This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/25/janet-smith-exaro-irresponsible-publish-draft-savile-report

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Janet Smith: Exaro was 'irresponsible' to publish draft Savile report Janet Smith: Exaro was 'irresponsible' to publish draft Savile report
(6 months later)
News website Exaro has been criticised as “irresponsible” for publishing an early draft of Dame Janet Smith’s report into sex abuse by Jimmy Savile.News website Exaro has been criticised as “irresponsible” for publishing an early draft of Dame Janet Smith’s report into sex abuse by Jimmy Savile.
Smith said the site’s story had led to the identification of people she had agreed should remain anonymous and that its publication was “entirely unjustified”.Smith said the site’s story had led to the identification of people she had agreed should remain anonymous and that its publication was “entirely unjustified”.
“Exaro’s decision appears to have been taken for its own commercial gain without any thought for the interests of the many victims of Savile or the integrity of the reporting process,” Smith’s report read.“Exaro’s decision appears to have been taken for its own commercial gain without any thought for the interests of the many victims of Savile or the integrity of the reporting process,” Smith’s report read.
Related: 'Serious failings' at BBC let Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall go unchecked
Addressing reporters as she announced the release of her review, Smith said the site had been irresponsible.Addressing reporters as she announced the release of her review, Smith said the site had been irresponsible.
Exaro ran leaked extracts of a draft of Smith’s BBC-commissioned report into whether the culture and practices of the broadcaster allowed Savile to get away with decades of sexual abuse.Exaro ran leaked extracts of a draft of Smith’s BBC-commissioned report into whether the culture and practices of the broadcaster allowed Savile to get away with decades of sexual abuse.
It published a series of stories on 20 January revealing many of the criticisms levelled at the BBC in those drafts. In an article published at the time, the website said it felt its reports were in the public interest.It published a series of stories on 20 January revealing many of the criticisms levelled at the BBC in those drafts. In an article published at the time, the website said it felt its reports were in the public interest.
“The unwarranted delay in publishing the [Smith] report unnecessarily and cruelly added to the torture of scores of survivors of sexual abuse,” it wrote, adding that it had decided to “break the logjam”.“The unwarranted delay in publishing the [Smith] report unnecessarily and cruelly added to the torture of scores of survivors of sexual abuse,” it wrote, adding that it had decided to “break the logjam”.
Exaro said the leaked documents it was given “exposed just how empty was the claim that publication [of Smith’s review] was being delayed to avoid prejudicing ongoing police investigations”.Exaro said the leaked documents it was given “exposed just how empty was the claim that publication [of Smith’s review] was being delayed to avoid prejudicing ongoing police investigations”.
It said: “The many witnesses to the review, especially those whose sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile was linked to Britain’s public service broadcaster, deserved to know what Smith had found at the earliest opportunity.”It said: “The many witnesses to the review, especially those whose sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile was linked to Britain’s public service broadcaster, deserved to know what Smith had found at the earliest opportunity.”
Related: Jimmy Savile report leak reveals scathing criticism of BBC
The site added that the Smith review announced a date for publication “as Exaro prepared to publish the leak”.The site added that the Smith review announced a date for publication “as Exaro prepared to publish the leak”.
In the review, which was published on Thursday, Smith said she was “appalled” by Exaro’s decision to publish the leaks and denied there was any logjam that needed to be broken.In the review, which was published on Thursday, Smith said she was “appalled” by Exaro’s decision to publish the leaks and denied there was any logjam that needed to be broken.
“Exaro also suggested that the reason why publication had been delayed, namely because of concerns on the part of the Metropolitan police that the report could prejudice its ongoing investigations into sexual abuse was, for some reason, ‘bogus’. Exaro were wrong; that is precisely why publication was delayed.”“Exaro also suggested that the reason why publication had been delayed, namely because of concerns on the part of the Metropolitan police that the report could prejudice its ongoing investigations into sexual abuse was, for some reason, ‘bogus’. Exaro were wrong; that is precisely why publication was delayed.”
She added Exaro was also wrong to claim that the letter of criticism sent to the BBC was based on the draft it disclosed, thereby justifying its publication.She added Exaro was also wrong to claim that the letter of criticism sent to the BBC was based on the draft it disclosed, thereby justifying its publication.
Mark Watts, Exaro’s editor-in-chief, said: “Abuse survivors have said to us that they were very frustrated with the delay in publication of the report. Now everyone has seen it, it is not at all clear what the alleged prejudicial issue was that stopped it being published last year.Mark Watts, Exaro’s editor-in-chief, said: “Abuse survivors have said to us that they were very frustrated with the delay in publication of the report. Now everyone has seen it, it is not at all clear what the alleged prejudicial issue was that stopped it being published last year.
“My view is that our publication – or the knowledge that we were about to publish – was what caused the announcement that the review would be published within six weeks [to be made].”“My view is that our publication – or the knowledge that we were about to publish – was what caused the announcement that the review would be published within six weeks [to be made].”