What the BBC does next could easily make things worse.
We have a DG/Editor-in-chief without an editorial background, and a new chairman who's convinced he's an executive chairman. Eventually both will have to face the media, about the elements of the fiasco overt which they might have some influence.
The minimum they have to bring forward is work that Lord Dyson felt was out of scope. It's clear that, if there was a proper whistleblowing policy in 1995/96, it did nothing to protect those who complained internally about the forged bank statements. So some form of reality check about process now is urgent.
Second, the convenient medical retirement of Martin Bashir, now out of range of further punishment - more detail of that narrative will have to be made public.
Third, the intervention of William needs a response - will the BBC agree to his demand that this tainted interview is never shown again ?
With revelations about Mr Bashir's many conspiracy theories, there will be others who'll demand a review of the unbroadcast elements of the interview - how much had the Princess and Martin rehearsed their themes and responses before the recording ?
Ideally, they'd like to take the weekend, and soak up the Sunday papers and political views, before a response. That will be a difficult position to hold.
Because Bashir was freelance on Panorama and not an employee he was interviewed outside of the BBC staff Disciplinary Procedure by Anne Sloman and Tony Hall. They were unaccompanied and basking in the glow of one of the worlds great scoops.
ReplyDeleteFollowing a formal procedure imposes a discipline.
Breaking BBC Editorial Guidelines is clearly a disciplinary matter as Richard Ayre quite rightly pointed out on Thursday's Panorama.
Given one of the penalties of that procedure was dismissal, it would have been a thorough process and almost certainly would have invoked a preliminary investigation stage. All those with knowledge of the facts would have been interviewed before Bashir was even called to interview.
An unintended consequence of a flawed contract policy that kept reporters off the staff, when quite rightly in the eyes of the public they were visible representatives of the BBC and its values.
Dishonesty by Bashir; poor judgement by Sloman and Hall. Having established a management line which was given to Richard Peel that those concerned with the truth and the BBC's reputation were not whistleblowers but jealous colleagues meant that the indefensible was being defended in the hope justified criticism would blow over. In my experience, rivalries between teams within current affairs were not well managed, indeed they were fuelled by the Peel PR line. The unifying factor was usually the BBC telling the truth without fear or favour whilst operating within strict Editorial Guidelines / That's the prize, not shiny awards.