Senior figures running and advising the BBC have been questioned about the crisis at the broadcaster, which has been threatened with a $1bn lawsuit from Donald Trump.
The BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, and the head of news, Deborah Turness, resigned this month after controversy triggered by the leak of a memo written by a former external adviser.
Their departures followed a disagreement over how to respond to the memo from Michael Prescott, which claimed there were “serious and systemic problems” at the corporation and alleged liberal bias in its coverage of the US election, Gaza and racial diversity and transgender issues.
Coverage of the memo and its consequences have triggered internal talk of a rightwing “coup”, board splits and crippling delays.
Here, we look at the key points from Monday’s session of the culture, media and sport committee.
BBC is ‘not institutionally biased’
Prescott was clear that he did not think the BBC was “institutionally biased” towards any particular agenda.
However, he did say that during his three years as an adviser he witnessed “incipient problems” that were getting worse and seemed to have “systemic causes”.
“I wrote that memo because I am a strong supporter of the BBC,” Prescott said. “The root of my disagreement and slight concern even today is that the BBC was not – and I hope they will change – treating these as having systemic causes. There’s real work that needs to be done at the BBC.”
Prescott insisted that “there was no ideology at play here, no party politics” behind his memo and that he was not behind its leak.
He said he was not pleased to see it become public and suggested the fact the Telegraph got hold of it meant it was not taken in good faith by people further to the left on the political spectrum.
Memo ‘not comprehensive account’ of internal reviews
One area of contention is to what extent Prescott’s memo fairly reflects internal reports drafted for the BBC’s standards committee by the longstanding journalist David Grossman on internal editorial issues.
The BBC chair, Samir Shah, has described the Prescott memo as a “partial” and “personal” account of internal discussions.
Caroline Daniel, who like Prescott is a former editorial adviser to the BBC’s standards committee, said on Monday that the memo “does not provide a comprehensive view of what was in the David Grossman report” specifically on the BBC’s Panorama documentary about Trump.
She did not go so far as to describe it as biased, but said it was Prescott’s “personal account”.
Prescott said he accepted this characterisation by Daniel and argued that his memo was never meant to be comprehensive – instead he described it as “edited highlights intended to get action” from the BBC board.
Panorama documentary on Trump ‘not part of a bigger problem’
The most explosive aspect of the memo was its section on the BBC’s Panorama documentary on Trump.
The programme was criticised for splicing together two parts of Trump’s speech, which the corporation has since said gave “the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action”.
But Prescott suggested he did not view it as the most important part of his report, saying it could have been “a weird accident or someone working under pressure”. “I don’t think it’s a bigger problem,” he said.
Prescott said he asked for an internal review on the Panorama programme to be carried out by Grossman after he watched and compared it with a programme about Kamala Harris, which he felt was less critical.
But asked whether he believed Trump’s reputation had been tarnished by the Panorama documentary – as the US president has claimed – Prescott said: “Probably not.”
His opinion may prove helpful to the BBC, which has set out five main arguments in a letter to Trump’s legal team about why it does not believe there is a basis for a defamation claim.
BBC board clashed over extent of apology
It was disclosed that there was a disagreement at the highest level about whether the Panorama documentary had given viewers a “misleading impression” of Trump’s speech.
Caroline Thomson, a member of the BBC board, said that she, Shah and others felt the edit had done so and therefore constituted a breach of editorial guidelines – while the BBC News team did not.
“There was a continuing and sharp difference of opinion between the chairman, me and others on the board, and the director of news about whether we were going to apologise just for the edit or whether the impact of the edit … had given a misleading impression. We felt that it had,” she told MPs.
“And News [department] continued to maintain that actually the impression given despite the edit was correct because the gist of the speech by Trump … For example, the use of the word ‘fight’ 15 times and peace once. They felt that the edit was justified, but it should have been a more transparent edit.
“We felt that the edit had led to a more profound problem. And indeed, your quotation of the editorial guidelines is absolutely right. We felt it violated them.”
BBC chair defends Robbie Gibb
The row has put a spotlight on the influence of Robbie Gibb, the Conservative-appointed board member who is a former director of communications to Theresa May.
Under questioning from MPs, Gibb argued that he had been “weaponised in terms of how I’m perceived” and insisted that he had “impartiality through my bones”. He said he had no intention of resigning his role.
In an attempt to demonstrate that he intervenes from a variety of perspectives, Gibb recalled an instance where he had flagged internally how a BBC story about rail strikes lacked a union perspective by giving only commuters’ views about the disruption.
Shah repeatedly came to Gibb’s defence describing him as “interested in impartiality and accuracy” and saying that while he led the BBC’s political output he did so with “great skill and great commitment to impartiality”.
Gibb and Thomson also strongly pushed back at claims that the departures of Davie and Turness were the result of a “board coup” or “orchestrated effort”.
Davie had a ‘blind spot’ – but director general role ‘too big’ for one person
Prescott said he believed Davie was a “supreme talent” but that he had a “blind spot on editorial failings”.
Daniel offered a different view. She suggested Davie’s speedy response after the BBC’s live broadcast of Bob Vylan’s set at Glastonbury – where the band’s singer chanted “death to the IDF” – was a sign the corporation had improved the way it dealt with complaints over editorial matters.
But both Prescott and Daniel said they believed the BBC director general job was too large for one person.
Prescott suggested there should be an editor-in-chief working alongside the director general, while Daniel said her view was that there should be a deputy director general.
Shah agreed with their assessment that the job was “too big for one person” and said that while recruiting Davie’s successor it should be made clear that they would be supported by a deputy.
