The New Observer Media Comment Censorship in the Independent about Saville and the BBC

Censorship in the Independent about Saville and the BBC

From time to time I post in the comments section in the Independent. About half the time my comments are “deactivated” within a few minutes by their censors. Usually these comments are critical of Western media narratives about the war. I avoid being rude and I am highly aware of defamation laws. The comments are simply deleted because they question the propaganda about the war. Well; this is normal. We are in a war and only patriotic nonsense is allowed. Not really surprising.

But I was a little surprised today. The BBC has had the nerve to produce a “show” celebrating the life of Jimmy Saville who they nurtured throughout his long career as a child-predator. A journalist in the Independent has written a review of this programme. I was pleasantly surprised to see that he was highly critical of this effort. It seems despite the prevalent culture of media censorship you can still criticise the BBC in print. For example: “The show’s conclusion seems to be that he got away with it thanks to a generalised culture that repressed victim’s voices, whether they were coming from discotheques, fish and chip stands, or, you know, the nation’s state-funded, beloved and trusted broadcaster.” I wrote the following comment:

Did this ‘show’ mention the BBC execs who sent emails about Saville’s “dark side”, but did nothing? Or the star who “knew about the rumours” but, despite running an organization where children can report ‘rumours’ in fact, herself, did nothing?

Good for the reporter Nick Hilton who points out that the BBC enabled this abuser and is now trying to make money (viewing figures for the BBC) out of it. This is simply corporate child abuse. Not the less because they managed to involve a few victims to head off criticism.

The comment was removed within 5 minutes. Why? There is a general link to their terms and conditions but that doesn’t help. My references are entirely factual. The point about executives knowing about Saville’s “dark side” is well documented. [1] My second reference is to the media personality Esther Rantzen. Again; the point is well-documented. [2] There is no clear reason to delete this post other than it is too close to the truth, too close to the bone.

This is the world of the “free media”; in fact a carefully curated narrative, in which a little criticism is permitted to give the impression of freedom but anything too acerbic and close to the truth is censored. Thus the only people who can voice these kinds of remarks are relegated to the “blogsphere” which is collectively denounced by the corporate-government mainstream media as “conspiratorial”.


  1. (many other media reports about this)