Yesterday, as the BBC lost a potential candidate for the next DG in Charlotte Moore, another, Deborah Turness, has now spilt indelible ink on her CV.
The onlie begetter of BBC Verify has had to apologise for fatal flaws in the making of indie documentary Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone, and in the decision to broadcast it. The champion of transparency and trust has had nine days to verify these flaws; outsiders have done it faster for her.
In October last year, Deborah suggested critics of BBC News' coverage of the conflict were stuck in social media bubbles: “If there is one thing we have learned more than any other in the past year, it’s that such is the depth of the polarisation in this war, so many have come to see impartial reporting as being somehow against them, because it does not solely reflect their view of the conflict”. This stubbornness, she said, was made worse by "social media algorithms and echo chambers". It was pesky social media that exposed many of the errors in this month's programme.
It's hard to imagine that Deborah hasn't by now made up her mind who's to blame for this debacle, and she's put some candidates in front of an oncoming bus by saying the BBC didn't get answers to questions about the boy-narrator's family, but went ahead with the transmission anyway.
Samir Shah and Tim Davie have again turned to Peter Johnston, former BBC Northern Ireland boss, for a time-buying 'full investigation'. That may have to be followed by disciplinary hearings, unless someone up the chain takes responsibility and cuts a deal.
Well, DT may still be right about social media and its bubbles; it's too huge & various a phenomenon for anyone to be categorical about. People in one bubble can be miles from reality while those in another ask very pertinent questions.
ReplyDeleteOne question is, will assistant heads roll, or is this big enough to fell DT herself? The Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand business - which bears comparison with this blunder - toppled the Controller of Radio 2, after all.
Another is, why does the BBC seem to be unable to manage independent producers properly? My guess from long experience is that the BBC is unable to manage anything properly. On the whole, the reason why things don't go wrong more often is because staffers tend to manage themselves; there's a strong ethos. Hard questions are not asked because the ethos promotes a sense that they don't need to be: a sense of security. But when you're dealing with outsiders, that sense is false.