The BBC is perhaps still today regarded as one of the world’s best broadcasters. It still produces quality dramas and documentaries, though faces increasingly tough competition. Its World Service news delivery is perhaps the jewel in the crown as possibly the best in class, respected for its reliability. Its UK news, at least on TV, has in recent years faced growing criticism of its objectivity and impartiality, which it boasts as its USP. Some would say that an excessive proportion of its presenters are cut from the same political cloth, having similar agendas which they barely attempt to suppress. There may be some groupthink, though arguably the BBC is no worse in this respect than other UK broadcasters. This tendency to bias is lent some truth perhaps by the fact that the new Director-General, Tim Davie, sought to put an end to news journalists at the BBC propounding their personal views on matters of public interest on social media, as having no place in an impartial BBC. The arrogance of the BBC in its belief that it is above reproach is exemplified perhaps by the NewsWatch programme, in which it purports to harvest feedback from viewers and respond to their concerns: it edits itself which comments to broadcast and rebuffs every criticism, never acknowledging a serious error or misjudgement or a need to consider change. This self-righteousness is now under the microscope.
The BBC claims moral high ground through its values over other broadcasters. In a world of fake news, the UK and the wider world needs as many independent tellers of objective truth as it can find.
However, the report by Lord Dyson, ex master of the Rolls, has shone the spotlight of doubt on the BBC’s and its historic senior executives’ integrity when it comes to news, through the blistering condemnation of the news fraud behind the infamous interview of Princess Diana by Martin Bashir in 1995. That it has taken over 25 years for the background truth about that interview finally to emerge tells a story in itself.
THE DYSON REPORT
The Report is categoric that Martin Bashir used a variety of deceptions to get an introduction to Princess Diana, and also to convince her of the treacherous nature of those closest to her and to break her trust in them, and to gain her trust in himself. The most devious planned and organised lie was the creation of forged bank statements suggesting corrupt payments to an employee of her brother, Earl Spencer; to Diana’s own private secretary; and to Prince Charles’ private secretary. In addition, various other fictions damaging to others were created by Martin Bashir the Report records.
It also beggars belief that various investigations by BBC Senior management, particularly on the News side, into the interview and the background to it in 1996 reinforced its propriety, even though it was known by late March 1996 that Martin Bashir had lied about the use of the forged bank statements. An investigation by Peter Hall, later to become Director-General of the BBC, was condemned by the Report as “woeful”. Ironically a Panorama programme about the report, immediately after its publication, stressed the numerous BBC failures around the time of the interview and in investigating complaints: it highlighted too Peter Hall’s 1996 whitewashing report to BBC Governors, when he made no mention of the dishonesty of Martin Bashir. Lord Dyson found that Peter Hall could not reasonably have believed he was an honest man. That programme and various broadcasts following the Dyson Report have highlighted too how employees and contractors of the BBC, involved with the interview and who expressed misgivings, were dismissed by the BBC: the embedded arrogant culture, which scarred many lives in just this one incident, was exposed.
Given the behaviour of Peter Hall in relation to Martin Bashir, he will no doubt attract considerably more scrutiny. Is there a question mark over his role as Director-General and his fitness to engender and enforce the high moral standards which the BBC purports underpin its news reporting? This may be reinforced by the reappointment of Martin Bashir to a role in BBC’s religious affairs division and later elevation to be its editor, all during Peter Hall’s leadership tenure. It remains to be seen if journalists will question how many other incidents in the last few years have not been rigorously investigated, or a blind eye turned.
TIME FOR REFORM?
This tarnishing of the BBC’s reputation for news, when added to recent criticism, is already making its mark. There is talk that it is time to consider its structure and funding by licence fee again. Also talk that at least its governance structure needs review, with maybe new independent editorial oversight by a separate panel. The Dyson Report enables those who doubt the impartiality of the BBC to reopen the debate on its self-righteousness which is perhaps well illustrated by those of its presenters who inwardly profess and outwardly display a moral superiority which betrays the BBC’s values of impartiality and accuracy.
From now, rigid adherence to the highest standards must be demonstrated in spades by BBC news journalists, particularly reining in any temptation to pursue an agenda to achieve their own purposes. The consequential outcomes of the findings of the terrible truth by Lord Dyson will play out over the coming months and are unpredictable. Perhaps a benefit, which may accrue to the BBC and the public, will be a stronger commitment by its management and Governors to enforce objectivity and rigour as to truth, reducing that all too common speculation of what might be, and failure to focus on what is. Perhaps even a new approach to listening not just to those being interviewed by BBC journalists but also to public feedback will result. Perhaps, also there will be journalists who find the need to control their personal views too difficult and so they may leave – indeed coincidentally in the week before the Dyson Report Andrew Marr expressed that very possibility. Could it also be that NewsWatch, no longer controlled by the BBC itself, but operated by an independent panel, could be established, which might finally begin to acknowledge valuable feedback and lead to learning and so change? That would be reform indeed.
