One of television’s most prominent directors has accused the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, of attempting to “bully the BBC” over its coverage of Gaza, following her repeated attacks on its director general, Tim Davie.
Peter Kosminsky, the writer and director of the BBC drama Wolf Hall, claimed the government was acting like a “tinpot dictatorship” in heaping political pressure on Davie.
In a letter to Nandy, seen by the Guardian, Kosminsky cited the “ignominious history” of political interference in the BBC. He evoked the death of Dr David Kelly, the government weapons expert, who died in 2003 shortly after being revealed as the source for a BBC story stating the government “probably knew” a claim about Iraq’s weapons capabilities was not true.
“Could I respectfully suggest that you stop trying to bully the BBC, the nation’s primary public service broadcaster, over its coverage of the war in Gaza,” wrote Kosminsky, who made a docu drama about Kelly’s death in 2005.
“The last time Labour was in power, it picked a public fight with the BBC over an editorial matter. It didn’t end well for either party and a man – David Kelly – tragically died.
“I have been a Labour supporter for most of my life. It gives me no pleasure to watch this government behaving like a tinpot dictatorship, trying to pressurise a broadcaster for which it holds the purse strings. You are the current custodians of the 100-year tradition of public service broadcasting in this country. This is not the way to discharge that obligation.”
Nandy has repeatedly criticised the BBC over a Gaza documentary that failed to disclose that its child narrator was the son of a Hamas official. She also criticised its livestreaming of the punk rap group Bob Vylan at the Glastonbury festival. Bobby Vylan, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, was shown leading chants of “death, death to the IDF”, referring to the Israel Defense Forces.
Nandy personally targeted Davie in the House of Commons, warning of “a problem of leadership”. She then gave an interview questioning why no one had been fired over the failings.
Kosminsky warned Nandy about the historical precedent of political interference, pointing to the Thatcher government’s attempt to pull a 1985 documentary about Northern Ireland.
“It is not the government’s job or responsibility to police the individual editorial decisions of the BBC, or to call for the sacking of its editorial staff,” he wrote. “For its part, the BBC must ensure that its output is balanced. But this means balanced across the totality of its output.
“As a programme maker with 45 years’ experience of making controversial programmes – for all our public service broadcasters – I know it is impossible to completely balance all arguments within every individual programme. Sometimes it is a programme’s responsibility to ask awkward questions, to raise hackles.”
The strength of Nandy’s attacks has been noted by others. Richard Ayre, a former controller of editorial policy and deputy chief executive of BBC News, said last week it was “outrageous that the secretary of state lifts the phone and demands answers from the director general”.
“Maybe she’ll start lifting the phone, asking for answers from the editor of individual programmes,” he told the Beeb Watch podcast. “Governance is important. Parliament has put in place governance procedures to govern the BBC independently and fairly – and it shouldn’t be governed by politicians.”
Supporters of the BBC are concerned the corporation is running out of allies as it enters crucial talks over the renewal of its charter with the government. After a series of recent crises, Davie said last week he remained the right person to lead the broadcaster.
A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesperson said: “There have been a number of serious failures at the BBC in recent months. The secretary of state has raised these on behalf of licence fee payers who rightly expect action to be taken so that these cannot happen again.
“The BBC is operationally and editorially independent of government, and we will always defend this principle. However, there is an important distinction between being independent and being accountable.”
