Innocent of inserting noddy shots of himself into interviews not conducted by him, anyway. It turns out that:
In all of the shows, in the four years since Imagine began, fake “noddies” were inserted into precisely none of them. Not one.
So how did it happen then that such a damaging allegation was allowed to gain so much traction? “It’s all my own fault . . . it was foolish of me to respond in that fashion. I did not want to say no to something that might have been yes.”
So when the media asked whether he had allowed noddies to be used to make it look as if he had been where he hadn’t, he said possibly, probably and even suggested it was quite likely because he couldn’t remember and didn’t want to be caught fibbing? Well, baldly, the answer to that question is yes.
Which sounds a bit like confessing to shoplifting just in case you might have done it in the past but can’t quite remember. So why confess?
In all of the shows, in the four years since Imagine began, fake “noddies” were inserted into precisely none of them. Not one.
So how did it happen then that such a damaging allegation was allowed to gain so much traction? “It’s all my own fault . . . it was foolish of me to respond in that fashion. I did not want to say no to something that might have been yes.”
So when the media asked whether he had allowed noddies to be used to make it look as if he had been where he hadn’t, he said possibly, probably and even suggested it was quite likely because he couldn’t remember and didn’t want to be caught fibbing? Well, baldly, the answer to that question is yes.
Trust me, I’m a broadcaster:
He says there needs to be an open debate both within the BBC and beyond – one, importantly, fully open to audiences too – about where lines should be drawn and under what circumstances they might properly be crossed. This is all the more necessary, he says, after “10 years of genre bending and ‘reality’ TV” which have led to what he describes as “a laziness, a routineness about how you make programmes – you want to make them more exciting so you add a bit”; but without that context public service delights like Jamie’s School Dinners simply wouldn’t have happened. The debate so far, he says, has “suggested that you can’t trust anyone – as if programme makers were estate agents, and that’s not true. There are no more motivated people than those who work in broadcasting . . . and ultimately it is about trust and honesty.”
See Steve Hewlett’s original article (linked above) for more details.
I thought noddies were accepted practice (albeit a slighty stupid and irritating one).
My dad is a journo (TV & other) and I can recall him explaining them to me 30 odd years back.
I heard a Guardian journo (probably same)being interviewed about this,last week, on the Today program. The journo basically said that noddying was a creative technique which helped to enrich the narrative etc etc.
What irked me was that they didn’t have Mr Yentob on air to explain himself. If he is such a great broadcaster why does he need a mouthpiece from the Guardian?
Its not as if he could really refuse to appear…
The article, and Noddy’s explantion are a case of why use 1 word when ten will do.
Did Noddy use noddies? Yes.
Was Noddy inserted into interviews he didn’t conduct? No. Apparently.
Has anyone asked Noddy which interviews he did conduct? Then we could check his assertions for ourselves.