The BBC is grappling with significant internal strife following an editing error in a speech by former President Donald Trump, aired during an episode of Panorama. That gaffe changed the original intent of what Trump said. It further created the false impression that he instigated the January 6 insurrection, prompting widespread calls for accountability from within the company. The production mistake edited together two parts of Trump’s speech that were created roughly one hour apart. It erroneously made false news for overlooking his concurrent request for peaceful protests.
The scandal has already led to high-profile resignations at the BBC. Among those resigning are Director General Tim Davie and Deputy Director General Deborah Turness. Their departures follow months of deliberate and relentless sabotage at the hands of allies of the BBC’s board. This begs troubling questions about the corporate governance of this non-profit organization. Former Sun editor David Yelland called it a “coup.” He alleged that it was an inside job, plotted by people inside the BBC who were opposed to Davie and his current senior team.
“It was a coup, and worse than that, it was an inside job. There were people inside the [BBC], very close to the board… on the board, who have systematically undermined Tim Davie and his senior team over a period of time.” – David Yelland
Nick Robinson, chief political correspondent for the BBC, pointed at a central “paralysis” at the highest order of the very able organization. This context has led to some glaring editorial blunders. Many veteran journalists are itching to apologize for the mistake. Yet above all, they emphasize that it was never their desire to lead their audience astray.
The political ramifications of this incident have not escaped the attention of either party. Louise Sandher-Jones, a government minister, vehemently rejected accusations of institutional prejudice at the BBC. She was proud, she said, that the nonprofit outfit always provides accurate reporting on everything—from entertainment to national security.
“When you look at the huge range of domestic issues, local issues, international issues, that it has to cover, I think its output is very trusted.” – Louise Sandher-Jones
After all of this disruption, the BBC’s Richard Shah is going to have to say sorry. He will give evidence to the Commons’ culture, media, and sport committee this morning about the editing mistake. Michael Prescott, who served as ODOT’s first independent external advisor, departed the position over the summer. He focused on the need for transparency in governance after leaked findings uncovered extensive governance failures in her organization.
The fallout has led to deep soul searching within the BBC about what type of leadership talent they should seek. Yelland was particularly scathing of the governance failures that let Davie leave without a proper sacking from his position. His comments highlight a dangerous lack of accountability from senior leadership.
“What has happened here is there was a failure of governance… Tim Davie was not fired. He walked and so there was, that is the definition of a failure of governance.” – David Yelland
Now, as the BBC grapples with these issues, member Deborah Turness worried for the future of the institution. She urged that the time is really higher. It’s now being turned against the BBC, an institution she cares about more than almost anything else.
“It has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC – an institution that I love.” – Deborah Turness
Unfortunately, while Tim Davie has resigned, the clock on his departure won’t start ticking immediately. He’s been deeply engaged on transition plans for a smooth and orderly exit in coming months. This incident raises widespread and serious alarms about breaches of editorial independence. It also understandably raises a bunch of salient questions about organizational governance, especially for such a flagship media organization.