Blog closing
This blog is now closing. Below is our full story:
Claims of “serious and systemic problems” in the corporation’s coverage of issues including Donald Trump, Gaza and trans issues, which led to the resignation of its director general, Tim Davie, have been disputed by a former adviser to the corporation.
Deborah Turness, the head of BBC News, also resigned after the allegations by Michael Prescott, a PR executive and former independent external adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee (EGSC).
Prescott’s memo, sent to the BBC’s board and eventually leaked to the Daily Telegraph, contained a series of claims of bias in relation to issues including Trump and racial diversity.
He claimed the corporation’s leaders had ignored his concerns or not properly followed through on mistakes.
However, speaking to the Commons culture, media and sport committee, an adviser who served alongside Prescott as an external EGSC adviser said Prescott’s view did not provide the full picture and was his “personal account”.
Read more here:
Committee questioning has come to an end
The session has come to an end. We will bring you any major updates or reactions as they come in.
Shah has committed to staying in post. He says: “My job now is to steady the ship and put it on an even keel.
“I’m not somebody who walks away from a problem.
“I think my job is not to fix it and lead the search for a new director-general.”
Shah says role of director-general is “too big for one person”.
Shah says he is “inclined” to restructure the BBC’s executive after commenting that the role of director-general is “too big for one person”.
“In my view [the role of director-general] is too big for one person.”
He continued: “The BBC needs to be the beacon of impartial journalism, it absolutely does.
“We are living in a world over the next 10 years where people need to trust us and we need to have focused our journalism.
“I’m inclined to restructure the executive in the future, once we get a new director.
“The lens through which we examine potential candidates for the director-general includes the idea that there will be a deputy director-general, who would be focused on journalism.”
Shah also responds to the question about the broadcaster appealing to Reform UK voters.
He says the BBC news division must “reflect the point of view across the country”
“We do a lot of research on various demographics. We want to, for example, we need to make sure levels of trust are just as high among young people and this is normal business.
Referring to a geographical survey, he said: “One of the things about geography which I’m very exercised by is that support for the BBC declines as you go farther north. This is a very, very big issue for the BBC,” he said.
Gibb and Shah are asked about plans for the broadcaster to appeal Reform UK voters and whether there will be “something similar planned for Green voters”.
Gibb says there was concern about hostility towards the BBC from Reform UK voters, compared to Labour voters who, according to him, are largely supportive of the broadcaster.
Gibb says BBC exec are “massively alert”, adding: “This issue is something that’s very close to my heart, [the] issue about allocation of airtime to different political parties”
Shah has backed Gibb again, calling him “interested in impartiality and accuracy” after being asked whether he is “overly politically biased”.
Gibb says he has no intention of resigning
Gibb says he has no intention of resigning after being asked whether he would be stepping down.
“There’s been lots of stories that are just completely untrue about me in relation to influencing the day to day output,” he said.
“I don’t see I’ve done anything wrong. I’m a passionate defender of the BBC. I’m being a passionate defender of its values.”
Updated
Gibb is asked whether is was “sorry that Deborah [Turness] resigned”.
In response, he said: “I was disappointed that that we ended up in this, in the situation that she ended up resigning.”
Shah is asked whether there is “a problem with leaks in the BBC at the moment” after the internal dossier that sparked the recent troubles for the broadcaster was leaked to the Telegraph.
Shah says he has “initiated a leak inquiry”, adding: “We are a journalistic operation, and it doesn’t surprise me that we leak.”
Updated
Gibb says he has 'impartiality through my bones'
Gibb said he has become “weaponised” before telling the committee that he is “hugely impartial”.
He said: “I think there couldn’t be a bigger mismatch between the way I’m presented in some quarters, in relation to my attitude.
“I think I’ve become weaponised in terms of how I’m perceived.
“Everyone who knows me knows that I’m hugely impartial. I have friends across the political divide.
“You know, I have impartiality through my bones.”
Updated
Gibb says ‘board coup’ description is ‘most ridiculous charge’
MP: Sir Robbie, there’s been a lot of speculation in the media, including from BBC journalists, saying that what’s happened to the BBC over the last couple of weeks was a board-level orchestrated coup, if you like. Can you just address that for me now?
Gibb: “It’s up there as on the most ridiculous charges … it’s complete nonsense. It’s also deeply offensive to fellow board members who, as, Samir was saying, are people of great standing in different fields. The idea that somehow I had, I’m not even sure what the charges are, to be honest.
Thomson also says she certainly does nothing that “anything I saw in the last couple of weeks as being a coup for any kind of orchestrated board level”.
Updated
Shah steps in to defend Gibb
The BBC Chair has also spoken up amid this grilling of Gibb’s political connections.
“Every week I spoke to Robbie. He was the head of that [political] department. And not one week did he ever play any politics or anything.
“I think it is unfair to say that Robbie comes with he’s principally a journalist. He was a journalist running the whole BBC political journalism, and he did that with great skill and great, commitment to impartiality. That’s my view about it.”
MPs move questioning focus on to Sir Robbie Gibb
They are asking the former communications director for Theresa May and GB News co-founder about his “strong political convictions”.
He is asked how he manages his own biases given his role on a standards panel.
He says as a former BBC news producer for 25 years, who was also head of BBC Westminster, “I have a long track record. I primarily want to be defined as my commitment to the BBC not my two years working for Theresa May.”
He says he had impartiality drummed into him as a BBC reporter and that he has been mischaracterised in press reports. He says he was taught to leave politics at the door, and praised the BBC for instating a strong social media policy preventing its news journalists from showing their political leanings.
“I’m absolutely delighted to come here and give an opportunity to set out my case where hopefully I can demonstrate that the perception [on my political leanings] is actually wrong.”
Updated
Board member Thomson says she felt Panorama edit was misleading, while News argued it was ok
Another board member, Caroline Thomson, facing questions alongside Shah and Robbie Gibb, also steps in.
She says she and Shah and other board members felt the Panorama edit did constitute a breach of editorial guidelines, while the BBC News team did not.
“There was a continuing and sharp difference of opinion between, the chairman and me and others on the board, with the director of news about whether we were going to apologise just for the edit or whether the impact of the edit and indeed the position of the Proud Boys material had given a misleading impression. We felt that it had.
“And News [department] continued to maintain that actually the impression given despite the edit, was correct, because the gist of the speech by Trump had, for example, the use of the word ‘fight’ 15 times and only talked peace once. They felt that it was 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.”
Updated
Shah is pressed again as to why there was such a “big delay” in the board replying to the editorial error in the Panorama edit.
An MP suggests it was due to “chaos on the board” and “division” among members as to how to respond.
Shah says it was not chaos, and that he replied to the committee within the deadline specified.
“I wanted to investigate what went wrong and get it right, and I needed to make sure the board were with me and we discussed this. I don’t think there was any chaos or difficulty there.”
MP: “As soon as the Telegraph started publishing this memo and and its coverage of it, there was just a vacuum in the BBC for nearly a week where there was no comment given in any meaningful way to the substance of it. Why didn’t you get on the front foot with either apology or some kind of defence of what would have happened?”
Shah: “Precisely for the question, you’ve just raised, I needed to understand what went wrong and to get the right answer. Getting the right answer was really important.”
The BBC Chair appears to be sticking to the answer he gave two weeks ago to the committee and also to his own staff; that he and the board took their time to come back with a response because they needed to check the story’s details. During that period, the director general and head of news resigned.
Second panel session begins with focus on the Chair
Lawmakers are now interviewing the BBC Chair Samir Shah, who has faced immense pressure and criticism from BBC staff that he has not stepped up to defend their journalism properly.
The first two questions out of the gate:
MP: Did you and the rest of the BBC board block the head of news [Deborah Turness] from apologising for the Panorama programme on the 10th of November?
Shah goes on to give a long answer detailing the timeline of what he and the board did when the Panorama complaint was raised. He does not appear to answer the question as to whether he blocked Turness from addressing the Panorama edit.
Updated
First panel session over
The first panel has concluded its questioning of the two external advisers to the standards committee. Michael Prescott was grilled over whether he himself showed bias in the editorial concerns he’d raised in his memo, the dossier which triggered the crisis.
Caroline Daniel repeatedly offered a robust defence of the BBC’s editorial inquiries, saying the organisation was rigorous in examining complaints and was constantly interrogating if a line had been crossed. She said it’s the most scrutinised news organisation in the UK and the constant self-examination was a sign of a “very healthy” organisation.
Response to misleading BBC Verify story didn't go far enough, says Prescott
Prescott has been questioned again by lawmakers on whether his concerns all came from a certain bias.
He pivots away from the US election story and raises a complaint on a BBC Verify story which alleged that people from migrant backgrounds in the UK were being charged more from car insurance. The report didn’t take into proper account other market factors, Prescott said.
He says it’s a prime example of BBC News departments not responding properly when editorial concerns are raised, and what he seems to be alluding to is, a lack of questioning given the “cultural biases” he says are a problem in the newsroom.
“Of all the people across the BBC who heard that report, was there no professional scepticism? Jeez, we better have another look at that. This was multiple levels of failure and that’s why I put it in the memo.”
He says the response was “just not enough. This was a horrendous and embarrassing error one, by the way, that could have damaged community relations in this country.
“I mean, if you’re a black teenager sitting at home all day listening to that stuff, how would it make you feel?And it was all untrue.”
He says the BBC should have had “a full on inquest”.
Caroline Daniel says from her experience on the standards committee there was always active discussion on editorial bias.
“It’s put the spotlight on issues of impartiality, which in my view, the BBC was actively engaging with on a regular basis.
“The fact that the committee was extremely robust, discussions were had, research was commissioned on a regular basis, and it was challenging research, I think that’s a really healthy organisation and a very healthy debate.”
Prescott memo did not reflect full report on BBC's US election coverage - other adviser
Caroline Daniel says she thinks her fellow former adviser’s memo “does not provide a comprehensive view of what was in the David Grossman report.”
She is sitting right next to Prescott while giving her assessment of what she says was “a personal account rather than a comprehensive review of everything that was covered in the (standards) committee.”
MP: “What do you think was missing?”
Daniel: “I think the David Grossman report covered a lot of ground, significant errors, like the coverage of the election and the use of polling, issues like who is being represented on programs, issues of impartiality.
There was obviously a BBC response to it as well, which was also significant. They did engage with each of the details of the David Grossman report.
Panorama inaccuracy does not undercut broader BBC principles of accuracy, Daniel says
Caroline Daniel, the other external adviser to the standards committee alongside Prescott has also stepped into defend the Panorama edit.
“Obviously, issues of trust are foundational to the BBC. It is very important that they take inaccuracies extremely seriously,” she says.
She adds that it was “regrettable that this wasn’t recognised at the time” and that probably by the time Panorama was alerted to it, it was too late for the BBC to take practical action – more than a year after the episode had been broadcast.
She also stresses that David Grossman’s 20-page report on the US election “was really about a much broader, comprehensive view about US election coverage.”
“It wasn’t to try and micromanage a particular programme, edit an individual issue out of principle… I personally think that the BBC did take issues of impartiality and accuracy incredibly seriously. It’s the reason that the one of the most trusted news brands in the world.”
Prescott says Panorama edit 'probably' does not damage Trump
Prescott has been pressed again by Liberal Democrat MP Cameron Thomas to answer whether he agrees with Trump’s argument that the 12-second video edit of his January 6 speech damages his reputation.
Thomas: “Do you agree that Donald Trump’s reputation has been tarnished by this documentary?”
Prescott: “Probably not”.
He offers a rueful smile.
Updated
Committee questions Prescott on his own bias in leaked memo
MP Rupa Huq questions Prescott on his own political bias in his memo, noting that many of his concerns appear to come from a certain slant.
She points out some of the language he used are common phrases used in right-wing ideological circles, or that experts he references are “not completely neutral people”.
Prescott says that he didn’t have a “tick list”, and his memo just reflected reports “commissioned by the entire (standards) committee” for editorial adviser David Grossman to look into.
“We never knew what he would come back with. And if you take American presidential race, for example, it did come back saying, well, actually, it’s a little unbalanced.”
Huq says she watched the whole 70-minute Panorama documentary last night, and the 12-second edit does not change what the topic was about, which she says Trump would probably like because it includes many MAGA supporters.
Updated
Prescott is asked if he agrees with Trump that the BBC documentary constitutes defamation, given the US president has been indicted over the January 6 riots.
“I can’t think of anything I agree with Donald Trump on,” Prescott replies.
Watch the questioning live
Just a reminder to readers, the live feed from the House of Commons session can be viewed right here in the stream embedded at the top of this blog.
Glastonbury apology a sign of improvement- Daniel
Daniel however, the other external adviser, says there have been improvements including after systemic reviews on certain subject matters.
She gives the example of Tim Davie’s immediate response after the BBC’s live broadcast of Bob Vylan’s set at Glastonbury Festival where the singer chanted “Death to the IDF”.
I think that was a speedy apology, and rightly so. I think there are probably many other examples where the BBC has apologised, in the last few years.
But I would say I think the real issue is the culture of the BBC in terms of the level of attention paid to these issues. And again, in my view, the fact that we had a robust committee to debate issues of impartiality, the fact that we had David Grossman being commissioned to ask questions about the BBC’s coverage in order to help inform future coverage, was actually really significant.
I think there are a few organisations when you actually have that level of auditing internally on a regular basis, and this is an ongoing issue. This is not one and done.
Updated
Editorial mistakes weren't being thoroughly addressed- Prescott
Much of the criticism from Prescott is around what he says is BBC News departments failing to throughly address editorial mistakes when pointed out by the panel.
What I was frequently seeing was that the BBC’s idea of dealing with something was to change the editors around, tweak the written guidelines, but there was never, it seemed to me, any willingness at exactly what went wrong and whether there were deep implications.”
He has described some of the responses as “defensive” and he says there’s a problem of some “cultural forces” within the BBC, without specifying what exactly.
When questioned further by the committee, he mentions: “You’ve got urban rural bias, possibly a London focus, London values versus values outside of the capital”.
Updated
'No idea' how memo was leaked - Prescott
Prescott is questioned on how his memo of editorial concerns was leaked to the Telegraph report.
“I have no idea”, he says.
His dossier pointed out failings in the editing of a Trump speech, allegations of bias in its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and trans issues.
He’d said that he had also sent the memo off to the Ofcom regulator after sending it to the BBC board to highlight what he thought were editorial concerns.
He says the memo was “all my own work” and that he’d not written it with anyone else.
Updated
'I’m a centrist dad' - Prescott
Prescott is questioned on his own personal biases and refers to reports about Robbie Gibb’s Conservative background.
The Committee chair has been asking if one personality was more dominant than the other members on the standards committee. It has been alleged that Gibb’s political views steered the panel one direction.
“You’re asking about my preferences. I am no ideological soul mate of Robbie Gibbs. I’m a centrist dad.”
He is asked whether the fact his company received more than £100,000 in donations from a conservative Republican donor influenced him. He says he did want the BBC to be completely impartial.
Updated
BBC took impartiality 'extremely seriously' says external adviser
Caroline Daniel is also asked about her views on editorial bias.
“My experience was the BBC took issues of impartiality extremely seriously,” she said.
She says in her three years involved on the standards committee, it was a “continuous process, an active debate” on issues on individual daily programmes, “across thousands of hours of coverage”.
She said there was always healthy debate, and the BBC was always open to discussing if the right line had been taken.
“Was the BBC willing to have a proper conversation, debate and actually take action? In my view, yes.”
Updated
BBC 'not institutionally biased', says Prescott
The committee asks Prescott whether he thinks the BBC is institutionally biased?
“I don’t,” says Prescott. “Let’s be very clear. Tons of stuff the BBC does is world class factual programming… I think the standard of BBC Westminster is exemplary, and that’s why I keep saying these were incipient problems. We were finding the odd problem here and there.”
He says the crucial thing was that when problems were spotted, they appeared to have systemic causes that were not addressed.
He says “the root of his disagreement and slight concern even today” was that the BBC appeared to not be treating the problems as having systemic causes.
“There’s real work that needs to be done at the BBC.”
Updated
Prescott says he was 'troubled' by problems 'not being tackled properly'
Prescott is the first to respond, acknowledging “the saga does begin with that memo that I wrote”, which he says he wrote because “let me be clear, because I am a strong supporter of the BBC.”
What troubled me was that during my three years on the BBC’s standards committee, we kept seeing incipient problems, which I thought were not being tackled properly. And indeed, I thought the problems were getting worse.
He says in the era of fake news, the BBC can become the provider of news for the entire world.
“I would like it to happen, but it can only happen successfully if the BBC, I think, does a better job addressing these incipient and growing problems of the type that the Standards Committee kept identifying. And that’s why I tried to alert the BBC board to what was going on. And indeed thereafter sent a memo on to Ofcom and DCMs. There was no ideology at play here, no party politics.”
Committee session has kicked off
The Select Committee has begun their questioning.
Michael Prescott and Caroline Daniel, the external advisers to the editorial and standards committee, will be the first to face quizzing from lawmakers.
Key questions to be answered
Many people will be closely watching today’s proceedings to understand what went on at the BBC board level. Some key questions from the Guardian’s media editor Michael Savage:
To what extent were Prescott’s concerns ignored?
After his role as external adviser ended over the summer, Prescott sent his memo to the BBC board in September. He said he was doing so because his concerns of bias had been ignored.The BBC has apologised for an edit of a Trump speech raised in the memo, but Shah has also claimed Prescott’s memo was a partial and personal account.So how many issues that Prescott outlined have not been dealt with? Daniel may have a view on whether Prescott is right to say he was ignored.
Is there evidence of an internal rightwing campaign against the BBC?
Some in the BBC believe that while Prescott’s memo pointed to real failings, it was part of a longer-running attempt by like-minded figures to pressure the corporation from the right. They point to the fact that many of Prescott’s concerns chimed with those of Gibb. Prescott’s memo was based on research carried out by David Grossman, a longstanding journalist who had once confronted a colleague over bias. Who suggested what Grossman should be researching? Was there a pre-existing relationship between Gibb and Prescott?
BBC to add deputy director general role and expand standards panel
In response to the crisis, the BBC is preparing several new measures, my colleague Michael Savage has been reporting:
The BBC is planning to overhaul the way it investigates editorial concerns, in a move that will dilute the influence of a Conservative figure accused of trying to sway its political impartiality.
A new deputy director general post is also expected to be created to aid Tim Davie’s successor as director general, after concerns that the task of overseeing the corporation has become too big for one person.
The measures are being prepared as the BBC reacts to a crisis that led to the sudden resignations of Davie and Deborah Turness, the head of BBC News.
Board member quit after being ‘cut out’ of talks over liberal bias claims
Shumeet Banerji resigned from the board on Friday after saying he was cut out of the discussions that led to the shock resignation of director general Tim Davie.
The tech industry executive was out of the country on the crucial days before the departure of Davie and the head of BBC News, Deborah Turness.
The pair quit after tense board discussions over how to respond to allegations of liberal bias made by Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee (EGSC). Prescott left that role in the summer.
Banerji cited what he called “governance issues” at the top of the corporation.
In a letter, he said he had not been consulted about the events leading up to the departures of Davie and Turness.
Updated
Who are the key BBC figures facing questioning?
Michael Prescott: The former editorial adviser on the editorial guidelines and standards panel, whose memo raising concerns about an edit of a Donald Trump speech was leaked to the Telegraph newspaper in early November, prompting questions over editorial standards.
The Guardian understands that conflict among the board in responding to the memo is what led to the resignations of Davie and Turness. Prescott has not issued any public statement yet. This will be the first time we hear from him.
Robbie Gibb: A board member appointed under the former Conservative government, who is also a member of this pivotal Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC). Since the resignations, several politicians and a staff union have called for his removal from the board, alleging he wielded improper political influence.
Samir Shah: The BBC Chair has been under pressure for the board’s delayed response to the editorial issues of the Panorama edit. He has denied any improper political interference on the board as a “fanciful” notion.
Caroline Thomson: A long-term board member and former Chief Operating Officer, who had served for 12 years as a member of the BBC’s Executive Committee.
Caroline Daniel: A former editorial adviser who was in the role alongside Prescott.
Updated
The BBC has been in crisis since the sudden resignation of its director general, Tim Davie, and the head of news, Deborah Turness.
Their decision shocked many in New Broadcasting House, but what emerged in the hours after their departure was talk of a rightwing “coup”, board splits and crippling delays.
Their departure followed a disagreement over how to respond to a memo from a former external adviser Michael Prescott, in which he claimed there were “serious and systemic problems” at the corporation.
Prescott alleged liberal bias in its coverage of the US election, Gaza and racial diversity and transgender issues.
MPs on the culture, media and sport committee are examining Prescott’s claims this afternoon. They will hear from Prescott and Robbie Gibb, the Conservative-supporting BBC board member accused of raising repeated claims of liberal bias.
Also appearing are Samir Shah, the BBC chair, Caroline Daniel, who was an external adviser alongside Prescott, and Caroline Thomson, another BBC board member.
Welcome
Hello and welcome to our live coverage of a parliamentary committee’s questioning of key BBC figures involved in the broadcaster’s editorial standards crisis.
The BBC is facing a potential billion-dollar lawsuit from the US president, Donald Trump, over a misleading edit of his January 6 speech in a BBC documentary.
Disputes over how the broadcaster might respond to that error led to the shock resignations of both its director general and head of news earlier this month.
The BBC’s chair as well as other key figures in the row are due to be questioned over their actions, at a hearing this afternoon in the House of Common’s culture, media and sport committee.
