Newsnight did not name the politician, so you may be wondering why it is they have agreed to pay out such a substantial sum. Read this post, which deals with that point better than I can - but as far as I can tell, essentially, they are liable because of the fact Lord McAlpine had falsely and widely been named on Twitter involved before the programme was aired.
I'm a huge fan of the BBC in general. I think they do a superb job. However, a responsible editor would have pulled the story with the knowledge that names were being circulated on Twitter. That said, it's also easy to see this as "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If they had pulled the programme there would have been screams of protest of cover-up and backing down.
There are two other big failings of the Newsnight team which also mustn't be forgotten. A responsible editor would also have put the photograph of the suspect before the victim - that would have led to the central allegation that it was a "leading Tory politician of the Thatcher era" having been cut out of the programme. They should also have contacted the alleged perpetrator to hear his side of the story. They did not do so.
On this occasion the BBC failed badly and they have admitted their mistake. We licence payers will foot the bill.
I perceive BBC conduct as negligent, rather than malicious. In my view, the malicious parties in this instance is every person who gossiped on Twitter with absolutely no personal knowledge of the truth regarding who the person involved was. This includes those who RTd names. It is absolutely no defence morally or legally to say that you are repeating an allegation someone else made. It was an angry, ugly group brandishing their now famous Twitchforks.
At least Newsnight had interviewed the victim and done research, no matter how imperfectly. What those who hit the RT button did was to name someone with no more basis than "someone else said it was him, so it must be true."
If you think none of this matters - so what he's a millionaire Thatcherite - etc, I wish you had heard the interview with Lord McAlpine on Radio 4 today. He is a frail 70 year old man who has a weak heart. He is absolutely innocent of this crime. The victim has accepted that. The BBC has accepted that. It was horrendous to hear him speak, actually with great dignity and a surprising lack of anger considering his life has been torn apart in the last two weeks. If you think it doesn't matter, just put yourself in his shoes, or imagine it is your grandfather. It is a very odd, callous, supposedly caring lefty who says "so what" because they object to his politics, no matter how strongly. How grotesquely inhumane.
Two wrongs do not make a right - they create a bigger wrong. There is a man out there who was repeatedly abused as a boy and now the entire media show is instead concentrated on another wrong. This was caused in large part by the users of Twitter who were so desperate to find a guilty party without a court of law or any due process involved. Do you feel good about that? I don't.
It is actually very, very simple and this is something everyone on Twitter is going to have to learn. Do not spread or repeat serious allegations and smears that can destroy someone's life, without personal knowledge of and/or research into the truth of those statements. It is just demonstrably wrong to accuse someone of something such serious crimes on the basis of blind gossip. It goes against the basic assumptions of being innocent until proven guilty, it removes the protections that exist in court regarding evidence, and it prejudices a fair trial. It is lynch-mob "justice".
Twitter is such a powerful tool, but it can also injure and cause huge harm. I want the issue concentrated back on the abuse that took place: thanks to Twitter I'm not sure that's ever going to happen.
