Two years ago, the whole of Britain was stunned when news presenter Huw Edwards, one of the BBC’s highest-paid and best-known journalists, was found guilty of making indecent images of children believed to be as young as seven years old.
By the time of his arrest, Mr Edwards had spent his entire nearly 40-year career in broadcasting, and was one of the most trusted faces on television, the man trusted to tell the world that Queen Elizabeth II had died in September 2022.
But a year before his arrest and conviction in 2024, a bizarre article appeared in the press and then disappeared in much the same way. In July 2023, British tabloid The Sun published a scoop that an anonymous senior BBC presenter was paying teenagers to provide sexual images. Rumor-mongering heated up with many celebrities being accused on social media, and eventually Edwards’ wife released a statement on his behalf, admitting that Edwards was the assailant and saying that he had been admitted to an inpatient facility for mental health reasons. The public quickly took notice of the Sun for effectively outing Edwards.
A new drama on Paramount’s Channel 5 network, “Power: The Fall of Huw Edwards,” shows that the story of the teenager and his conviction for making indecent images are, in fact, linked by a convicted pedophile who knew Edwards. It was also the pedophile who sent Edwards images of children being sexually abused in exchange for money (Edwards denied paying for the images), and the pedophile who introduced Edwards to 17-year-old “Ryan” (Ryan’s true identity is never revealed).
The 90-minute film was produced by Wonderhood Studios, written by Mark Burtt (The Trial), and directed by Michael Samuels (The Windermere Children). Martin Clunes of Wuthering Heights will play Edwards.
Ahead of the show’s broadcast on Channel 5 on March 24th (also available on Paramount+), Variety spoke with Channel 5 commissioners Guy Davies and Paul Tester to find out how and why they decided to bring Huw Edwards’ downfall to television.
Where did the idea for this film come from?
Guy Davies: From Wonderhood came the idea to do a Huw Edwards story. And that evolved into a conversation about how to do that, keeping in mind that one of the primary sources is unidentifiable. And I think we’ve come to the idea that processing stories dramatically is the path to progress.
Did you approach it like mostly factual content?
DAVIES: Well, in the sense that there was clearly someone at the center of this incident, I think Ryan’s character was a vulnerable and traumatized person. And I think one of the great things that Wonderhood did was continue to honor their relationship and their duty of care with Ryan, and that’s what they do on a fact-based show.
Paul Tester: Mark Burt took the same approach with Wonderhood and shared the same mentality of putting Ryan and his story and his perspective and his happiness at the center of this story…This is a very emotional story and one of the most important things in 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.
This debacle was extremely embarrassing for the BBC, especially the fact that it continued to pay Edwards after his arrest and while he awaited trial. Was there any internal consideration about doing this story, given that the UK broadcast scene isn’t that big?
DAVIES: To be honest, I don’t think that happened. Stories have always been for us stories about power, about grooming, and how that process happens. The BBC investigation was a confidential investigation and we did not have access to it. And we didn’t want to make a drama about the BBC. We wanted to create a drama about people in power and how they came to interact with young people in this way and abuse their power. And Edwards’ other conviction was also not a BBC article.
Tester: I think it was also a pretty early editorial decision to try to make this article reach a wider audience when it wasn’t focused on the BBC. Because I think what’s interesting to those of us who work in television is unlikely to be of interest to the broader public. The story of how a vulnerable person is groomed by those in power, and what the boy’s family is like, adds dimension to the story.
The way the story is told, some might criticize the BBC for being too lenient, especially given that they knew about Edwards’ arrest months before the public learned. What would you say in response?
Tester: Edit-wise, I think the point in the drama where the arrest took place was very awkward. I think at that point you start interrogating what the BBC did or didn’t know and when, but I don’t think it would have worked with the story.
Davis: I think it’s how you create the parts that people don’t listen to. And I think Mark was very astute in tapping into what we know about the frustrations felt by families, particularly in Wales. When they tried to make a complaint, they found the BBC offering all kinds of conditions to get information about it, (so) they just went with the paper.
Tester: That’s the frustration of ordinary people trying to navigate complex bureaucracies.
Let’s talk about some of the legalities of producing the show. First, the disclaimer in the credits says, “This drama is based on extensive interviews with the victim, his family, and the journalists who exposed his story. Some scenes, characters, and text messages have been dramatized.” In the post-“baby reindeer” era, do we need to be more careful about how we express it?
Testar: I think you have to be careful how you say it. And I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all disclaimer for all shows. I think each one depends on the story and the original work. Personally, I think people were very careful about this even before the “baby reindeer” scandal happened.
There are also credits at the end that note that Edwards was offered the opportunity to comment but declined. Were you expecting him to make a statement?
DAVIES: Well, we didn’t do it as a collaboration with him, and we never intended it to be.
Did you see the statement he issued on Monday condemning this dramatization? Is there anything you would like to add to the statement Channel 5 has already issued in response?
Davis: I don’t think so. Because that statement was our position, in fact, that[the film]was based on an investigation, and we as a channel, the legal team at Wonderhood, were all satisfied that this was made in accordance with Ofcom and the Broadcasting Act, which I know Hugh mentioned in the statement, and I think in terms of Ofcom’s rules, we were very clear that we would clarify all the allegations that are considered in the film in sufficient time, and that’s what we did. I think that’s fine.
He said he also plans to “create my own account.” Is that what Channel Five is interested in?
Davis: No.
Did making this film give you any insight into why he did what he did?
DAVIES: I don’t think I can comment on that. you need to ask him. …So the insights from the psychiatric report explain him to some extent. But I don’t try to interpret his psychology.
Did you pay for Ryan’s right to live?
DAVIES: To be honest, I don’t think we need to talk about it. I think the relationship between us and him, or Wonderhood and him, is more accurately a matter between the two. I don’t want to get involved in that kind of thing. I don’t think it’s necessary to expand on it further. I know Hugh asked about that.
The film begins with Edwards reporting Queen Elizabeth’s death and ends with Edwards announcing his own guilty verdict, clearly a dramatic admission. Why did you choose to start and end there?
Tester: One of Mark’s first reactions in this story was that there is no more reliable symbol of the establishment in our society than a person given the responsibility of telling the people that the Queen is dead. …And there were others who were reporting not just the Queen’s death, but many other stories, scandals, and convictions.
DAVIES: (He was) incredibly trusted by the public. In a way, that trust becomes a bit of a metaphor in the movie. Because it’s also about power and the abuse of power.
That’s why I think it’s such an interesting story, and hopefully for the viewer, because I think they’ll be surprised by some of the text, for example. Behind the numbers, trust is what makes it such an interesting story to explore the concepts of power and trust. This is because actual research has shown this.
Did you know all along that the movie ends with him reading out his own beliefs as a news reader?
Tester: It was pretty early on, but it wasn’t in the first draft… It felt like something really important to end the story, to remind the audience of the scale and detail of Edward’s crime.
DAVIES: And, you know, he was finally accountable to the public in the medium that he worked in.
I remember covering the conviction and trial and finding it very strange that this guy who had been the face of the news for so long was in the news.
Tester: I think this story and this scandal was a very important moment in the public’s general view of that organization and the numbers of the system. I think that contributed to the questioning of people on the establishment side because of the role that Edwards played and all of that. I think that’s another part of why that device was important.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
