1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,600 It's a pretty bad crisis. The BBC is now headless. 2 00:00:03,640 --> 00:00:06,560 It's been decapitated. The motive of some of the 3 00:00:06,560 --> 00:00:08,680 people, not all of the people, some of the people attacking the 4 00:00:08,680 --> 00:00:12,200 BBC, it has in the last week been completely hysterical. 5 00:00:12,200 --> 00:00:14,920 So they're they're seizing on this because they basically 6 00:00:14,920 --> 00:00:16,720 don't think the BBC should exist. 7 00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:20,040 Because the BBC, rightly so, holds itself up to those very 8 00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:23,760 high editorial standards. It's all the more shocking when 9 00:00:23,760 --> 00:00:27,080 some of the issues in this Prescott letter are bought to 10 00:00:27,080 --> 00:00:32,479 the 4th. Hello and welcome to the 11 00:00:32,479 --> 00:00:34,560 forecast. The BBC is in meltdown. 12 00:00:34,560 --> 00:00:37,120 Both the director general and the head of news have quit in 13 00:00:37,120 --> 00:00:40,600 the same weekend after a leaked memo accused the corporation of 14 00:00:40,600 --> 00:00:43,840 systemic political bias. The flashpoint was an edit of 15 00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:46,360 Donald Trump's speech ahead of the January 6th riots. 16 00:00:46,680 --> 00:00:49,760 And the president is now piled in threatening a billion dollar 17 00:00:49,760 --> 00:00:52,040 lawsuit. So what's really going on? 18 00:00:52,080 --> 00:00:54,560 Was this a right wing coup against public service 19 00:00:54,560 --> 00:00:57,920 broadcasting as some have suggested, or the consequence of 20 00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:02,760 genuine bias inside the BBC or a bad mistake, badly handled? 21 00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:06,400 And could this crisis now reshape the future of impartial 22 00:01:06,400 --> 00:01:09,880 news not just at the BBC but across British public service 23 00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:12,840 broadcasting? With me, the political editor of 24 00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:15,720 the Sunday Telegraph, Camilla Turner, and the editor of 25 00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:17,760 Prospect magazine, Alan Rusbridger. 26 00:01:17,760 --> 00:01:20,560 Alan first of all, I mean, how big a crisis for the BBC? 27 00:01:20,680 --> 00:01:23,920 What is this? It's a pretty bad crisis. 28 00:01:24,880 --> 00:01:30,400 The BBC is now headless. It's been decapitated at a time 29 00:01:30,400 --> 00:01:34,160 when it is coming into a very crucial period of renegotiating 30 00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:36,800 the charter. For some reason BBC charter has 31 00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:39,680 to be renewed every 10 years. Unlike other royal charters, 32 00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:45,440 it's got to agree a funding formula for the future and we're 33 00:01:46,640 --> 00:01:49,600 we're sort of 3 1/2 years off from a general election where a 34 00:01:49,640 --> 00:01:53,840 populist right could get in. And the the lesson from around 35 00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:57,560 the world is populist right wing governments tend to try and 36 00:01:57,560 --> 00:02:02,200 capture the media and they certainly don't have much time 37 00:02:02,200 --> 00:02:05,760 for public service broadcasting. But as as more details come out, 38 00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:08,800 it does seem as though the BBC has shot itself in the foot 39 00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:10,360 pretty badly. I mean, this was an obvious 40 00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:14,840 mistake in the edits that was defended by BBC News executives 41 00:02:14,840 --> 00:02:18,560 months ago, only now for them to admit it was wrong. 42 00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:23,720 You you obviously know more than I do it. 43 00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:26,480 It was a bad mistake. I don't know when it was first 44 00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:30,400 pointed out or to what extent it was defended by BBC executives 45 00:02:31,160 --> 00:02:34,360 when the Telegraph came out with their story last week. 46 00:02:34,920 --> 00:02:38,240 It would have been better to admit that mistake, to correct 47 00:02:38,240 --> 00:02:41,040 it and in my view, to put the Panorama program back up. 48 00:02:41,040 --> 00:02:43,240 If you watch the rest of the Panorama program, it's 49 00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:46,480 absolutely fine, nothing wrong with it at all. 50 00:02:47,480 --> 00:02:52,400 But according to Nick Robinson today, the BBC board itself 51 00:02:52,720 --> 00:02:56,800 prevented the news executives from apologizing in the way that 52 00:02:56,800 --> 00:02:59,320 they would have liked to. So do you think there is 53 00:02:59,320 --> 00:03:05,120 something bigger going on about the structural governance and 54 00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:11,360 the people in power in the BBC and the pressures outside who 55 00:03:11,360 --> 00:03:15,840 are trying to bring it down? Well, the BBC, it's a statement 56 00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:18,200 of fact to say that it's got many, many enemies. 57 00:03:18,200 --> 00:03:21,680 People on ideological or commercial grounds would gladly 58 00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:24,800 see it dead, and that includes Rupert Murdoch and his newspaper 59 00:03:24,800 --> 00:03:28,640 staple, the governance of the BBC. 60 00:03:29,600 --> 00:03:32,360 It sounds very nerdy, but, but you have to get into it. 61 00:03:32,880 --> 00:03:35,880 It's got a board of directors, five of whom are appointed by 62 00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:38,120 the government, including the chair. 63 00:03:40,280 --> 00:03:43,840 When I looked at the the the board most recently, I could 64 00:03:43,840 --> 00:03:47,840 only find 3 people who'd only who'd ever had a recent 65 00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:50,400 experience of, of practice in journalism. 66 00:03:50,920 --> 00:03:53,960 And that makes a little committee, the editorial 67 00:03:53,960 --> 00:03:57,040 Standards and Guidelines committee, a very powerful 68 00:03:57,040 --> 00:03:59,640 committee. And that to my mind is a 69 00:03:59,640 --> 00:04:03,200 complete mess. It's got 5 people on it, three 70 00:04:03,200 --> 00:04:06,400 of whom are insiders, two of whom are outsiders. 71 00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:10,560 Of the outsiders, until recently only one had any experience of 72 00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:13,800 journalism and that was a political appointee, it was Sir 73 00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:18,040 Robbie, Sir Sir Robbie Gibb. He he, he doesn't make any 74 00:04:18,040 --> 00:04:22,440 pretence of impartiality. He was until fairly recently a 75 00:04:22,680 --> 00:04:27,280 Conservative Party spin doctor. And so the BBC has got itself 76 00:04:27,280 --> 00:04:30,400 into this extraordinary position, one of the great news 77 00:04:30,400 --> 00:04:34,360 organisations in the world of having this tiny little 78 00:04:34,360 --> 00:04:37,800 committee in which there was until recently only one 79 00:04:37,800 --> 00:04:42,760 independent arbiter, and we're expected to take his word as 80 00:04:42,760 --> 00:04:44,720 gospel. As gospel as as to what 81 00:04:44,720 --> 00:04:46,680 constitutes impartiality or bias. 82 00:04:47,720 --> 00:04:51,880 I mean, Robbie Gibb says that he was impartial when he was ABBC 83 00:04:52,000 --> 00:04:56,560 producer, then he went into politics and now his job at the 84 00:04:56,560 --> 00:04:59,120 BBC is again to defend impartiality. 85 00:04:59,520 --> 00:05:00,960 You're saying that's not really possible? 86 00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:05,240 Well, he he would say that. I note that when he tried to 87 00:05:05,240 --> 00:05:08,880 stop someone else getting a job in the BBC News department, he 88 00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:12,160 wasn't prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that they, 89 00:05:12,200 --> 00:05:15,320 like him, could apparently put his, their their views, leave 90 00:05:15,320 --> 00:05:19,360 them at the door. The trouble about these 91 00:05:19,360 --> 00:05:22,560 arguments about impartiality is right wing people tend to think 92 00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:25,920 the BBC is too left wing. Lots of left wing people think 93 00:05:25,920 --> 00:05:30,320 the BBC is too right wing and that extends to Israel, trans 94 00:05:30,320 --> 00:05:34,680 issues, etcetera, etcetera. And it's rather fruitless to 95 00:05:34,680 --> 00:05:39,600 have a lot of people chipping in saying that in their view the 96 00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:42,320 BBC is biased. And I would include Sir Robbie 97 00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:47,440 Gibbon that the the the one body that is charged officially with 98 00:05:47,440 --> 00:05:50,320 deciding whether the BBC is in battle or not is Ofcom. 99 00:05:50,880 --> 00:05:53,600 And if you go back and read their reports, as I have done 100 00:05:53,600 --> 00:05:58,000 over the years, I think I'm right in saying I'm not sure 101 00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:00,320 I've read the most recent one in every year. 102 00:06:00,320 --> 00:06:03,880 They've given the BBCA pretty clean bill of health in terms of 103 00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:06,200 impartiality. Camilla, let me bring you in. 104 00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:10,720 I mean, isn't the Telegraph jumping a quite quite away, 105 00:06:11,080 --> 00:06:15,520 going from an obvious error of editing in that panorama to 106 00:06:15,520 --> 00:06:18,320 accusations of institutional bias? 107 00:06:21,160 --> 00:06:26,360 Well, I think the revelations we had from the Telegraph starting 108 00:06:26,360 --> 00:06:30,120 off last week with that Panorama documentary, the the editing of 109 00:06:30,120 --> 00:06:33,600 Trump's speech and then going on on on to the other days of, of 110 00:06:33,600 --> 00:06:37,200 last week. We also touched on the issues 111 00:06:37,200 --> 00:06:40,480 that the the BBC board had been made aware of to do with BBC 112 00:06:40,480 --> 00:06:43,560 Arabic, to do with reporting of trans issues, to do with 113 00:06:43,560 --> 00:06:45,320 reporting of the Israel Gaza war. 114 00:06:45,320 --> 00:06:46,760 So. I think these are all just 115 00:06:46,760 --> 00:06:48,280 opinions. They're not, I mean, they, they 116 00:06:48,280 --> 00:06:50,600 happen to be Michael Prescott's opinions of those things. 117 00:06:50,760 --> 00:06:53,080 They're not open and shut in the way that the Panorama is. 118 00:06:54,400 --> 00:06:59,040 Opinions were very much backed up by fact that he cites in his 119 00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:04,720 In his letter he talks about these UMM contributors who had 120 00:07:04,720 --> 00:07:07,760 been advised on to BBC Arabic dozens and dozens of times 121 00:07:07,760 --> 00:07:11,880 despite UMM expressing very UMM, in some cases outwardly 122 00:07:11,880 --> 00:07:15,520 anti-Semitic views, praising October the 7th UMM. 123 00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:18,160 These are the sorts of contributors that any media 124 00:07:18,160 --> 00:07:21,680 organization might think twice before UMM inviting onto their 125 00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:25,400 shows, let alone the BBC which we are told UMM holds up the 126 00:07:25,400 --> 00:07:28,560 highest possible standards UMM in its reporting. 127 00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:32,800 So I think the reason why we've ended this week with Tim Davey 128 00:07:32,800 --> 00:07:37,680 himself resigning, as well as the BB CS head of news, is just 129 00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:43,040 because these issues in the leaked letter were quite so 130 00:07:43,040 --> 00:07:45,840 serious. Had it just been someone's 131 00:07:45,840 --> 00:07:50,040 opinion or something that was kind of arguable either way we 132 00:07:50,040 --> 00:07:52,200 probably wouldn't be in the situation we are now, with the 133 00:07:52,200 --> 00:07:56,800 BBC in complete crisis and it's top executives resigning over 134 00:07:56,800 --> 00:07:58,880 it. Well, I mean, in fact, the BBC 135 00:07:58,880 --> 00:08:03,080 chairman has said that there was nothing in the Prescott's letter 136 00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:06,480 that was was telling them anything new and that the only, 137 00:08:06,680 --> 00:08:09,800 the only issue that they've really capitulated on is the 138 00:08:09,800 --> 00:08:12,480 editing of that one clip in Panorama. 139 00:08:12,480 --> 00:08:14,680 All those other things were issues that the BBC was looking 140 00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:17,880 into. And they disagree or, you know, 141 00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:22,280 or agree with the the broad criticism to differing levels. 142 00:08:22,560 --> 00:08:28,120 I mean, what I'm saying is we've gone from a mistake to a a vast 143 00:08:28,120 --> 00:08:32,000 accusation against a whole organization employing more than 144 00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:36,080 20,000 people, towering them with this, with this claim of 145 00:08:36,400 --> 00:08:37,679 institutional bias. What? 146 00:08:37,679 --> 00:08:40,640 What do you mean by that? Well, I think the institutional 147 00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:44,039 bias is something for the BBC to look at itself really. 148 00:08:44,560 --> 00:08:48,600 But what is it I think? Well, if you can, if you look at 149 00:08:48,600 --> 00:08:51,440 the certain areas that the press got letter touched on, there was 150 00:08:51,600 --> 00:08:54,640 the Trump documentary and then reporting around Trump, there 151 00:08:54,640 --> 00:08:57,200 was the Israel Gaza war, there was BBC Arabic, there was 152 00:08:57,200 --> 00:08:59,800 reporting around trans issues. These are quite a few different 153 00:08:59,800 --> 00:09:03,720 controversial areas, of course, for any media organization to be 154 00:09:03,880 --> 00:09:06,680 reporting on. But for the BBC to get things 155 00:09:06,680 --> 00:09:12,640 right and to report without fear or favour, to report without 156 00:09:12,640 --> 00:09:15,800 bias, to report in a way that doesn't seem like they've been 157 00:09:15,800 --> 00:09:18,200 captured by anyone side or other. 158 00:09:18,360 --> 00:09:20,000 It's just of the utmost importance. 159 00:09:20,000 --> 00:09:23,120 And I think it's because the BBC, rightly so, holds itself up 160 00:09:23,120 --> 00:09:25,360 to those very high editorial standards. 161 00:09:25,680 --> 00:09:29,560 It's it's all the more shocking when some of the issues in this 162 00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:31,760 Prescott letter are brought to the fore. 163 00:09:31,760 --> 00:09:34,400 And I think also the fact that this letter had gone to the BBC 164 00:09:34,400 --> 00:09:40,080 Trust many months ago and the reason for its leak was because 165 00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:42,880 it was felt that none of these issues had been properly 166 00:09:42,880 --> 00:09:44,640 addressed. There was nothing had been done 167 00:09:44,640 --> 00:09:49,480 about the documentary and none of these issues, umm had had 168 00:09:49,480 --> 00:09:52,320 been addressed in a way that those who were upset about them 169 00:09:52,320 --> 00:09:55,160 felt were satisfactory. And I think the reason why we've 170 00:09:55,280 --> 00:09:58,760 ended this week with Trump threatening to sue the BBC with 171 00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:02,800 Tim Davies resignation is not only the BBC's handling of these 172 00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:07,160 these issues, but because these issues go to the very core of of 173 00:10:07,160 --> 00:10:10,880 what the BBC should be doing. And I think it's it's right that 174 00:10:10,880 --> 00:10:15,560 they are looked at properly and that the BBC looks itself at 175 00:10:15,560 --> 00:10:19,520 whether there are broader institutional problems that need 176 00:10:19,520 --> 00:10:24,440 to be addressed here. Alan, how do you get to a point 177 00:10:24,440 --> 00:10:28,560 of impartiality in a world where, you know, people in 178 00:10:28,560 --> 00:10:33,640 Camilla's organization accuse the BBC of anti right wing bias 179 00:10:33,640 --> 00:10:36,560 and anti Israel bias and anti Trump bias and people on the 180 00:10:36,560 --> 00:10:41,280 left, as you say, accuse the BBC of being too pro Israel, too pro 181 00:10:41,280 --> 00:10:44,640 conservative, of giving Nigel Farage too much airtime. 182 00:10:44,640 --> 00:10:49,120 I mean, is there such a thing now as impartiality that 183 00:10:49,120 --> 00:10:52,000 everyone would recognize? Yeah, that's a really good 184 00:10:52,000 --> 00:10:54,560 question. And I don't know what the answer 185 00:10:54,560 --> 00:10:57,080 is. I, I don't know what body you 186 00:10:57,080 --> 00:11:00,600 could have that would satisfy everybody that the BBC is always 187 00:11:00,600 --> 00:11:02,760 going to be straight down the middle on everything. 188 00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:07,840 I mean, on Israel, Gaza, there was a report about two or three 189 00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:11,440 months ago from a perfectly respectable monitoring group 190 00:11:11,440 --> 00:11:15,720 that claimed the BBC was biased towards Israel. 191 00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:19,040 That didn't get much airtime because it goes against the 192 00:11:19,040 --> 00:11:21,400 conventional narrative of the BBC. 193 00:11:21,640 --> 00:11:25,160 So again, it slightly depends where you're starting with. 194 00:11:26,680 --> 00:11:29,600 I just think the BBC's governance arrangements, if 195 00:11:29,600 --> 00:11:32,760 you've got a Board of Governors who are mainly business leaders, 196 00:11:33,200 --> 00:11:36,360 hedge fund managers, private equity people and so forth. 197 00:11:37,160 --> 00:11:42,160 And somebody has got to reach decisions about whether the BBC 198 00:11:42,400 --> 00:11:45,200 is, is meeting its own standards. 199 00:11:45,800 --> 00:11:48,200 The the current arrangements aren't, aren't very good for 200 00:11:48,200 --> 00:11:51,360 that. I think in, in, in days past 201 00:11:51,360 --> 00:11:57,080 there was a board full of people imbued in BBC values who could 202 00:11:57,080 --> 00:12:02,120 take reasoned decisions on that. And I, I go back to the, the, 203 00:12:02,120 --> 00:12:05,680 the problem that if you've got a, a tiny committee with a 204 00:12:05,680 --> 00:12:09,600 government appointee on it who is clearly making a lot of the 205 00:12:09,600 --> 00:12:14,880 running in all this, then that that seems to be a sub optimal 206 00:12:14,880 --> 00:12:19,320 way of deciding anything to do with these, these highly 207 00:12:19,320 --> 00:12:21,640 contentious issues. So you think we need to go into 208 00:12:21,640 --> 00:12:24,440 a whole new review of how the BBC is governed? 209 00:12:26,520 --> 00:12:30,280 I, I think that should be on the list of things that that that 210 00:12:30,280 --> 00:12:32,760 should be sorted out. I mean, I, I think it's common 211 00:12:32,760 --> 00:12:36,120 ground between, you know, all, all, all sides, both the 212 00:12:36,120 --> 00:12:39,920 attackers and the, and the defenders of the BBC that things 213 00:12:39,920 --> 00:12:41,600 aren't working very well at the moment. 214 00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:48,240 And that would be my, my 2 penny worth that anybody coming to do 215 00:12:48,240 --> 00:12:50,160 that job. Brackets. 216 00:12:50,280 --> 00:12:53,760 Who on earth is this person that is, I think it has to be a 217 00:12:53,760 --> 00:12:55,880 journalist. I think Tim Davy was at a 218 00:12:55,920 --> 00:12:58,120 disadvantage because he, he didn't have a journalistic 219 00:12:58,120 --> 00:13:02,640 background. But who is this tough, impartial 220 00:13:04,320 --> 00:13:08,320 journalist with a real spine who can also simultaneously run a £6 221 00:13:08,320 --> 00:13:12,240 billion corporation and who's going to have their back? 222 00:13:12,240 --> 00:13:15,000 And if you've if, if, when they turn around and look at the 223 00:13:15,000 --> 00:13:19,200 board and the board is arguing about whether they're, they're 224 00:13:19,200 --> 00:13:22,720 free to issue the kind of defence they want to issue, then 225 00:13:23,880 --> 00:13:26,480 it's a very unsatisfactory position all round. 226 00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:30,440 Camilla I mean, it's obviously in the Telegraph's commercial 227 00:13:30,440 --> 00:13:35,560 interest that the BBC be diminished and other commercial 228 00:13:35,800 --> 00:13:39,920 news websites like like yours because you will, you will 229 00:13:39,920 --> 00:13:43,760 benefit. Is, is that part of the story 230 00:13:43,760 --> 00:13:45,040 here? I mean, is, you know, how, how 231 00:13:45,080 --> 00:13:48,720 upfront is the Telegraph about what it really wants for the 232 00:13:48,720 --> 00:13:54,960 BBC? I'm not sure that's interesting 233 00:13:54,960 --> 00:13:58,080 point. I'm not sure how much that plays 234 00:13:58,080 --> 00:14:01,240 into things because what people come to the BBC for is of course 235 00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:04,320 it's news. But and I think the BBC can't 236 00:14:04,320 --> 00:14:09,200 really do like opinion and, you know, kind of op eds and 237 00:14:09,200 --> 00:14:13,240 commentary, which is does kind of occupy a slightly different 238 00:14:13,240 --> 00:14:14,800 space. Obviously the BBC is a 239 00:14:14,800 --> 00:14:18,880 broadcaster, the Telegraph is a newspaper. 240 00:14:18,880 --> 00:14:22,720 So I'm not sure how much our audiences are directly in 241 00:14:22,720 --> 00:14:24,720 conflict. We do both provide the news that 242 00:14:24,720 --> 00:14:27,760 is correct. But I think this story isn't 243 00:14:27,760 --> 00:14:31,920 really about one media organization trying to criticise 244 00:14:31,920 --> 00:14:33,800 another. It's, it's much bigger than 245 00:14:33,800 --> 00:14:36,480 that. The BBC is our our public 246 00:14:36,480 --> 00:14:38,400 service broadcaster here in the UK. 247 00:14:38,400 --> 00:14:41,400 It's taxpayer funded, everyone who pays their licence fee, it 248 00:14:41,400 --> 00:14:45,240 goes to the BBCI think what this Prescott letter has showed us is 249 00:14:45,240 --> 00:14:48,320 that there are certain instances and certain areas where there 250 00:14:48,320 --> 00:14:51,160 are serious concerns that have been brought to the BB CS Board 251 00:14:51,520 --> 00:14:55,680 and felt by some to have not been properly addressed and 252 00:14:55,680 --> 00:14:57,400 therefore put out into the public domain. 253 00:14:57,400 --> 00:15:01,880 I don't think this is a kind of intermedia discussion here. 254 00:15:01,880 --> 00:15:06,040 It's it's about what license fee payers should expect from the 255 00:15:06,040 --> 00:15:11,000 BBC and what the public should expect from the BBC and I think 256 00:15:11,000 --> 00:15:13,400 if it's falling short of that, there are questions to be 257 00:15:13,400 --> 00:15:15,680 answered. But do you accept that everybody 258 00:15:15,680 --> 00:15:19,880 needs to feel that the BBC is fair, not just Telegraph 259 00:15:19,880 --> 00:15:24,720 readers, so Guardian readers and trans activists and Green voters 260 00:15:24,720 --> 00:15:28,400 and, you know, every and reform voters and everybody needs to 261 00:15:28,400 --> 00:15:31,960 have some level of trust in that broadcaster. 262 00:15:31,960 --> 00:15:33,720 And that's a pretty tall order right now. 263 00:15:35,760 --> 00:15:38,080 Absolutely. And there are there's criticism 264 00:15:38,080 --> 00:15:40,680 of the BBC from from all quarters, from the right, from 265 00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:42,720 the left. I listened to Sonia Soda earlier 266 00:15:42,720 --> 00:15:46,160 this week or on the weekend, you know, a prominent journalist 267 00:15:46,160 --> 00:15:50,400 from the left talking about her issues with the BBC's coverage 268 00:15:50,400 --> 00:15:53,720 of of trans reporting. These are complex issues that 269 00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:56,440 are difficult to get right. But that doesn't mean that the 270 00:15:56,440 --> 00:15:59,320 BBC shouldn't be held up to those very high standards that 271 00:15:59,320 --> 00:16:02,440 the public and the licence fee payers should expect. 272 00:16:02,440 --> 00:16:05,520 And yes, of course there are difference of opinions on on how 273 00:16:05,520 --> 00:16:08,680 to go about reporting these things from across the political 274 00:16:08,680 --> 00:16:13,680 spectrum, but I think that's not really an excuse to to not get 275 00:16:13,680 --> 00:16:16,120 it right. Right, but how much of A tragedy 276 00:16:16,120 --> 00:16:19,840 do you think it would be if the BBC was fatally damaged? 277 00:16:21,120 --> 00:16:23,920 I think the BBC is a hugely important organization. 278 00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:26,880 It's part of our kind of national public life. 279 00:16:26,880 --> 00:16:28,720 It's it's, it's got a deep history. 280 00:16:29,160 --> 00:16:30,960 It, it does really important work. 281 00:16:30,960 --> 00:16:33,240 I'm a, I'm a huge fan. I listen to Radio 4 all the 282 00:16:33,240 --> 00:16:35,160 time. I watch a lot of its programmes. 283 00:16:35,400 --> 00:16:39,360 I think it's has has a really important part to play in public 284 00:16:39,360 --> 00:16:41,520 life. But I think it does need to get 285 00:16:41,520 --> 00:16:43,240 things right. And when serious concerns are 286 00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:46,240 raised about its coverage, there aren't just a one off. 287 00:16:46,240 --> 00:16:48,520 These are concerns that have been going on for quite some 288 00:16:48,520 --> 00:16:51,160 time and aired in different areas. 289 00:16:51,160 --> 00:16:53,920 This Prescott letter I think brings them to the fore in quite 290 00:16:53,920 --> 00:16:56,840 a a shocking way. And I think that's why it's had 291 00:16:56,840 --> 00:17:01,360 the impact that it has with Tim Davies resignation, with Trump 292 00:17:01,360 --> 00:17:05,720 threatening to sue the BBC. It's having a big ripple effect 293 00:17:05,720 --> 00:17:07,720 now. But that's because these aren't 294 00:17:07,720 --> 00:17:09,880 just issues that are in isolation. 295 00:17:09,880 --> 00:17:11,440 This isn't the first time we've heard of them. 296 00:17:11,440 --> 00:17:15,240 These are ongoing concerns people have around the BB CS 297 00:17:15,240 --> 00:17:21,960 coverage in certain areas and I think it's in the BB CS interest 298 00:17:21,960 --> 00:17:24,440 to to get it right. People do respect the BBC and 299 00:17:24,440 --> 00:17:28,359 listen to them and think of them as a kind of beacon of high 300 00:17:28,359 --> 00:17:30,640 quality journalism. And so it's all the more 301 00:17:30,640 --> 00:17:34,200 important that when they are criticised, they they address it 302 00:17:34,200 --> 00:17:37,680 head on and and try to do their best to to look at where they 303 00:17:37,680 --> 00:17:40,760 can do things differently. Alan what One of the BB CS 304 00:17:40,960 --> 00:17:44,480 biggest and consistent problems is the way it handles problems 305 00:17:44,600 --> 00:17:47,400 and complaints in that it it is always very slow. 306 00:17:47,600 --> 00:17:50,760 It tends to kick things into the long grass and have reviews and 307 00:17:50,760 --> 00:17:54,920 hope that things will go away. I think somebody called it sort 308 00:17:54,920 --> 00:17:58,400 of playing dead when there when there's a when there's a 309 00:17:58,400 --> 00:18:01,840 problem. I mean, is that, is that what 310 00:18:01,840 --> 00:18:03,480 one of the reasons they got into this mess? 311 00:18:04,600 --> 00:18:06,600 Well, it clearly hasn't been brilliant at the last week. 312 00:18:07,000 --> 00:18:09,440 I agree with that. And I think that's a little 313 00:18:09,440 --> 00:18:14,160 unfair. The BBC knows that it's under a 314 00:18:14,160 --> 00:18:21,240 huge scrutiny all the time and we can all think of many times 315 00:18:21,240 --> 00:18:25,280 where the BBC has been placed under the spotlight, sometimes a 316 00:18:25,280 --> 00:18:28,160 judicial or quasi judicial spotlight. 317 00:18:28,640 --> 00:18:33,240 And the BBCI think is far more transparent in its operations 318 00:18:33,240 --> 00:18:38,200 than than many of its critics are. 319 00:18:38,800 --> 00:18:42,200 So but it clearly hasn't handled this one well. 320 00:18:42,560 --> 00:18:47,680 I mean, I think the problem with some of the criticism, clearly 321 00:18:47,680 --> 00:18:50,760 there were some concrete things that Michael Prescott raised. 322 00:18:51,080 --> 00:18:54,400 Samir Shah says that some of those have already been 323 00:18:54,400 --> 00:18:56,560 addressed so that they're, they're slightly historic. 324 00:18:57,880 --> 00:19:02,000 But you can tell the motive of some of the people, not all of 325 00:19:02,000 --> 00:19:06,360 the people, some of the people attacking the BBC has in the 326 00:19:06,360 --> 00:19:08,600 last week been completely hysterical. 327 00:19:08,600 --> 00:19:11,720 So they're they're seizing on this because they basically 328 00:19:11,720 --> 00:19:13,600 don't think the BBC should exist. 329 00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:16,960 Yeah. And some of the criticism and 330 00:19:16,960 --> 00:19:22,520 and commentary is, is just nakedly been people 331 00:19:22,520 --> 00:19:25,880 opportunistically trying to attack an organization that if 332 00:19:25,880 --> 00:19:28,320 we did have a sense of proportion, we would have to 333 00:19:28,320 --> 00:19:32,360 acknowledge, acknowledge is easily the the most trusted by 334 00:19:32,360 --> 00:19:35,560 by by huge margin the most trusted certainly against 335 00:19:35,560 --> 00:19:39,120 newspapers, news news provider in this country. 336 00:19:39,600 --> 00:19:42,120 A big piece in Columbia Journalism Review that came out 337 00:19:42,120 --> 00:19:45,080 only about a week ago saying that it's now the second most 338 00:19:45,080 --> 00:19:49,360 trusted news organization in the US behind The Weather Channel, 339 00:19:49,360 --> 00:19:53,120 believe it or not. So nobody should be citing 340 00:19:53,120 --> 00:19:56,640 Donald Trump and his attack on the BBC as evidence that 341 00:19:56,640 --> 00:19:59,160 anything is wrong with the BBC. Of course, Donald Trump, 342 00:19:59,680 --> 00:20:02,800 whenever he sees a credible news organization, he tries to 343 00:20:02,800 --> 00:20:06,080 discredit it, sue it, and pursue it. 344 00:20:07,440 --> 00:20:13,920 And and generally rubbish it. So Donald Trump taking trying to 345 00:20:13,920 --> 00:20:18,480 take revenge against the BBC, however justified in terms of 346 00:20:18,480 --> 00:20:20,640 the mistake, should count for nothing. 347 00:20:20,800 --> 00:20:23,520 As should his press secretary telling Brits that they should 348 00:20:23,520 --> 00:20:25,720 be watching GB News rather than the BBC. 349 00:20:25,720 --> 00:20:27,840 This stuff is laughable. Right. 350 00:20:27,840 --> 00:20:30,600 But I mean, the, the, the Trump threat does change things, 351 00:20:30,920 --> 00:20:33,200 doesn't it? In that, I mean, first of all, 352 00:20:33,200 --> 00:20:36,840 if the BBC is pushed into settling the way a lot of 353 00:20:36,840 --> 00:20:40,600 American channels have with Donald Trump, this is license 354 00:20:40,600 --> 00:20:44,280 fee payers money. And it could be 10s of millions 355 00:20:44,760 --> 00:20:48,640 of of pounds. But also the in order to settle 356 00:20:48,640 --> 00:20:52,760 the admissions that the Trump team seem to be demanding in 357 00:20:52,760 --> 00:20:57,720 their initial letter to the BBC go way beyond what the BBC could 358 00:20:57,720 --> 00:21:02,320 possibly admit because the Trump team were alleging this is this 359 00:21:02,320 --> 00:21:05,360 is sort of deliberate defamation, deliberate 360 00:21:05,360 --> 00:21:09,720 misrepresentation, when the BB CS position is it was a mistake. 361 00:21:10,560 --> 00:21:11,920 Well, they, they shouldn't settle. 362 00:21:13,400 --> 00:21:17,320 We've, we've seen Trump suing the New York Times, one of the 363 00:21:17,320 --> 00:21:19,760 greatest news organisers, news organisations, the world. 364 00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:22,480 He's suing the Wall Street Journal for a billion dollars. 365 00:21:22,480 --> 00:21:26,880 He's sued ABC, he's sued CBS, he's, he's even suing the 366 00:21:26,880 --> 00:21:29,640 Pulitzer Prize committee for giving a Pulitzer Prize to 367 00:21:29,640 --> 00:21:33,040 someone he doesn't like. I mean, this is vexatious 368 00:21:33,040 --> 00:21:36,600 nonsense and the BBC should stand firm. 369 00:21:36,600 --> 00:21:39,520 There's, there's a, there's a doctrine in, in America called 370 00:21:39,520 --> 00:21:43,560 New York Times versus Sullivan, which holds that if you're, 371 00:21:43,600 --> 00:21:47,920 you're criticizing or writing about a public figure, unless 372 00:21:47,920 --> 00:21:51,320 you can show actual malice, there's the words actual malice, 373 00:21:51,840 --> 00:21:53,600 then you have a complete defence. 374 00:21:53,640 --> 00:21:57,640 And even this Supreme Court has not overturned that. 375 00:21:58,040 --> 00:22:03,200 So I very much hope the BBC will say this was an honest error. 376 00:22:03,520 --> 00:22:05,360 There's no evidence of actual malice. 377 00:22:05,760 --> 00:22:08,400 And they could be. They could take the lead in 378 00:22:09,000 --> 00:22:13,480 showing some spine and taking on this Donald Trump assault on the 379 00:22:13,480 --> 00:22:16,960 press, which none of us, from The Telegraph to the Guardian to 380 00:22:16,960 --> 00:22:19,720 whoever to Channel 4 News, should welcome. 381 00:22:20,120 --> 00:22:21,200 Camila, what do you think about that? 382 00:22:23,040 --> 00:22:26,040 Well, I think the yeah, obviously it's a, it is a 383 00:22:26,040 --> 00:22:28,440 difficult position to put the BBC into it. 384 00:22:28,440 --> 00:22:32,520 And as Alan Rusberger just said, Donald Trump does have form of 385 00:22:33,520 --> 00:22:36,960 suing or threatening to sue media organisations in the past 386 00:22:36,960 --> 00:22:40,320 when they've sort of rubbed him up the wrong way for whatever 387 00:22:40,320 --> 00:22:42,120 reason. I mean, I think if we just go 388 00:22:42,120 --> 00:22:46,200 back to journalistic basics here on that Panorama documentary in 389 00:22:46,200 --> 00:22:51,760 particular, clearly editing or splicing someone's remarks such 390 00:22:51,760 --> 00:22:55,200 that the meaning is materially different from what they meant 391 00:22:55,200 --> 00:22:57,720 to say. Had the full quotation been 392 00:22:57,720 --> 00:23:01,200 included. That is, you know that there is 393 00:23:01,200 --> 00:23:04,800 a case to answer for, for that kind of editing and that kind of 394 00:23:04,840 --> 00:23:09,640 selective quoting. And I think on on that point 395 00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:13,040 particularly, it's, it's a difficult defence from the BBC. 396 00:23:13,040 --> 00:23:15,280 They they might say, yes, this was a mistake, but then why 397 00:23:15,280 --> 00:23:18,200 didn't they correct it when press got first through it to 398 00:23:18,200 --> 00:23:19,800 that to the attention of the board? 399 00:23:20,040 --> 00:23:21,800 So there is. The question is sort of what 400 00:23:21,800 --> 00:23:25,280 happens in law, isn't it? I mean, you know, if you know 401 00:23:25,280 --> 00:23:27,120 it. Of course, Trump isn't 402 00:23:27,120 --> 00:23:30,600 attempting to sue in Britain, he's attempting to sue in 403 00:23:30,600 --> 00:23:32,920 America. And, and, and the sort of the 404 00:23:32,920 --> 00:23:36,760 pattern when he's suing American channels is that the threat of 405 00:23:36,760 --> 00:23:40,160 tying them up in legal knots and wasting millions of dollars in 406 00:23:40,600 --> 00:23:44,240 legal fees and the threat of disclosure of documents means 407 00:23:44,240 --> 00:23:46,800 that they end up settling. The BBC could be pushed into 408 00:23:46,800 --> 00:23:48,960 that here as well. I mean you, you don't want to 409 00:23:48,960 --> 00:23:52,200 see license payers money surely going to Donald Trump and his 410 00:23:52,200 --> 00:23:55,240 lawyers. But this is the glory of the BBC 411 00:23:55,840 --> 00:23:58,960 and you're making the case for the BBC here because the reason 412 00:23:58,960 --> 00:24:03,000 that these organisations have tended to settle with Trump is 413 00:24:03,000 --> 00:24:06,040 because the owners need favours from Trump. 414 00:24:06,040 --> 00:24:09,600 It's usually because they are trying to take over another 415 00:24:09,600 --> 00:24:13,280 media corporation, although they want a favour on on in terms of 416 00:24:13,280 --> 00:24:18,440 mergers and acquisitions. The BBC has no dog in any of 417 00:24:18,440 --> 00:24:21,200 those races. It it's owned by a, by a public 418 00:24:22,880 --> 00:24:25,680 institution, it has no reason to settle. 419 00:24:25,680 --> 00:24:30,040 And as, as I've tried to explain, the New York Times 420 00:24:30,040 --> 00:24:33,080 versus Sullivan doctrine is exactly meant for this 421 00:24:33,080 --> 00:24:37,160 situation. I mean, what turned on this 422 00:24:37,160 --> 00:24:39,360 editing? Clearly the editing was a 423 00:24:39,360 --> 00:24:44,280 mistake, but I don't think surely no one is making the case 424 00:24:44,800 --> 00:24:49,240 that Donald Trump wasn't inciting the crowd on that 425 00:24:49,240 --> 00:24:52,080 January the 6th because then we're rewriting the whole of 426 00:24:52,080 --> 00:24:55,640 history. The congressional hearing that 427 00:24:55,640 --> 00:24:57,400 looked into that decided that he was. 428 00:24:57,400 --> 00:25:01,120 The Senate decided with 7 Republicans voting with the 429 00:25:01,120 --> 00:25:05,560 Democrats that they that he was. The only court that has come to 430 00:25:05,560 --> 00:25:07,440 a ruling on it decided that he was. 431 00:25:08,040 --> 00:25:12,840 So yes, it was a bad and stupid error and has opened up the BBC 432 00:25:12,840 --> 00:25:17,640 to attack but it it but I think Donald Trump would have a a job 433 00:25:17,640 --> 00:25:21,160 persuading people that he was completely innocent in what he 434 00:25:21,160 --> 00:25:23,840 did on January the 6th. Yes, I mean Kim, the 435 00:25:23,840 --> 00:25:26,000 Congressional committee after I don't think it used, I don't 436 00:25:26,000 --> 00:25:29,320 think it concluded on the word insight, but it did say, you 437 00:25:29,320 --> 00:25:33,400 know, aiding or betting what what happened and it was a 438 00:25:33,400 --> 00:25:38,480 pretty conclusive result. Yes, that's right. 439 00:25:38,480 --> 00:25:40,800 And I think it just comes back to that issue of, you know, you 440 00:25:40,800 --> 00:25:43,800 write an article and then your top line gets kind of ramped up 441 00:25:43,800 --> 00:25:46,280 by the editor to a point that it doesn't really make sense 442 00:25:46,280 --> 00:25:48,160 anymore. And you say, we don't need to, 443 00:25:49,160 --> 00:25:51,040 you know, make this more extreme than it's already is. 444 00:25:51,040 --> 00:25:54,440 It's, it's already shocking. You know, you don't need to make 445 00:25:54,440 --> 00:25:58,120 an edit to to make it kind of worse than it is. 446 00:25:58,280 --> 00:26:02,120 If you look at the the basic error made in that Panorama 447 00:26:02,120 --> 00:26:04,760 documentary, it was just a bad edit. 448 00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:07,880 And it's quite hard to to argue anything else. 449 00:26:08,040 --> 00:26:10,680 Camille What? What do you want for the future 450 00:26:10,680 --> 00:26:14,640 of the BBC? I think what what I want and 451 00:26:14,640 --> 00:26:18,320 what any kind of licence fee payer taxpayer would want is 452 00:26:18,320 --> 00:26:23,760 ABBC that is able to uphold the good that the best possible 453 00:26:23,760 --> 00:26:28,200 editorial standards to to report on what are difficult issues. 454 00:26:28,240 --> 00:26:31,680 But without being biased in in one way or another. 455 00:26:31,680 --> 00:26:37,440 And to have a news operation that functions in a way that 456 00:26:37,840 --> 00:26:40,760 where where kind of clear standards are set for 457 00:26:40,760 --> 00:26:44,320 journalists to follow. So that the public and the 458 00:26:44,320 --> 00:26:47,440 viewers are are watching or reading or listening to the BB 459 00:26:47,440 --> 00:26:50,760 CS output in a way that they can rightly feel confident that 460 00:26:50,760 --> 00:26:54,480 they're getting the best possible information in a just 461 00:26:54,480 --> 00:26:57,280 kind of straight, straight down the road sort of way. 462 00:26:57,480 --> 00:27:02,760 With no kind of interest group or, or no worry that it's been 463 00:27:02,920 --> 00:27:08,600 captured by one side or another. Just that it's good impartial 464 00:27:08,600 --> 00:27:12,600 reporting, which is I think what everyone would expect to see. 465 00:27:12,600 --> 00:27:14,480 Yeah, and, and do you acknowledge Alan's earlier point 466 00:27:14,480 --> 00:27:16,560 that the BBC is the most trusted broadcaster? 467 00:27:18,600 --> 00:27:20,160 Yeah. I mean, if that's if that's what 468 00:27:20,600 --> 00:27:24,600 the sort of surveys and and what the news are saying, then yeah, 469 00:27:24,800 --> 00:27:26,880 there. There are two notable surveys 470 00:27:26,880 --> 00:27:31,800 that go on most years done by Ofcom and the Reuters Institute, 471 00:27:31,920 --> 00:27:37,320 and they generally put the BBC out there at the top and Channel 472 00:27:37,320 --> 00:27:39,280 4 is usually very closely behind. 473 00:27:39,480 --> 00:27:43,480 And we argue over whether we we are most trusted or they are 474 00:27:43,480 --> 00:27:45,920 most trusted because they have slightly more people who 475 00:27:45,920 --> 00:27:50,560 distrust them and we have fewer. But but I think that's what the 476 00:27:50,560 --> 00:27:52,960 numbers say. I think it's great that the UK 477 00:27:52,960 --> 00:27:56,080 has this incredible tradition of, of public service 478 00:27:56,080 --> 00:27:59,040 broadcasting that not just in the UK, but I think around the 479 00:27:59,040 --> 00:28:03,720 world, people look to the UK as having good sources of, of 480 00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:06,760 information that can be trusted. If you compare us to other 481 00:28:06,760 --> 00:28:08,800 countries around the world where there's much more state 482 00:28:08,800 --> 00:28:12,320 interference of, of media, you know, we're incredibly lucky to 483 00:28:12,320 --> 00:28:16,720 live in a country where we have, um, really strong traditions of 484 00:28:17,040 --> 00:28:19,920 both broadcasting and print journalism that can really 485 00:28:20,400 --> 00:28:22,720 report properly and hold the government to account. 486 00:28:22,720 --> 00:28:28,040 But I think given the BB CS particular set up that it's 487 00:28:28,160 --> 00:28:31,000 anyone who wants to watch television has to pay the BBC 488 00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:34,000 licence fee. I think when there are questions 489 00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:37,840 over its impartiality, I think it needs to look at these very 490 00:28:37,840 --> 00:28:40,720 carefully, not just kind of hide under the table, pretend it's 491 00:28:40,720 --> 00:28:43,880 not happening, ignore concerns. They need to address these head 492 00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:46,960 on because it's great that it's so trusted and it needs to 493 00:28:46,960 --> 00:28:50,320 continually, every day earn that trust and make sure it's doing 494 00:28:50,320 --> 00:28:53,960 the best job it possibly can. We'll leave it there. 495 00:28:53,960 --> 00:28:56,520 Thank you very much indeed. Camilla Turner, Alan Rusbridger, 496 00:28:56,520 --> 00:28:59,280 thank you both very much for joining us on THE FORECAST. 497 00:28:59,880 --> 00:29:02,680 Well, that's it for today. The story is going to rumble on 498 00:29:02,920 --> 00:29:05,240 over the next few days and we'll see what else comes out. 499 00:29:05,240 --> 00:29:06,400 But for now, bye bye.