My tuppence worth on Emily Maitlis' latest claims about political interference in BBC News output:
It's not right that there was no due process around the decision to retract Newsnight's now-infamous 'presenter monologue'. It was the correct decision. Senior managers in News could see immediately why it couldn't be allowed to stand, and they would have withdrawn it even if Number Ten had not complained. It was a clear breach of the BBC rules on impartiality; many other BBC News staff agreed, though they have followed the BBC's social media guidelines and shown restraint by not parading their views on social media (as I've now left, this is the first time I've shared my own views about this).
BBC News is right to avoid the presenter monologue format - it prizes the presenter's own views over facts and analysis, and it introduces a 'race to the bottom' where each presenter is trying to be more compelling and contrary than the last. I was opposed to them when Andrew Neil briefly did some, and I thought Emily's was a mistake for the same reason. A random dip into Twitter today reveals a GB News presenter monologue which says 'I won’t sleep at
night until there are arrests over the despotic, unscientific measures of the scamdemic.' Enough said. I know that the whole episode was very bruising for the Newsnight team, including for Emily, and so I wonder what's to be gained by revisiting it yet again.
Separately, Emily implies that Sir Robbie Gibb interfered improperly with BBC News coverage. This was not my experience. It is true that he raised issues directly with News senior managers, including with me, and that his challenges generally came from one political direction. He never overstepped the boundary in my experience, and where we disagreed he was happy to accept that views differed. Robbie had worked for many years in BBC News himself and I found his approach reflected that experience. There are differing views as to whether non-execs on the BBC Board should raise coverage issues directly with executives in News. Personally I didn't have a problem with it, but others may disagree.
I suspect this is too nuanced a take to attract much interest, which is why I've put it on here and not on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment