{"id":493998,"date":"2026-03-25T06:46:08","date_gmt":"2026-03-25T06:46:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/493998\/"},"modified":"2026-03-25T06:46:08","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T06:46:08","slug":"channel-5-has-no-interest-in-huw-edwardss-alternate-version-of-downfall","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/493998\/","title":{"rendered":"Channel 5 Has No Interest in Huw Edwards’s Alternate Version of Downfall"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tTwo years ago, when news anchor Huw Edwards<\/a> \u2013 one of the BBC\u2019s highest paid and best known journalists \u2013 was convicted of making indecent images of children<\/a>, some believed to be as young as 7, almost the entirety of the U.K. was stunned.<\/p>\n

\n\tEdwards, who\u2019d spent his entire career of almost 40 years at the broadcaster by the time of his arrest, had been one of the most reliable faces on television: the man who was trusted to tell the world Queen Elizabeth II had died in September 2022.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut his arrest and conviction in 2024 had been preceded a year earlier by a strange story that appeared in the press and then disappeared almost as quickly. In July 2023 British tabloid The Sun published a scoop that an unnamed senior BBC presenter had been paying a teenager for sexual images<\/a>. The rumor mill went into overdrive with numerous household names accused on social media before eventually Edwards\u2019 wife made a statement on his behalf in which he admitted to being the perpetrator and saying he had checked into an inpatient facility on mental health grounds. The public quickly turned on The Sun for effectively outing Edwards.<\/p>\n

\n\tNow a new drama from Paramount-owned U.K. network Channel 5<\/a>, \u201cPower: The Downfall of Huw Edwards\u201d shows that in fact the story of the teenager and the conviction for making indecent images are linked by a convicted pedophile whom Edwards knew. It was the pedophile who sent Edwards the images of children being sexually abused in exchange for monetary gifts (Edwards denied he was paying for the images) and it was the pedophile who introduced him to 17-year-old \u201cRyan\u201d (Ryan\u2019s real identity has never been revealed).<\/p>\n

\n\tThe 90-minute film is produced by Wonderhood Studios<\/a>, written by Mark Burt (\u201cThe Trial\u201d) and directed by Michael Samuels (\u201cThe Windermere Children\u201d). \u201cWuthering Heights\u201d star Martin Clunes plays Edwards.<\/p>\n

\n\tAhead of the show airing on Channel 5 on March 24 (it will also be available on Paramount+), Variety sat down with the network\u2019s commissioners Guy Davies and Paul Testar to find out how \u2013 and why \u2013 they decided to bring the downfall of Huw Edwards to the small screen.<\/p>\n

\t\tWhere did the idea for the film come from?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tGuy Davies: Wonderhood came to us with the idea of doing the Huw Edwards story. And then that developed into a conversation about how you do it, bearing in mind that one of the key sources can\u2019t be identified. And I think we came around to the idea that a dramatic treatment of the story was the way to progress.<\/p>\n

\t\tDid you approach it almost like a piece of factual content?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: Well, I think in the sense that there was clearly somebody at the heart of this, the Ryan character, who was vulnerable, who was traumatized. And I think one of the great things that Wonderhood had managed to do is to keep that relationship and the duty of care to Ryan and that is the thing you do in a factual show.<\/p>\n

\n\tPaul Testar: Mark Burt took the same approach and shared the same mentality as Wonderhood, of putting Ryan and his and his story and his perspective and his wellbeing right at the center of this story\u2026 This is such an emotional story, and one of the most important things about telling it as a drama was to convey the emotion of what this grooming experience was like for this poor boy, and Mark took that incredibly seriously.<\/p>\n

\t\tThe debacle was hugely embarrassing for the BBC, particularly the fact they continued to pay Edwards after his arrest while he was awaiting trial. Was there any consideration internally about doing this story given that the U.K.\u2019s broadcasting scene isn\u2019t very big?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: I don\u2019t think there was, to be honest. The story was always the story for us, about power, about grooming, about how that process happens. The BBC investigation is a confidential inquiry, we didn\u2019t have access to that. And we didn\u2019t want to make a drama about the BBC. We wanted to make a drama about a powerful person and how they came to be involved with a young man in this way and who abused their power. And also the other story, of Edwards\u2019 conviction, was again not a BBC story.<\/p>\n

\n\tTestar: I think it was quite an early editorial decision as well that this story reaches a broader audience when its focus isn\u2019t on the BBC. Because I think as much as would interest us who work in television, it\u2019s less likely to be of interest to the broader public. The story of how a vulnerable person is groomed by a powerful person, and what it\u2019s like for the family of that boy as well, is something that gives the story a broader reach.<\/p>\n

\t\tBecause the story is told in that way, there might be some criticism that you\u2019ve gone too soft on the BBC, particularly given what they knew about Edwards\u2019 arrest months before the public became aware. What would your response be to that?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tTestar: Editorially, I think it would have stuck out quite awkwardly at the point at which the arrest takes place in the drama, I think to then start, at that point, to interrogate what the BBC may or may not have known and when, I think just wouldn\u2019t have worked in the story.<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: I think it\u2019s how you create the part of the story which is about not being heard. And I think that Mark was very perceptive in using what we knew about the frustration that the family felt, particularly in Wales, when they tried to complain and found the BBC putting up all sorts of conditions as to wanting to get information about it and [so] they just went to the papers.<\/p>\n

\n\tTestar: It\u2019s the frustration of an ordinary person trying to navigate a complex bureaucracy.<\/p>\n

\t\tLet\u2019s talk about some of the legalities of making the show. First the disclaimer credit, which reads: \u201cThis drama is based on extensive interviews with the victim, his family and the journalists who revealed his story. Some scenes, characters and text messages have been dramatized.\u201d In a post \u201cBaby Reindeer\u201d era, do you have to be more careful of exactly how you\u2019re phrasing that?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tTestar: I think you do have to be careful how you phrase it. And I think there isn\u2019t a one size fits all disclaimer for every show. I think each one is dependent on the story and the and the source material. Personally, I think it\u2019s something people were very careful about before the \u201cBaby Reindeer\u201d scandal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\t\tAt the end there is also a credit noting Edwards was offered the opportunity to comment and declined. Were you expecting him to make a statement?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: Well, we didn\u2019t make it as a collaboration with him, had never intended to.<\/p>\n

\t\tDid you see the statement he put out on Monday in which he condemned the dramatization? Is there anything you\u2019d want to add to the statement Channel 5 already put out in response?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: I don\u2019t think so. Because I think that statement is about our position<\/a>, really, that [the film] was based on the research, and that ourselves as the channel, our legal team Wonderhood\u2019s legal team, were all happy that this has been made in accordance with Ofcom and the Broadcasting Code, which I know Huw has mentioned in his statement, and that we were very clear to give all of the allegations that would be looked at in the film in ample time, when it came to the Ofcom rules, which is what we did. So I think that\u2019s it.<\/p>\n

\t\tHe has said he is also planning to \u201cproduce his own account.\u201d Is that something that Channel Five might be interested in?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: No.<\/p>\n

\t\tDid making the film give you any insight into why he did what he did?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: I don\u2019t think I can comment on that, you\u2019d have to ask him. \u2026 I mean, the insight from the psychiatric reports is his explanation to a degree. But I wouldn\u2019t want to try and interpret his psychology.<\/p>\n

\t\tDid you pay Ryan for his life rights?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: I don\u2019t think we should talk about that to be honest. I think that any relationship we have with him, or Wonderhood has with him, to be accurate is a matter that is between them. I don\u2019t want to get into that. I don\u2019t think we need to expand on that. I know Huw has asked about it.<\/p>\n

\t\tThe film opens with Edwards reporting Queen Elizabeth\u2019s death and ends with him announcing his own conviction, which was obviously a dramatic license. Why did you choose to start and end there?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tTestar: It was one of the very first things that Mark reacted to in this story, which was that there is no more trusted emblem of the establishment in our society than the person who\u2019s given the responsibility of telling the public that the Queen had died. \u2026 And also somebody who is responsible for not just the Queen\u2019s death, but had reported many other stories and scandals and convictions.<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: [He was] incredibly trusted by the public, and in a way, that trust became a bit of a metaphor in the film, because that\u2019s also about power and the abuse of power.
And that\u2019s why I think it\u2019s such an interesting story, hopefully for viewers, because I think they will be taken aback by some of the texts, for example. The other side to that figure of trust, that\u2019s why it\u2019s such an interesting story to explore that idea of power and trust. Because you\u2019ve got it there in the actual research.<\/p>\n

\t\tDid you always know the film was going to end with him reading out his own conviction as a news reader?\t<\/p>\n

\n\tTestar: It was pretty early on, but it wasn\u2019t in the very first draft\u2026 it felt like a very important thing to end the story on, to remind the audience what the scale and detail of Edward\u2019s crimes were.<\/p>\n

\n\tDavies: And being, you know, finally accountable to the public in the medium which he worked in.<\/p>\n

\t\tI remember from covering the conviction and the court case that it was such a strange thing that this guy who for so long had been the face of the news had become the news.\t<\/p>\n

\n\tTestar: I think that this story and this scandal was quite a significant moment in the public\u2019s general view of its institutional and establishment figures. I think it has contributed to a questioning of establishment figures, simply because of what the role that Edwards had and all of that. So I think that was another part of why that device was important.<\/p>\n

\n\tThis interview has been edited and condensed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Two years ago, when news anchor Huw Edwards \u2013 one of the BBC\u2019s highest paid and best known…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":493999,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[21407,96,15034,391,56,54,55,174183],"class_list":{"0":"post-493998","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-tv","8":"tag-channel-5","9":"tag-entertainment","10":"tag-huw-edwards","11":"tag-tv","12":"tag-uk","13":"tag-united-kingdom","14":"tag-unitedkingdom","15":"tag-wonderhood-studios"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/493998","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=493998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/493998\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/493999"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=493998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=493998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=493998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}