THE newspapers of last Friday were highly instructive concerning the attitude of our major broadcasting organisations to the pampered and hugely overpaid performers that they employ.

All of them carried major stories based on a leaked copy of the report into the Jimmy Savile affair by the retired High Court judge Dame Janet Smith.

Dame Janet’s conclusion would seem to be – unless altered before publication – that the perverted paedophile was able to pursue his victims unhindered because of the Corporation’s forelock-tugging attitude to its ‘talent’.

She wrote: “I have the clear impression that most people in the BBC held The Talent in some awe and treated them deferentially.

“They appeared to have the ability to influence careers and were themselves untouchable. It would be a brave person indeed who would make a complaint against such a person. It was important to keep the star of the show happy.”

She went on: “The producers of programmes on which Savile worked did not ask him to stop his habit of wet kissing or licking the hands and arms of staff members to whom he was introduced.”

Before reading all this in the Daily Mail, I had been digesting on an earlier page a story that was eye-catchingly headlined: “Hazy Holly, fuzzy Phil and This Morning after the night before.”

This concerned the ragged appearance, on-air, of Phillip Schofield and Holly Willoughby, the presenters of ITV’s This Morning, who had apparently gone straight to the studio from an all-night party celebrating the show’s success in the National Television Awards.

Still in her white gown worn at the big event, Miss Willoughby told viewers: “Should we be honest? I haven’t been home.”

Schofield said: “We can only apologise. We celebrated on behalf of each and every one of you.”

Miss Willoughby added: “Neither of us should be on television.”

So why were they appearing? Could it have had something to do with the deferential attitude of their employers?