Was Prescott happy that his memo had found its way to the media? “No, gosh!“, Michael Prescott slams his flat hands on the table to reinforce his denial. The former journalist has been sitting opposite parliamentarians in the British House of Commons for almost forty minutes. They question him about the critical memo that he wrote as a BBC advisor about the functioning of the broadcaster. The text was recently leaked to TheTelegraphits publication was like a domino that plunged the BBC into misery.
So no, he would have preferred to see it differently. He had hoped, he says, that his areas for improvement “quietly, fairly” could be done. When the chairman of the media, culture and sports committee welcomes Prescott, she summarizes again: the memo was a “catalyst” for the resignation of the general manager and the news CEO, after which a third board member followed on Friday. And the BBC now faces a lawsuit from US President Donald Trump. He demands a billion dollars.
In Prescott’s memo, he shared his concerns about – in his opinion – one-sided reporting on, for example, transgender care or Israel’s role as an aggressor. The former journalist emphasizes once again in the hearing that he has no political agenda and, when asked, calls himself a “centrist dad”, and regrets that of all things TheTelegraph came out with his memo: the newspaper has a decidedly right-wing signature.
Prescott also criticized a documentary that spliced together words from Trump’s speech, making it insufficiently clear that he had not spoken them that way. It therefore seemed as if the president was calling for violence on the day his supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington. The BBC has apologized to Trump, but he appears to want to continue with his lawsuit.
Disagreement
The British House of Commons organized a hearing on Monday. The representatives initially only had questions about the memo, but that expanded to concerns about the BBC’s governance. After the publication of TheTelegraph the broadcaster remained silent, the organization “did not want or could not” respond, summarizes Member of House and committee chairman Caroline Dinenage.
Why did the broadcaster let things get so out of hand, the members of the House of Commons wonder. The idea is that a quick, adequate response could probably have extinguished the fire. British media recently reported about opposition: the now resigned CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, wanted to respond quickly, but encountered too much resistance.
The chairman of the BBC, Samir Shah, confirmed in the hearing that the board members could not reach an agreement. The board members differed in their views on what exactly they should apologize for – if they even wanted to do so.
Turness felt that expressing regret for the unclear merging of the quotes was sufficient, because the editors felt that the documentary did justice to the essence of the speech. Some board members, including Robbie Gibb, had a fundamentally different view: he saw a serious break with the BBC’s editorial policy, and felt a more generous apology was necessary. Shah adds that a response must be careful and well researched.
Substantive interference
Chairman Shah on Monday stood up for the much-discussed BBC board member Sir Robbie Gibb, a journalist who became spokesperson for Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, only to return to the BBC. In recent years, several journalists have indicated that they have suffered from substantive interference. Liberal Democrats party leader Ed Davey has called for Gibb’s resignation.
In the hearing, Gibb responds publicly for the first time. He has “impartiality in his bones” and rejects reports about his substantive involvement.
The job of general manager is “too big for one person”, chairman Shah said on Monday evening. So from now on the BBC will work with two directors: there will be a deputy. The broadcaster previously had a deputy director, writes the BBC. Another intervention: the organization will review the effectiveness of its editorial guidelines and standards committee.
Also read
The fuss surrounding Trump’s misquoting hits the BBC at a vulnerable time
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 items give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.