00:00Would you say it was defensive?
00:02Would you say one of its headlines would be that the BBC is defensive?
00:05Yes, I would.
00:06So, for example, another thing, I'm not being boring continually referring back to this memo,
00:13but another thing in my memo was that there's this strange episode
00:17where a group of Oxbridge historians calling themselves History Reclaimed said,
00:21look, every time there's this, not every time, I think they sample four or five programmes,
00:26but they said it's curious, because it was a carefully written report,
00:28they didn't over-claim, they were honest about the limited number of shows they'd watched,
00:33and they said, we do seem to notice a tendency that in all these shows,
00:37instead of getting the foremost historical expert in the field,
00:41they're getting people who are far more inexpert,
00:43and our suspicion is it's because they're giving them controversial quotes
00:47rather than the best take you could possibly get.
00:51And the BBC's, as per my report, I thought this was interesting and should be looked into,
00:57because History Reclaimed also had a very simple fix,
01:00which was could the BBC have another look at who they were inviting in from the field of historians
01:06to comment on these?
01:07That was it.
01:08Would the BBC listen?
01:10No.
01:11And, in fact, there were then formal complaints,
01:15I'm guessing from readers who'd seen that report,
01:17based on the report,
01:19and the BBC rejected them all,
01:20and accused History Reclaimed of cherry-picking in a very snotty fashion.
01:24Well, History Reclaimed didn't claim to be doing more than that.
01:26They said we've watched four or five problems.
01:28Might be a problem here.
01:29Could you take a look at it?
01:30The answer was formal findings.
01:32You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong.
01:33We're not talking to you.
01:35Extraordinary.
01:35Do you think the BBC's arrogant?
01:37I'm sorry?
01:38Do you think the BBC is arrogant?
01:40Not institutionally, no.
01:41I think it's more...
01:44Look, when you run a big outfit like that,
01:47you'll all appreciate this,
01:48you've got to maintain staff morale,
01:51and the management have to be seen to be defending their own folks.
01:56And, believe it or not,
01:57even after that memo,
01:58I totally get that.
02:01But they get a little bit wrong,
02:04and I think that was an instance,
02:05and there are other instances in the memo.
02:07Cam.
02:08Thanks, Geoff.
02:08Mr Prescott,
02:10do you think that the BBC
02:11is in a better place for the three resignations?
02:15Do you think public trust should be greater
02:16or lower for those three resignations?
02:23It's very hard to answer,
02:24because I think the answer to that
02:25depends on each individual citizen's perception
02:28of what's gone on.
02:29You speak of culture.
02:30Yeah.
02:30It starts from the top, does it not?
02:32Yeah.
02:33Usually, yes.
02:35And you want to know, bluntly,
02:36whether I think it's better or worse
02:37for not having Tim Davey
02:38and the rest of them there, I guess.
02:40Well, look, let me answer this way.
02:42For what, I took no pleasure
02:43in those people feeling compelled
02:45to leave their jobs, number one.
02:46And as regards, particularly Tim Davey,
02:49for what little use or worth this is to him now,
02:53firstly, I always liked the guy,
02:55and secondly, most importantly,
02:57to the extent that inexperts me can judge,
03:00he seemed to me to be doing a first-rate job
03:02across 80 or 90% of the portfolio.
03:05It was just that he had this blind spot
03:07on editorial failings.
03:08I think it's a bit of a tragedy he's gone.
03:10I thought he was a supreme talent,
03:11but he had this blind spot.
03:16Michael, were you pleased
03:18that your memo found its way into the book?
03:20No.
03:21Gosh.
03:22You're surprised.
03:23As I say, yeah, I was surprised.
03:25And first, I was surprised.
03:26Secondly, as I think I said a little while ago,
03:28I was hoping this might be sorted out quietly,
03:31you know, bored, Ofcom, DCMS.
03:34So that's one thing.
03:35Second thing is, again, I kind of alluded to this,
03:40given what, believe it or not,
03:43I was hoping this memo would do good
03:46and result in a better BBC being quietly achieved.
03:50And the fact it was in the Telegraph,
03:52no, I'm not criticising the Telegraph.
03:54They gave a lot of space as they took it very seriously.
03:56But in sort of ideological terms,
04:01the Telegraph appeals to a certain bit of the spectrum.
04:03And I think, therefore, the fact they broke the story
04:06became a bit of a barrier to people elsewhere
04:09on the political spectrum taking this as seriously
04:13or thinking this really was as straightforward as it seems.
04:16So that's my answer.
04:19And in terms of the comment that you just made
04:20about Tim Davy having a bit of a blind spot
04:23in an editorial sense,
04:25to what extent do you think that is simply because of the fact
04:29that that job, that DG job, is just too big for one person?
04:32I've been thinking for a while that it is,
04:34and what's happened to Tim confirms that.
04:36So, again, look, I'm not here to claim
04:38I'm the biggest expert in the world on organisational design,
04:41but as you asked me, and I was an advisor to this committee,
04:44it seems to me, I think the BBC might be well advised
04:47to consider having an editor-in-chief on the one hand
04:50and a CEO on the other.
04:52And I very well remember the period in the 80s
04:54when they did try that,
04:56and John Burt was at first not, you know,
04:59in charge of the whole of the enterprise.
05:01They did split the role,
05:02and I think it's probably worth looking at that again.
05:05Do you have a view on that, Caroline?
05:07On Tim Davy, sorry.
05:09On splitting the role.
05:10Splitting the role.
05:10Well, my role as an editorial advisor to the UGSC,
05:13I think the issues of whether the overall structure
05:15of the BBC and the governance for Tim versus the role
05:18is obviously for this committee
05:21and for the BBC board itself,
05:23it is a very large role and a very complicated role
05:26and very hard to get right consistently.
05:29And I think in previous times,
05:33we've had a deputy director general of the BBC,
05:36and I think probably it's such a large role
05:38and a lot of issues that I think that might benefit from it.
05:41How you'd rather see it split a DG and a deputy DG,
05:45or would you rather, as Michael suggests,
05:46have an editor-in-chief alongside a DG?
05:48I don't really have a perspective on it.
05:51I mean, I have a personal view as an average person looking at this,
05:53but I don't believe...
05:54What's your personal view?
05:55Well, I think my personal view is what I've just said,
05:58as I think would be helpful to have, you know,
06:00it's a large job with a lot of responsibilities,
06:03and it's an important institution to get this right.
06:05Anywhere you want him to come in?
06:06Thanks, Chair.
06:07One more, Mr Prescott.
06:08Well, you spoke quite highly of Tim Davie.
06:11What was your relationship with...
06:13Excuse if the immense pronunciation that is oncoming.
06:16Shamit Banerjee, did you have a relationship with him?
06:19No, I don't know the individual, no.
06:21OK.
06:22I think you can.
06:23Let's move on to Vicky, please.
06:25You rightly pointed out that the Panorama programme
06:28has been picked up quite a lot in terms of your note,
06:32and this was discussed at two meetings of the EGSC in January and May.
06:39Why do you think that the EGSC failed to act satisfactorily at either meeting?
06:46Well, at the first meeting...
06:47So, if I...
06:48Probably the best way to answer that,
06:50and it'll certainly help me give you good answers,
06:52if I go through the chronology.
06:54So, I happened to be at home and I watched that panorama.
06:57It struck me as having issues to do with balance.
07:01So, you know, I didn't think it was quite what I might have expected.
07:05I still wasn't too bothered because I thought,
07:06oh, that's quite an anti-Trump programme,
07:08but they'll probably be just as hard on Kamala Harris next week,
07:11and they weren't.
07:12So, I mentioned this at the committee.
07:14David Grossman was asked to look into it all,
07:18and he came back in January with the findings,
07:21which are, you know, summarised in my memo.
07:25The BBC executive did not seem...
07:30How shall I put it?
07:30They did not seem very open to accepting what David was saying,
07:34and so they were asked, and they agreed.
07:37As I say, there's usually consensus on the committee.
07:40They very happily agreed to go away and come back with a written response,
07:44having, to the mind certainly of me,
07:46and recollection of me, and I suspect others,
07:48seemed to be not open to accepting what David was saying,
07:51even though his findings were so stark.
07:53So, they did come back in May with this written response.
07:55Again, parts of the written response are quoted in my memo.
08:00And it was black and white.
08:02The management did not accept there was a problem,
08:05either overall with the US presidential coverage
08:07or with the Panorama programme.
08:09Simple as that.
08:10But that's yet their attempt to think.
08:11I'm going to try and review both of them that has
08:16been part of summary of the group there,
08:18because I have reasons for Gallagher,
08:20you know,
08:21all that people were speaking.
08:21And starting with us doesn't necessarily mistake by something.
08:24Part of just a place,
08:26I hope that this would have been public health here.
08:27Yeah.
08:28So when you're going to go up in May with them,
08:30the manufacturer will say it wrong.
Comments