The BBC is far from perfect.
At times we in the Liberal Democrats have been among its sharpest critics, rightly pointing to its uneven decision-making, occasional failure to challenge populist narratives, and its choice to give disproportionate airtimes to parties such as Reform UK whose parliamentary representation remains limited.
Yet, as the Corporation faces one of the most serious crisis in its recent history, we should step back and recognise that, despite its flaws, it still stands as one of the last bulwarks against the malign forces corroding our politics and media ecosystem.
Yesterday the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, and the News Chief, Deborah Turness, tendered their resignations.
The immediate trigger was a whistleblower memo that accused the BBC of “serious and systematic” bias in its coverage of issues including Donald Trump, Gaza, and trans rights.
The specific spark was the editing of speech by the US President which, critics argue, omitted key phrases that softened his rhetoric and thus altered its meeting.
It is a messy episode, one that the BBC must address with humility and urgency.
But it is precisely because the BBC is meant to be a strong, independent, public institution that this moment matters so much.
We must defend its purpose even as we demand reform.
It is fashionable to bash the BBC.
To the populist Right, it is a bastion of “metropolitan liberalism”-to sections of the Left, it is a tool of the establishment.
Neither caricature holds up.
What the BBC truly represents is an institution trying-often imperfectly-to balance truth, fairness, and impartiality in an age when those qualities are very much under siege.
The rise of hyper-partisan online media, the decay of local journalism, and the growing influence of billionaire-backed broadcasters have created a toxic environment for democracy.
In that context, a publicly-funded broadcaster with a clear duty to inform, educate, and entertain remains essential.
The BBC is not only a trusted source of news at home, it is one of Britain’s most effective instruments of soft power abroad.
From the World Service to natural history documentaries it projects values of curiosity, decency and global awareness that are infinitely more powerful than any ministerial press release.
Defending the BBC, then, is not about pretending it gets everything right.
Clearly it doesn’t.
The resignations of its most senior, and until now apparently secure leaders are testimony to how seriously a failure of trust can hit a public institution.
The corporation has at times been timid when courage was required; it has been slow to adapt in a more plural media age; it must do better in reflecting the full diversity of the United Kingdom.
But these reforms must aim to strengthen, not hollow out, its independence.
We Liberal Democrats understand that pluralism and free expression require institutions capable of standing firm in the face of pressure.
We cannot rely solely on algorithms, clickbait, and billionaire-owned platforms to sustain a healthy public sphere.
The market, left to itself, rewards outrage and division; public broadcasting, at its best, rewards accuracy and perspective.
That is why successive generations of Liberals have supported the BBC’s public service mission.
The debate about the BBC’s future funding will intensify in the months ahead.
Some will argue for scrapping the licence fee entirely, replacing it with subscription models or purely commercial funding.
But that path risks eroding the very principles that make the BBC so valuable.
Once editorial decisions start depending on advertising revenue or subscriber metrics, the incentive shifts away from difficult, public-interest journalism towards chasing clicks and commercial returns.
At the same time, the resignations at the top send a signal-not of collapse, but of accountability.
It is an invitation for the BBC to renew itself, to rebuild trust, and to reaffirm its foundational mission.
In this deeply volatile political moment, where democracies are vulnerable to disinformation, foreign influence, and inner-division, we must not let the BBC be consumed by culture-war turf fights that seek to either destroy or capture it.
The BBC’s critics often claim to speak for “ordinary people.”
Yet polling consistently shows that the public, while yes frustrated with some of its decisions, still values and trusts the BBC more than almost any other media outlet.
In an era of deep cynicism about politics and institutions, that trust is a national asset we would be very foolish to squander.
Defending the BBC, therefore, is a liberal cause.
It is about standing up for a space in which facts can be checked, arguments heard and culture shared across divides.
It is about ensuring that news is not the plaything of power.
It is about recognising that democracy depends not only on votes at the ballot box but also on the quality of information citizens receive before casting them.
The BBC must (small r) reform.
And yes, it must face up to its errors, including the very real crisis of confidence that produced the resignations of Davie and Turness.
But it must also survive.
For all of its frustrations, its bureaucratic oddities and its failings, it remains one of the few places where the nation still talks to itself rather than at itself.
In the noisy, polarised, post-truth world that we inhabit, that is worth defending with passion and pride.
Not because it’s perfect, but because without it things could be much worse.
In praise of…David Bill
On Saturday I was live on the ‘Debate Desk’ segment on Peter Cardwell’s programme on Talk. One of the issues we discussed was free speech and what its limits should be, indeed if it should have limits.
On Saturday evening I made my debut on GB News. Now I appreciate that is very unlikely to be the channel of choice for most readers of this column, but we have to face the reality that lots of people do watch/listen to it and we as a party need to be trying to communicate with them as much as any body else; we shouldn’t just write them off as ‘not our people’ or ‘beyond the pale.’
By far the most impactful session that I attended was called ‘Social Insecurity: Everyday Rights in 2025.’ This wasn’t about a situation in some far off place, which you may care a great deal about but doesn’t necessarily affect your own community. This was a session about the impact of government policies on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people right here at home.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Westminister needs to tackle its drinking culture
Under the Influence? A new report on alcohol at Westminster
Nonconformistradical 
John Armah 
Nigel Jones 
Neil Sandison 
William Wallace 