Tim Davie’s dramatic resignation as BBC director general has ignited fierce debate among Independent readers about the future of the broadcaster – and what it will take to restore public trust after the Panorama controversy and Donald Trump’s threat of legal action.
Many saw Davie’s departure, alongside that of BBC News chief Deborah Turness, as a defining moment.
Some argued it should mark the start of a wider reckoning over editorial standards and impartiality, urging the BBC to return to its founding ideals of integrity and public service.
Others said the resignations reflected an organisation too easily cowed by political pressure, warning that capitulating to Trump’s threats would damage press freedom and embolden future attacks.
Largely, our community defended the BBC’s global role and the quality of its reporting, insisting that one mistake should not overshadow its value.
For most, the key question was whether Davie’s exit will bring renewal – or accelerate decline.
Here’s what you had to say:
BBC channels are unrepresentative
This is an ideal juncture for the BBC to decide to serve its paying public better.
Over 80 per cent of viewers of BBC1 and BBC3 are over 65, and therefore both channels are unrepresentative.
When it’s Wimbledon fortnight, you get coverage on BBC2 and BBC1 simultaneously – overkill.
Glastonbury is worse when you get coverage on three radio stations and three television channels simultaneously.
I firmly believe the public should have a body created by legislation that helps the BBC spend our money so there is always something for everyone.
Move on
The BBC made a mistake. Apologise and move on.
The BBC is essential in this current climate. Its World Service is viewed and listened to across the world. Content is made for global markets.
We had our own national water companies, national energy system, council homes, airline, BP, GPO/BT etc. but sold them off, and look at the state we are in now.
The state broadcaster does a great job on the whole. It needs re-structuring to ensure mistakes are less likely to happen.
The UK is being intimidated
There's a word to explain all this – tarify. It means to intimidate a country or organisation within it by threatening serious economic consequences. The British government and the BBC are clearly "tarified" of the irascible, unpredictable and often vindictive Donald Trump. The only way to deal with this kind of thing is to stiffen the backbone and resist.
This is not to imply that the BBC can do no wrong – corrections need to be made – but compared to the garbage one sees coming out of some American news sites, the BBC can justifiably hold up its head with some degree of pride.
Panorama was dishonest
What Panorama did was dishonest, and we should not expect our public service broadcaster to be dishonest. Does any more need saying?
The perpetrator should have been fired, and those in charge should have apologised. There are people of integrity in this country, but they don't seem to be having much of a say.
The BBC does a good job in some fields. Look how popular David Attenborough is – when he is presenting a programme, there isn't anyone jumping around like a madman, there isn't blaring music, there aren't idiotic graphics, with the screen switching from long focus to short focus in a psychedelic fashion.
Now turn to Newsnight. I am not the slightest interested in Victoria Derbyshire's views, and I am not interested in her being angry on my behalf. The BBC should give proportionate attention to what should be concerning us. I know from my sources that there is a lot of interest in proportional representation in the political area. Why is that rarely covered? Why does Farage get uncritical coverage day after day?
Leads with its chin
I am a full-on supporter of the BBC. If nothing else, the mindless ads on other channels drive me mad. But it does sometimes lead with its chin. Why do a problematic edit of Trump's speech when there was already plenty of evidence that he was indeed trying to stoke mass insurrection? What conceivable benefit did it have? Sometimes programme makers are too clever for their own good.
The son of a close friend works in this field, and his company has done work for the BBC. He told me that the problem is that each factual programme has to have an agreed "narrative," which is predetermined in the setting-up discussions, and the task is to provide evidence for that narrative. Ambiguity, equivocation, doubt, and contrary evidence are not welcomed. And to ensure the required seamless garment is delivered, some shortcuts – particularly with regard to editing – are taken. Like I said, too clever for their own good.
Founding ideals
The BBC needs to go back to basics and rediscover the ideals it was founded on. John Reith was a man of high moral principles who founded and steered the BBC through its early years. Sadly, the BBC seems to have strayed from these ideals.
Turning point
I do hope that this becomes a turning point in the BBC’s approach to impartiality. I remember a time when I lay great store by what the BBC said and showed, but since 2015, I lost my faith in its impartiality.
The BBC has been so patently and demonstrably biased in its reporting.
I do hope that I get back to trusting the BBC. The quality of many of its programmes is still superb. The exit of Tim should be an opportunity for a new beginning. But why is Samir Shah still there?
A clear-out is needed
Those responsible should go as well, not just the people at the top. We need an impartial, truthful broadcaster which maintains editorial standards, conducts proper investigative journalism, and understands what is happening in the country.
To this end, we need to stop long interviews of the "Woman writes book"/"Man does dance" variety and stop endless plugs for trashy programmes starring talentless individuals. Stick to the basics, stick to the truth, and the BBC will have a future. Do anything else, and it will be joining the ranks of pay-per-view TV.
BBC should remain objective
The BBC should be objective, not left- or right-wing. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of Trump. The clip put out was the fake news that he is always complaining about.
Whoever was responsible should be immediately sacked for bringing the organisation into disrepute, but that is not necessarily the director.
It seems he has been brought down by a rogue editor, and done the honourable thing after the event, but why wasn't it picked up and censored before it went out?
American influence
For me, this entire episode illustrates the extent of American leverage over the UK. In effect, the US has been able to exert enough pressure to bring about the director’s resignation – an outcome I doubt would have occurred had the politician in question come from a smaller or less influential state.
The interventions of the Trump administration and its allies in British politics – whether you agree with their positions or not (in my case, I often do) – have been both powerful and consequential.
The episode underlines, once again, how deeply the UK remains beholden to American power following Brexit.
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here.
