, Televisionbroadcasting policy: Public Service Broadcasting, Routledge

Goodwin, A. Whannel, G. (1990) Understanding Television: Public servicebroadcasting: the history of a concept, Scannell, P. Routledge

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, New York,International

Hall, S. (1997) Representation: Cultural Representations and SignifyingPractices, The Open University, SAGE Publications

Mcnair, B. (2013) News and Journalism in the UK, Communication andSociety, Routledge

Monroe, E. Price. (1995) Television, the Public Sphere and NationalIdentity, Oxford University Press,

79

Morley, D. (2013) Spaces of Identity: Global Media, ElectronicLandscapes and Cultural Boundaries, Routledge

Pollard, N. (2012) The Pollard Review: Report, BBC Trust

Reith, J. (1925) Memorandum of information on the scope and conduct of thebroadcasting service, Caversham, Reading: BBC Written Archive

Rylance, R. (1994) Roland Barthes, Simon & Schuster, InternationalGroup, Harvester Wheatsheaf,

Scannell, P. (1988b) The Communicative Ethos of Broadcasting. Paperpresented at the International Studies Conference, London (BFI)

Scannell, P. (1996) Radio Television and Modern Life: APhenomenological Approach, Blackwell Publishers Ltd

Williams, R. (1989b) Hegemony and the selective tradition, in S. deCastell, A. Luke and C. Luke (eds) Language Authority and Criticism. London:Falmer

Newspapers/Websites

Allen, V. Revealed: Lady Thatcher's FIVE attempts to secureknighthood for Jimmy Savile while her aides warned of his 'strangeand complex' life, Daily Mail, 17 July 2013 [Online] Avaliable at:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366576/Revealed-Lady-Thatchers-FIVE-attempts-secure-knighthood-Jimmy-Savile.html(Accessed 17 July 2013)

BBC and Jimmy Savile, The Guardian, December 19, 2012, Retrieved July20, 2013

BBC’s Jimmy Savile probe to be led by Harold Shipman inquiry judge.The Telegraph, October 16, 2012. Retrieved July 20, 2013

Stuart Hall charged with rape and 14 counts of indecent assault. Mirror News. January 22, 2013. [URL] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266705/Stuart-Hall-charged-

80

rape-14-counts-indecent-assault-alleged-offences-decade-period.html Retrieved July 20, 2013

The evil of Jimmy Savile was not his alone, The Guardian, October 12,2012. Retrieved August 22, 2013 [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/12/evil-jimmy-savile-not-alone

Deans, J. Nearly hald the public have less trust in BBC since Jimmy Savile scandal, Guardian. December 18 2012, accessed August 20 2013 [URL] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/18/public-trust-bbc-jimmy-savile?CMP=twt_gu

BBC News Website, Jimmy Savile Scandal: Profile,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19984684, Dec 2012,accessed July 2013

"Jimmy Savile scandal: Report reveals decades of abuse". BBC News.January 11, 2013. Retrieved January 11, 2013.

News Reports

BBC News, Day's events: Jimmy Savile report, (2012), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20983527,. Accessed July 1st 2013

BBC News, DJ and TV presenter Jimmy Savile dies aged 84, (2011) Avaliable at [URL] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15507374 Retrieved 1 June 2013

Is This Your Life, Channel 4, (1995) Accessed off YouTube [URL] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mJ4a0ODPBM Retrieved, 1 June 2013

ITN News, ITV stands by Sir Jimmy Savile sexual abuse claims, (2012), Accessed off YouTube [URL] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfIZN9qlQ0g Retrieved 1 June 2013

What the BBC Knew, Panorama, BBC, 22 October 2012, [Online] Avaliable at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nspvr/Panorama_Jimmy_Savile_What_the_BBC_Knew/ (Accessed 01/02/2013)

81

Appendices

(Appendix 1)

(BBC News, 2011)

82

(Appendix 2)

(ITN News, 2012)