An insider's view on what is happening in the BBC

The people sitting with me at a dinner this evening, none of whom are very political or known for strong views, all thought that the BBC has blotted it's copybook very seriously in a number of areas.

They didn't approve of the way the Trump speech had been edited, and were even less happy with the way Martine Croxall was treated for saying "Pregnant women" instead of "pregnant people."

I suspect those views are likely to be representative of what millions of people in Britain think, including people who don't necessarily have a high opinion of Trump or support hostility to trans people.

So I may be taking a risk here by posting extracts from the account put up on X this morning by BBC insider Nick Robinson. I do regard Nick as a good guy and one of the best journalists at the BBC. Which does not mean that I agree with his views on every subject.

I think the BBC has a serious problem with institutional arrogance and "groupthink" including a tendency to assume that if they are getting flak from both sides on an issue they must be doing right.

Actually they will always get flak from both sides because there will nearly always be some extremists on both sides who are completely impossible to satisfy. For that very reason "We get people on the other side who think we are biased in your direction" is a totally inadequate answer to someone who thinks the BBC (or any other news organisation) has made a mistake, you have to check the details of the complaint and investigate whether there might be something to it.  You might even be getting flak from both sides partly because you made different actual mistakes giving both sides legitimate reason to be upset.

Anyway, here is an extract from what Nick Robinson posted which I am putting up because I think it helps explain why the BBC acted like a rabbit frozen in a car's headlamps for several days.

"What has happened ... what is happening at the BBC?

In normal times you might be forgiven for dismissing that question as navel gazing by journalists who can't resist talking about themselves. In normal times I'd be inclined to agree with you. These, though, are not normal times. 

Ever since the first rumours of the resignations surfaced I've been piecing together what happened which led to this crisis ... 

Those at the top of the BBC have appeared paralysed for the past week - unable to agree what to say not just about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech by Panorama but also wider claims of institutional bias 

One source described the arguments that have raged ever since the Telegraph published a leaked memo by a former adviser to the BBC board as “like armed combat”. Another alleged “political interference” after what they described as “a hostile takeover of parts of the BBC”. 

The BBC is run by a board made up of the leaders of the major divisions of the corporation and part time directors appointed by the government of the day. 

BBC News executives - the journalists who run the News division - agreed the wording of a statement at the beginning of last week, admitting that it had been a mistake to edit together two different sections of Donald Trump’s speech on the day of the Capitol Hill riots without clearly signalling to the audience that the edit had been made. It would have concluded that despite this error there was “no intention to mislead” the audience. 

This was not enough for the BBC board which refused to sign off the statement. The report it had received from Michael Prescott, who was an independent adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board until June 2025, stated that the Panorama film “created the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.”

The argument which raged on the BBC Board ensured that the BBC neither defended itself nor admitted its mistakes for day after day after the leaking of the Prescott dossier alleging “institutional bias”.  As criticism mounted from the White House, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and many others, the BBC only said that that it would not comment on leaked documents whilst promising that the Chairman of the BBC, Samir Shah, would respond in writing to MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. 

In her resignation statement last night the chief executive of BBC News Deborah Turness stated that 

“The ongoing controversy around the Panorama on President Trump has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC – an institution that I love”

Neither she nor the outgoing Director General Tim Davie explained what they thought had gone wrong. 

A majority of the BBC Board appear to agree with their editorial adviser that there is a problem of institutional bias reflected in the coverage of Donald Trump, Gaza/Israel and trans rights. That argument has been led by one board member Sir Robbie Gibb - a former BBC executive in charge of political programmes who became Prime Minister Theresa May’s  Downing Street Director of Communications and one of those involved in the founding of GB News. Friends of Sir Robbie insist he has repeatedly and consistently supported Tim Davie and wanted him to stay and has written articles supporting the BBC and the licence fee . 

As of last night the BBC board’s 15 members had still not agreed the wording of the statement that is due to be made today by the Chairman of the BBC Samir Shah. 

We expect that letter to be published later this morning."