We should publicly blame the Conservative Party for its role in ousting Tim Davie as the BBC’s Director-General, and for President Donald Trump’s $10bn lawsuit. The Party has insufficient grounds for `looking the other way’.
Our Party Leader Ed Davey’s `Guardian’ article of 10 November was superb.
His demand that Sir Robbie Gibb resign from the BBC Board was well focused. Even after Gibb had been exposed to many people who didn’t realise his power within the BBC, shining the spotlight on him was right.
I have been monitoring Gibb for the last couple of years, after my attention had been drawn to the harm he was causing as a `grey eminence’ inside the BBC who had accumulated huge power.
Our Party Leader was able, in his article, to strike a powerful blow for BBC independence (which many voters believe in as passionately as we do).
Lib Dem Shadow Culture Secretary Anna Sabine MP echoed this perfectly, as reported in the Guardian by Media Editor Michael Savage published on or around the next day.
Now we can teach the Conservative Party a bigger lesson while striking another powerful blow ourselves for the independence of BBC journalists.
The thin fence that they have ducked behind consists of the fact that, technically, the Director-General is appointed by the Executive, consisting of BBC Board Members.
How then can the Conservative Party still be collectively blamed for the debacle which led to Tim Davie’s resignation as Director-General on 9 November whose resignation, alongside Deborah Furness’s, was seen as `cauterising the wound’?
The three figures most clearly involved in the conflagration which led to this were all Conservatives. The Party had so engineered the set-up within the BBC that it was decided that only a Conservative should be Director-General.
Tim Davie had stood as a Conservative Party candidate in Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council Elections. He also stood as Deputy Chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association in he 1990s, according to his biography.
Key right-wing figures were:
– David Grossman: likely the internal editorial/policy figure whose knowledge of Trump’s speech allowed him to identify or confirm the problematic edit and feed that into the BBC’s internal processes.
– Michael Prescott: the external standards adviser whose dossier, drawing in part on that internal work, was the mechanism by which the matter exploded into public view.
– Sir Robbie Gibb: the powerful committee member who used the material (and may well have pressed Grossman for “research” or analysis) to drive an outcome consistent with his own long-standing critique of the BBC’s coverage.
Prescott, a former Sunday Times political journalist and former external independent adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee sent a detailed internal memo to the BBC Board alleging systemic editorial failings including the `Panorama Edit’ of the splice.
As a former external adviser, Prescott becomes the visible whistleblower who collates, formalises and ultimately leaks or publicises the dossier. The memo was leaked to the press, its publication amplified political pressure on the BBC and is widely reported as the proximate cause of Tim Davie’s resignation as Director-General.
Gibb had worked himself into an exceptionally powerful position because of his various roles. This is why Ed Davey rightly focused on calling for his resignation in his `Guardian’ article of 10 November.
The Panorama Edit clearly required correction but this could have been done discreetly. Instead it led, when exposed, to a $10bn damages claim by President Trump.
Even if Prescott and Gibb had not intended to trigger Davie’s fall, or that $10bn lawsuit, their actions made such outcomes more likely.
The failure discreetly to correct the splice error, for which the BBC apologised, turned a `bad mistake’ into a seismic institutional crisis.
The key point is that the whole affair clearly sits within a wider Conservative era struggle over the BBC’s independence and direction. There were revolving doors between 10 Downing Street and the BBC, thanks to the Conservatives’ take-over of the BBC. The whole affair clearly sits within a wider Conservative-era struggle over the BBC’s direction and independence. This has now come back to haunt them.
The fact that the BBC now faces the President’s huge damages claim must therefore be laid at Conservative Party’s door. The best time to make a story out of this is probably when a new Director-General is appointed.
An excellent article in Metro (11 11.25) by Bill Curtis notes that:
Davie was a Tory pick. He is the man who seems to have believed that if he gave Nigel Farage a sympathetic ear, they would stop kicking the Beeb. They just kicked harder. Because here’s the truth the BBC refuses to face. You can’t appease people who don’t want you to exist. They want a hollowed out broadcaster run by hedge funds and headlines.
`…it’s about power, not bias.
`…Davie thought he could hug crocodiles. Instead he got eaten alive.’
Now the Conservative Party must accept responsibility for the Trump damages claim.
* Cllr Tony Paterson is a Lib Dem Councillor in the LB of Richmond. He stood for Parliament against Mrs Thatcher for the Liberal Party in Finchley in 1979. He has written this article on his own behalf.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Nonconformistradical
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
20 Comments
I’m afraid to characterise what the BBC did as a “splice error” completely misrepresents the serious unprofessional conduct exhibited by journalists who, I assume, still work for the BBC. To be clear, any reputable journalist when splicing together two different parts of a speech would make it obvious to the viewer that a join of two different sections had occurred, perhaps even by stating ‘and later’ at the join. Instead the BBC spliced to hide the fact that two separate sentences had been joined and gave no commentary to alert viewers. This is not a splicing error – it is deliberate deception.
The people who should have resigned, or been sacked, are the people who chose to do this as well as anyone who was aware and said nothing.
@Jenny Smith, I agree it was an error and that the BBC is therefore in the wrong, but beyond those bald facts the question arises whether the error led to Trump being misrepresented. If on a view of the entire programme and consideration of the surrounding circumstances (i.e. of what actually happened on that day) it turns out that he was not, I do not think he has much to complain about, given that the BBC has apologised.
If the case goes beyond preliminary hearings (jurisdiction etc), there comes a stage where there will be disclosure of documents (this may still be called discovery in the US). Isn’t there a distinct possibility this will be a teeny-weeny bit embarrassing for Trump?
@Jenny – this article in the Evening Standard seems to support your take on matters:
Panorama editors ‘did not know Trump speech had been spliced together’
Although I disagree about the edited in “good faith”, as the given motive for doing so should have been made obvious to viewers.
also unlike the single comment, I can understand why people outside the programme production would have been unaware of the edit.
The BBC need to defend this case and the government needs to support them, as this is a clear case of Trump wanting to extend US law beyomd US territory.
The fallout of the Panorama edit has been huge. At stake a national institution revered round the world for its unbiased and factual journalism. I would hope that its reputation though tarnished will continue to be seen in good light. That this rare error is seen for what it is, a rare error. To that end let us hope the right heads roll.
I totally agree with what Tony Paterson has said about Trumps damages claim 100%.
I totally agree with what Mr Tony Paterson is saying about the damages Trump is claiming against the BBC .
Excellent statement of how the Tories attacked the BBC
The problem started with the Tories and they have continued to attack the BBC
We must protect the BBC a source of information which is not heated any where else, a source of reliable information
Ed it must be followed up
The main point about the right wing politicisation of the BBC board is absolutely spot-on, their bias (ironically so) and lack of backbone has led us to this point. In my “politically aware” lifetime this started way back with the appointment of Marmaduke Hussey by the Thatcher government. There have been more liberal appointments but “Conservative friendly” seems to have been the main flavour over the years.
Reading the article, linked articles and the comments there does seem to be “reasonable doubt” about whether the higher-ups would have been aware of the edit and the comment point about whether this changed the nature and intent of Trump’s speech is well made, his speech was always intended to be provocative and inflammatory. Whether it was a “minor splice” or not, the BBC must be defended and clearing the decks of political appointees is absolutely essential to defending its future as a trustworthy and independent source of news that matches its history.
The reality of this being a totally spurious law suit is illustrated by the ‘libel’ only being noticed when the minions of the political commissar appointed by the previous government went looking for dirt.
It was probably an editorial mistake in terms of BBC values but it was not libellous by US legal standards – an insufficiently clear edit but in an introductory sequence, providing a widely expressed interpretation of the speech, for a programme which was undoubtedly ‘fair’ to Trump and his supporters.
It is clear from other law suits by Trump that its validity is immaterial, it is a weapon in the ‘culture war’ being waged by him and the like-minded people within the BBC only there because of political interference by the Conservative Party. Any consequent legal costs that the BBC may incur are also the responsibility of the Conservative Party.
Thank you, Tony, for reminding us that the behaviour of some political appointees to the BBC have undermined it. If journalists should ensure they report accurately, then non-executive directors should not attempt to influence management decisions, to please No. 10 Downing Street
The point of the Trump lawsuit is not to win damages, but rather to gain disclosure of internal emails and documents relating to Donald Trump – a normal part of US lawsuits -that he suspects will show a bias against him. I would expect that the disclosure order would be required to go back to 2015 – the documentary is after all about an event which took place during the first presidency.
The avoidance of having to reveal internal documents, emails and other communications is why the US media companies have capitulated so rapidly to Trump’s threats of legal action.
If the BBC try to fight the case, disclosure will almost certainly be granted; it will indeed be interesting to see some of the communications, whether or not there was any deliberate campaign being run against Trump within the BBC, whether there was a desire within the BBC to help Hilary Clinton back in 2015/16, whether any senior members of staff or management demonstrated pro-Democrat opinions in briefing notes etc.
Any attempt to avoid disclosure would be viewed very negatively by US courts. This has the potential to be very damaging to the BBC.
I agree with Tony. Sir Robbie Gibb should definitely resign. He is strongly associated with the Conservatives and yet has a responsibility to uphold and protect the independence of the BBC, as outlined on the BBC’s own website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/whoweare/robbie-gibb#:~:text=Sir%20Robbie%20Gibb%20had%20a,Editor%20of%20BBC%20Two's%20Newsnight.
Adam – disclosure would also require disclosue by Trump of material related to what happened on January 6. This might well contain material he would not want in the public domain.
I watched the original speech from start to finish as it was happening. While I accept that the failure to make the splicing clear, it did not misrepresent the intention of the speech. Given by a courageous, competent and coherent president it would have resulted in a coup, but this was Trump.
The irony is that his lawsuit against the BBC (timed to distract from Epstein) may have landed him in hot water. He now has three lawsuits, based on flimsy grounds, which are being vigorously resisted. He will have to give evidence under oath as a court deposition for all three separately and his personal papers, emails, accounts and tax records are discoverable. He chickened out in the Michael Cohen case when faced with this prospect.
The main danger is that Starmer will want to brown-nose Trump by leaning on the BBC to reach a settlement for a ‘few’ million dollars. He must not do that: appeasement only invites further aggression. The BBC must stand its ground.
Adam, disclosure works both ways: Trump can be made to give a deposition in each of the cases he’s pursuing (NY Times and Wall Street Jounral are the other two) and his personal papers, emails, accounts and tax returns are also discoverable as, arguably, are the 2020 campaign records and accounts. If Trump refuses to be deposed (wonderfull word!) or ‘takes the fifth’ it will count against him and the case could be thrown out immediately with costs against him.
@ John @ Stan
Oh I quite agree… I suspect though that Trump (or his advisors at any rate) is of the opinion he can spin that, and he’s probably right. The Democrats are very much in disarray at the moment, so it really is a risk worth taking, and Trump has no obligation to be impartial.
The BBC on the other hand are stuck with their charter obligation of impartiality, for them things are potentially more problematic. For them impartiality is pretty much a cardinal sin. Casting shade on BBC impartiality could very much damage their international reputation… can Trump’s international reputation be damaged? Does he care?
Additionally one should never underestimate the tendency of Americans to stand by their president against outsiders regardless of their own politics. And never underestimate the knee jerk reaction of many Americans when it comes to slapping the UK; back when Harry and Meghan went off to the US, one Republican was asked on US TV who they were backing. The reply came as a surprise to the very liberal (in US terms) questioner who were themselves a supporter of Meghan against the “racist” Royal family “I’m backing Harry and Meghan. I’m a Republican. When me and my brothers were kids we used to play in the stream at the back of our house pretending to be George Washington crossing the Potomac. I support anyone who’s sticking it to the British Royal family”.
This kind of thinking runs very deep in “patriotic” sections of American society. The special relationship exists in the heads of British politicians, it really is not reciprocated.
Whatever happens I will be watching eagerly – I’m clearly a nerd!
@Adam: Trump’s international reputation probably cannot be damaged any more than it already has been, but when (as is very likely) he loses his lawsuit against the BBC on summary judgement, he’ll look a fool.
Also I really doubt this could be spun as a matter of UK interests vs US interests, even in the US (except among the MAGA crowd). Anyone who is against Trump will side with his opponents, wherever they are based.
PS the BBC’s reputation for impartiality is based, among other things, not kowtowing to any political leader, especially a tyrant. For this reason, the BBC cannot afford not to fight and win against Trump.
Thank you Tony for highlighting the politicisation of the BBC Board by the Conservatives. You are right the whole debate over this issue must be seen in that wider context and we must not be afraid to call that politicisation out. Political appointees must not be allowed to undermine the reputation of the BBC as a trustworthy, independent news source. This was a rare error for which the BBC has rightly apologised. As Stan commented further appeasement will only lead to more aggresion. The BBC must be defended.