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.
Comments