Mediaboss Marketing

LONDON There are around 800 words in this column, but really it concerns just one of them.

The word is inappropriate, as in: It would be highly inappropriate of me (a person of note) to disclose anything on this matter of public interest to you (a reporter, plebeian or sundry member of the hoi polloi).

The debate is not so much about etymology or semantics as about the codes devised by those in power to cloak their secrets, to frustrate honest inquiry, to thwart transparency. The word reflects an aversion to openness, a fear of judgment that, among other things, helped the British Broadcasting Corp.s television host Jimmy Savile evade scrutiny for decades as he abused a tally of underage people that the police have put at 300.

It is a word that belongs in the lexicon of what that Alastair Campbell, Tony Blairs pugnacious former spin doctor, called weasel words.

In the Savile case, it was the television hosts behavior that was inappropriate, to say the very least, and yet so many people prosecutors, celebrities, fellow entertainers, journalists felt it was inappropriate to say so.

Last week the BBC reported that an inquiry had begun into the corporations culture and practices over the Savile decades led by Dame Janet Smith, a former appeals court judge.

The inquiry was one of two. The other, led by Nick Pollard, a former head of the rival Sky News, is investigating why a BBC current affairs program, Newsnight, abandoned a program examining Mr. Saviles behavior almost a year ago.

Dame Fiona Reynolds, the head of the BBC executive board that appointed the two inquirers, said that these reviews another word of flexible meaning will demonstrate the BBCs determination to open itself fully to scrutiny from independent experts, emphasizing our belief that the basis of the publics trust is full openness and accountability.

So a reporter asked Dame Janets team how she would conduct her inquiry, whom she would call as witnesses, where the inquiries would take place and so forth.

Coming after the months of parliamentary and judicial inquiries into the phone hacking scandal, conducted under oath and in the full glare of live television, the questions seemed reasonable enough.

Continued here:
Keeping Honest Inquiry at Bay