The attempt by the BBC to close ranks against former editorial adviser Michael Prescott was clear in front of the Culture Select Committee yesterday, but riddled with inconsistencies.
Let's run round the Trump edit in isolation. I loved the moment when Samir Shah looked wistfully into the middle distance and wondered why things take so long at the BBC. It's you, chummy, I screamed. The problem was formally raised at an Editorial Guidelines meeting in January; Samir Shah, with News chief Deborah Turness alongside him, asked Global Director Jonathan Munro for a report in response to David Grossman's criticisms of coverage of the US Election. For some unexplained reason, that report didn't make the March meeting, but the row blew up at the May meeting. Again, Mr Shah told MPs, I wish on reflection that I had dealt with that more clearly at the time; he let it lie, triggering Prescott's dossier.
Yesterday, Samir Shah, Caroline Thomson, Sir Robbie Gibb all agreed with Caroline Dinenage when she read out the specific guideline that the Panorama edit breached. Yet between January and May, Deborah Turness and Jonathan Munro endorsed some peculiar position where either a) the edit reflected a greater truth that needed making simpler and stronger for the audience to understand a particular narrative or b) it was standard practice to jump edit political speeches.
Mr Prescott asked for BBC News to prove that its problems weren't systemic. It's a fair guess that the Panorama team would have been asked by Mr Munro to provide their view on the Grossman challenges. And a fair guess that whoever wrote that first draft report thought the edit was ok. And that, probably, the titular Editor of Panorama thought it was ok. And that, probably, a senior current affairs commissioner read that first draft and thought it was ok. And that Mr Munro and Ms Turness thought it was ok. Not necessarily systemic, but consistent. (The only people not asked for their opinion were the team at October Films, who still seem to have their moniker on the product, despite it effectively being an in-house programme - is someone going to explain that ?)
The day seemed long for Senior Independent Director Caroline Thomson, diagnosed with Parkinson's six years ago. She felt more should have been made of the BBC's changes to the Arabic Service, which were announced at the Editorial Standards meeting in March, before she was on board. She's now working with former Director of News Richard Sambrook on structural changes to news oversight. A bold move would be to re-appoint Michael Prescott. A better move would be to stop Sir Robbie Gibb behaving like an editor-in-chief, firing off emails about items he doesn't like. Not what a non-executive is for...
Bang on re Turness' & Munro's stance on the edit between Jan & May. They knew it was wrong - for goodness' sake, the tea-boys, the lift attendants and the cats in the alley knew it was wrong - but defended it so as not to yield to a politically-motivated attack. Once the story was out, Turness knew an immediate apology was needed - but Shah prevented it. Turness was the fall-gal alright, but Davie following her out of the door was a surprise. Shah should go too; his role in all this has been flat-footed. He sat on the crucial editorial committee that refused to accept that Prescott's criticisms were, yes, political but also partly correct.
ReplyDelete