00:00Do you think the BBC is institutionally biased?
00:02No, I don't, and I'm sure someone's going to correct me pretty quickly if I'm wrong,
00:06but I just re-read the memo yet again outside the door here.
00:09I don't think I use that phrase anywhere in the memo,
00:11and I do not think it's institutionally biased.
00:14You mentioned the memo a few times.
00:17You also told us that you'd sent it to Ofcom DCMS,
00:21and you'd had that meeting with the BBC.
00:24Two weeks later, The Telegraph had that memo,
00:27and they said that it was circulating around government departments.
00:31Do you have any idea how that memo got to those other departments or The Telegraph?
00:36No, absolutely not.
00:37All that I know is what I've stated.
00:40Did you share that memo with anybody else beyond the BBC board?
00:44Absolutely not.
00:45Well, sorry, Ofcom and DCMS, but beyond that, no.
00:49So somewhere there's a leak.
00:51Any idea where that might be?
00:52No, I have no idea.
00:54And as regards, particularly Tim Davey,
00:57for what little use or worth this is to him now,
01:02firstly, I always liked the guy,
01:03and secondly, most importantly,
01:05to the extent that inexperts me can judge,
01:08he seemed to me to be doing a first-rate job
01:10across 80 or 90% of the portfolio.
01:13It was just that he had this blind spot on editorial failings.
01:16I think it's a bit of a tragedy he's gone.
01:18I thought he was a supreme talent, but he had this blind spot.
01:20Do you agree with Donald Trump's assertion
01:23that his reputation has been damaged by this documentary,
01:29considering, of course, that he was found to be a central figure
01:32in this insurrection,
01:34considering that he has been found by a civil court
01:37as being liable for sexual assault,
01:39that he's regularly boasted about sexual assault?
01:42Do you agree with Donald Trump that this documentary
01:44has harmed his image in some way?
01:46If I could argue, answer in two parts, as it were.
01:51Firstly, I'm supposing, but you'll correct me if I'm wrong,
01:54I should probably restrain myself a little bit,
01:56given that there is a potentially illegal action.
02:00All I can say is I can't think of anything
02:02I agree with Donald Trump on.
02:04Back on the splicing,
02:06in his sacred job memo to us,
02:09Dr Shah mentions that since your memo,
02:11Mr Prescott, the corporation's had 500 complaints,
02:14and that has, I quote, prompted further reflection.
02:19And as a result of that further reflection,
02:22the BBC now accepts
02:25that the splice gave the impression
02:27of a direct call for violent action.
02:30I remember the first time I saw the splice,
02:32and I looked at it and I was like,
02:34oh my God, that's awful.
02:35And then I checked a transcript of the speech itself,
02:39and that confirmed it.
02:40Were you surprised that it took the BBC
02:43multiple iterations and multiple months
02:46to work out something as straightforward
02:49as that that splice was that misleading?
02:52Yes, in a word.
02:54I mean, this was, in the memo,
02:56I talk about my great frustration
02:57and how I'm writing to the board
02:59because of this frustration,
03:00and that was a very easy-to-understand example
03:04that we had a BBC management
03:07that would defend and stand by that video edit,
03:10which is exactly what was going on,
03:12and that's why I was in,
03:13or one of the reasons I was in despair,
03:15but it was possibly the purest example.
03:17Do you think the corporation has
03:19what you might call a bigger truth problem,
03:21that there's a bigger truth
03:22that the vast majority of BBC output is good,
03:25therefore it's less important
03:26when something is misleading?
03:28Or indeed on this specific episode of Panorama,
03:32there was a bigger truth
03:33that the programme was trying to get across
03:36about that day and Capitol Hill
03:38and the character of President Trump,
03:41and therefore it didn't matter so much
03:43that this thing was spliced in a way
03:44that that specific impression
03:46was clearly so misleading.
03:48Well, I think the truth is
03:49we still don't know what went on
03:51within the Panorama production team,
03:53whether it was some weird kind of accident
03:55or someone working under pressure,
03:57we just don't know.
03:59But as regards to the wider BBC,
04:01I mean, I've had people I know and don't know
04:05texting me, emailing me and so on,
04:07who clearly appalled by that.
04:10So I don't think it's a bigger problem.
04:12It was just this curious management blind spot.
04:15I've just realised you didn't quite answer
04:17my last question.
04:18Do you agree that Donald Trump's reputation
04:20has been tarnished by this documentary?
04:22Probably not.
04:26Did the BBC block the Head of News
04:27from apologising for the Panorama programme
04:30before the 10th of November?
04:32I will directly answer that question,
04:35but if you may forgive me,
04:37I'd like to take this opportunity first of all
04:39to apologise to all the people
04:42who believe in the BBC and care for it
04:45and wish it to survive and thrive.
04:48I'd like to apologise to the licence fee payer
04:50who funds the BBC to deliver its mission
04:53and I'd like to apologise to the thousands of people
04:56who work for the BBC, our staff,
04:58who work with such dedication and commitment
05:00to deliver the output we all enjoy so much.
05:05I regret the mistakes that have been made
05:08and the impact that it's had.
05:10Let me now come to the question that you asked.
05:16Just, if I may ask you, just repeat it for me
05:19so I can answer it directly.
05:20Did you block the head...
05:22Did you and the rest of the BBC board
05:24block the Head of News
05:26from apologising for the Panorama programme
05:28on the 10th of November?
05:30Go back to the week in which the story broke
05:34in the Telegraph and you wrote to me
05:37and I was writing the answer to you.
05:41I heard that the news wanted to apologise
05:43for the splicing of the edit with a white spark.
05:49I did not think...
05:50I thought that was a necessary thing to do
05:52but it wasn't sufficient
05:53because the fundamental issue here
05:56was the sequencing of the edit
06:00and the placing of the Proud Boys march.
06:04I think the real issue here
06:05was the impression left
06:07that President Trump
06:09in the 6th of January speech
06:11had encouraged call to violent action
06:15and what we had to apologise for
06:18was that as well as
06:19the splicing of the edit.
06:21It's my view that editing interviews
06:25is a normal journalistic practice.
06:28So that in itself
06:29is not what the problem was.
06:31The problem was
06:32the impression that it led
06:34that it was an impression
06:36that President Trump
06:37had called for direct violent action
06:40and that wasn't the case
06:41and that is what I thought
06:42needed to be apologised for.
06:45So the answer to your question is
06:47I didn't think it was adequate.
06:49I thought it was necessary
06:50but not sufficient.
06:51It seems quite clear to me
06:53that the way that both
06:54the Newsnight and Panorama
06:55edited this clip
06:56broke those BBC editorial guidelines.
06:58So what I'm just trying
06:59to get to grips with
07:00is why it took a year
07:01to apologise for this failing
07:02despite the EGSC
07:04which you chair
07:04having concerns about this programme
07:06on three separate occasions
07:08and why no action was taken
07:10despite the fact
07:11that there was a clear evidence
07:13of a breach of editorial guidelines.
07:14as I said
07:18in the January meeting
07:19that report came out
07:20I then invited the News Division
07:23to give me a formal response to it.
07:26That response took place in May
07:28and we discussed it then
07:30and there was a different set
07:31of opinions around it.
07:33There was a plausible case
07:35that this edit
07:37because the point of the programme
07:39was to deliver to the British audience
07:41because it was about the supporters
07:43for President Trump
07:44and what they were learning.
07:46So there was a case
07:48for, as it were, the edit.
07:50This was discussed and debated
07:52and there was a difference of opinion.
07:54I've already said
07:55we should have pursued it further
07:57at that time
07:58and by pursuing it further
08:00we should have investigated it in detail
08:02with the people responsible
08:04in the BBC to do that.
08:05Part of some of those discussions
08:07there was a continuing
08:08and sharp difference of opinion
08:10between certainly the chairman and me
08:13and some others on the board
08:15with the director of news
08:17about whether we were going to apologise
08:20just for the edit
08:21or whether the impact of the edit
08:24and indeed the positioning
08:25of the Proud Boys material
08:26had given a misleading impression.
08:29We felt that it had
08:30and the news continued to maintain
08:34that actually the impression given
08:37despite the edit
08:39was correct
08:40because the gist of the speech by Trump
08:42had, for example,
08:43the use of the word fight 15 times
08:46and only talk about peace once.
08:49They felt that the edit was justified
08:52but it should have been
08:53a more transparent edit.
08:55We felt that the edit
08:56had led to a more profound problem
08:58and indeed
08:59your quotation of the editorial guidelines
09:02is absolutely right.
09:03We felt it violated them.
09:06So I'm old enough to remember 2007
09:08before your time
09:10leading the organisation
09:11but when the BBC was in hot water
09:13over the misnaming of a kitten
09:16you do get held to a higher standard
09:19that comes with the privilege
09:20of the licence fee
09:22but on that occasion
09:23it also took over a year
09:26and a leak
09:27for it to come out.
09:29So it's kind of all very well
09:31to say we must just do better
09:32at coming out faster
09:34but what is going to make
09:36the BBC face up
09:38and fess up faster?
09:40I think that's such an important question
09:42and I understand the scepticism
09:45that it always seems to take time.
09:47I don't know the answer
09:51to your question
09:51but I'm heartened
09:53by one other area
09:54it's a parallel area
09:56which I was involved in
09:57I took very great care
09:59to accept
10:00which was what we call
10:01the culture review
10:02where in my first year
10:04I was determined
10:05to tackle abuses of power
10:08and there was a lot of scepticism
10:10oh we do this
10:11year in year out
10:13it's always happened
10:14and there was some scepticism
10:15but in the event
10:17we did a very strong review
10:19we came out earlier this year
10:21and I and the board
10:24I took personal ownership
10:27of trying to get this right
10:29in the face of scepticism
10:30and I would say
10:31that the executive
10:32responded extremely well
10:37there's a very serious set of actions
10:39that are in place now
10:40to tackle it
10:41so whilst I agree
10:43I'm going to have to rush you
10:44I think I will equally
10:47once I focus on it
10:49say what is the problem here
10:51why do we not
10:52come out more quickly
10:54what is it that stops us
10:56and how can we fix it
10:57it's going to be
10:58absolutely one of the lessons
10:59I've learned
11:00of this particular three weeks
11:02I do hear your scepticism
11:04because you know
11:05I remember that
11:06that kitten story
11:07socks
11:08and so I think it's important
11:16and I think it is a constant
11:17problem for the BBC
11:20that we do respond
11:22in a way that always puts us
11:24on the back foot
11:25and I don't like that
11:27I want us to be on the front foot
11:29and get out our statements clearly
11:33if we made a mistake
11:34hold our hands up
11:36fast
11:37if we don't think it's a mistake
11:38say that
Comments