Skip to playerSkip to main content
BBC Chair Samir Shah has issued an apology, saying, “I regret the mistakes that have been made and the impact that it has had,” following a turbulent period for the broadcaster. Shah appeared before the House of Commons Culture Select Committee after the resignations of the BBC’s director general and head of news amid claims of failures around editorial impartiality.

Committee chair Dame Caroline Dinenage called Shah’s responses “wishy-washy,” questioning whether the BBC board is in “safe hands” and expressing concern about a lack of “grip at the heart of BBC governance.”

The crisis was triggered by a leaked memo from an ex-independent editorial standards advisor, criticising the editing of a Donald Trump speech in a Panorama programme. The fallout includes the resignations of two senior BBC leaders and a threat of legal action from the U.S. president.

Shah told MPs he would not step down and pledged to “steady the ship” and “fix it,” as scrutiny intensifies over how the BBC handles impartiality and trust.

#BBC #SamirShah #BBCChair #BBCCrisis #BBCGovernance #ImpartialityRow #TrumpSpeech #panorama




BBC, Samir Shah, BBC apology, BBC chair questioned, BBC governance crisis, impartiality row, leaked memo, Panorama Trump speech, Trump threatens to sue, BBC resignations, director general resigns, head of news resigns, Dame Caroline Dinenage, wishy-washy comments, safe hands question, parliamentary hearing BBC, media controversy UK, broadcasting standards, editorial impartiality, public broadcaster crisis, Shah testimony, steady the ship, fix it pledge, Culture Select Committee, UK politics, media trust issues, BBC board criticism, political scrutiny, breaking news UK, BBC scandal

Category

🗞
News
Transcript
00:00I want us to make sure that we start off on the right foot today.
00:03Did the BBC block the head of news from apologising for the Panorama programme before the 10th of November?
00:09I will directly answer that question, but if you may forgive me, I'd like to take this opportunity first of all
00:16to apologise to all the people who believe in the BBC and care for it and wish it to survive and thrive.
00:24I'd like to apologise to the licence fee payer who funds the BBC to deliver its mission
00:30and I'd like to apologise to the thousands of people who work for the BBC, our staff,
00:36who work with such dedication and commitment to deliver the output we all enjoy so much.
00:42I regret the mistakes that have been made and the impact that it has had.
00:48Let me now come to the question that you asked.
00:52Just, if I may ask you, just repeat it for me so I can answer it directly.
00:57Did you block the head, did you and the rest of the BBC board block the head of news
01:03from apologising for the Panorama programme on the 10th of November?
01:07Go back to the week in which the story broke in the Telegraph
01:13and you wrote to me and I was writing the answer to you.
01:17I heard that the news wanted to apologise for the splicing of the edit with a white spark.
01:26I did not think, I thought that was a necessary thing to do but it wasn't sufficient
01:30because the fundamental issue here was the sequencing of the edit and the placing of the Proud Boys march.
01:40I think the real issue here was the impression left that the President Trump in the 6th of January speech
01:48had encouraged a call to violent action and what we had to apologise for was that
01:55as well as the splicing of the edit.
01:58It's my view that editing interviews is a normal journalistic practice.
02:05So that in itself is not what the problem was.
02:09The problem was the impression that it led, that it was an impression that President Trump
02:14had called for direct violent action and that wasn't the case
02:18and that is what I thought needed to be apologised for.
02:22So the answer to your question is I didn't think it was adequate.
02:26I thought it was necessary but not sufficient.
02:28If you felt that that was the case, then why was there no apology when David Grossman first brought that to your attention?
02:37You mean in the EGSC meetings in January and May?
02:40Mm-hm.
02:41I think that's a very fair question and looking back I think we should have made the decision earlier, I think in May.
02:49In January, you heard earlier, the report came about, which was about, the context was how well, as we do, constantly review our own coverage,
02:59how we did, what went well, what didn't go well, and we examined how we covered the U.S. elections as a general point.
03:07And the report came back, as you've said, that coverage was on the whole excellent, but there were some real issues there.
03:14Well, I invited, and there was at that meeting also coverage of the Arabic service, which we may come back to.
03:21I invited, which is normal, for news to give me a formal response to that research.
03:27That response came in May.
03:30When that response came, there were, one thing I'd like to make clear is that it wasn't,
03:37this was a constructive discussion that took place at the EGSC.
03:41Some very important observations were made in that report, which the executives took on.
03:48For me, one of the most interesting ones was the recognition about the story selection idea,
03:53and that, and I have a letter in front of me, the news report, you've got it,
03:57which said, the BBC infrastructure is heavily resourced in the democratic areas,
04:02and we need to move into other parts of the U.S. to get a better sense of opinion within it.
04:08And that is an action that's going to be taken, and there's going to be a movement of which our resources tap into,
04:14not just the democratic hotlines, but we have got, in a way, too many resources, and we need to move it out.
04:21I give that example simply to tell you all that this wasn't a discussion where you had a defensive news response
04:29response to some very serious issues.
04:33So that was it.
04:34When it came to the panorama edit, there was a difference of opinion across the board.
04:44And looking back, I think it would have been better for us to pursue it then.
04:51I completely accept that.
04:54And as we go into my own understanding of how we got here, it seems to me, along with the editorial and the governors,
05:05which are important issues which we will unpack, I think there is an issue about how quickly we respond,
05:13the speed of our response.
05:14Why do we not do it quickly enough?
05:16Why do we take so much time?
05:18And this was another illustration of that.
05:20We should have, as a collective, we should have pursued it to the end and got to the bottom of it
05:27and not wait, as we did, until it became public discourse.
05:33I mean, I have a lot of things to say about my relationship with Mr Prescott and that report and what he did.
05:40We've got lots of questions to come on to along that line.
05:42But what I'm trying to get to is...
05:48Thank you, Mr Prescott.
Be the first to comment
Add your comment

Recommended