The “facts” of the scandal involving BBC newsreader Huw Edwards have changed frequently but there’s been one constant: Every version of events has been utterly bleak.

When The Sun broke the story of an unnamed high-profile TV presenter alleged to have paid a 17-year-old for naked photos, things seemed cut and dried. Here was an abuse of power and, as that initial report suggested, a matter for the police.

Then the waters became muddied. The young person at the centre of the allegations released a statement denying there was any truth in the story. The Sun, it transpired, had based its initial report on allegations levelled by this person’s estranged mother. Now the story was about whether the tabloid’s story had any substance.

All the while, pressure mounted on the still-anonymous broadcaster to identify himself. A number of BBC presenters issued statements denying they were the individual in question. Jeremy Vine called on his colleague to out himself.

So the story became one about a powerful man allowing colleagues to cop the flak for his failure to speak up.

And then the Metropolitan Police provided a fresh plot twist. Having looked at the issue, they had found no evidence of criminality. The focus returned to The Sun: Had the paper recklessly smeared a major public figure who had done nothing wrong?

But, just when it looked like a clear-case of a stitch-up, others came forward to allege inappropriate contact from the presenter, The heat was off The Sun, again.

Then, on Wednesday evening, TV executive Vicky Flind issued a statement in which she confirmed her husband, Huw Edwards, was the anonymous presenter and revealed that he was in hospital, suffering a severe mental health episode.

Now friends of Edwards’s stepped forward. Here was an innocent man, hounded by an unscrupulous press. Jeremy Vine sent his best which, I’m sure, was well-received.

And that might have been the definitive version of events if the BBC hadn’t later revealed that, before The Sun published its story, it had already been looking into suggestions of inappropriate behaviour by Edwards.

Of course, one is under no obligation to reach an opinion on any matter. In the case of the Huw Edwards scandal, it has been difficult to form a view. When his friend and former colleague Jon Sopel said this was “an awful and shocking episode, where there was no criminality, but perhaps a complicated private life”, the instinct was towards sympathy for Edwards. None of us knows the realities of others’ private lives; we are not privy to whatever accommodations couples may make.

I maintain the position that those whose outrage over this issue focuses on matters of marital fidelity are deep in territory marked “none of your business”.

However, much as there are deeply personal tragedies now playing out, there is clearly public interest in Edwards’s alleged behaviour.

The newsreader is one of the highest paid figures working for the publicly funded broadcaster. Edwards’s receipt of almost half a million pounds a year of licence-payers’ money more than makes the argument that he’s opened himself to a certain amount of scrutiny.

It is not unreasonable for the public to expect from figures such as Edwards behaviour of a standard far higher than merely “not criminal”.

Personal messages between legally consenting adults do not – no matter how anyone might feel about the power imbalances that can come with significant age differences – fall into the category of things we have any right to know about.

The BBC’s investigation into whether Edwards sent inappropriate messages to junior members of staff is another matter entirely.

Over the past week, I’ve heard people whose views I respect argue pro and anti-Edwards cases. I’ve heard praise for the BBC and condemnation. I’ve heard attacks on The Sun and defences of its right to investigate public figures.

The involvement of both the BBC and Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid in this story makes it an ideologue’s dream. The deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson MP, said the case proved it was “time this taxpayer-funded safe haven for perverts was made a subscription service”. Far-left Labour MP Richard Burgon, a prominent supporter of former leader Jeremy Corbyn, advised “Don’t trust The Sun”.

It’s thoroughly dispiriting, though hardly surprising, that such high-profile figures would adopt positions on this matter based on politics rather than morality. However, for as long as it remains the case that this is not a matter for police, it will remain largely a moral matter.

This truth carries with it difficult questions for all involved.

I’m fully in favour of a brash, insolent tabloid press but I doubt anyone at The Sun would enthusiastically make the case that the paper has handled this story at all well. This was the sort of botched job that blows back on all news media, increasing calls for stricter regulations.

The BBC’s handling of matters has been equally poor. The corporation’s failure, as soon as The Sun’s story broke, to admit that it was pursuing separate allegations against Edwards looks now like a deliberate attempt to delay the need to answer questions. It suited the BBC for the idea that The Sun’s reporting had entered the realms of fiction to take hold.

I’m not sure I’d trust anyone who didn’t feel for Huw Edwards and his family, right now. But sympathy for them does not mean this matter should go away.

The findings of the BBC’s investigation into the allegations made by Huw Edwards’s younger colleagues remain fully in the public interest.

There is more of this grim but legitimate story to come.

BBC presenter: The Sun and BBC both at fault even if Huw Edwards story has legitimate public interest - Euan McColm