Prescott memo did not reflect full report on BBC’s US election coverage – other adviser
Caroline Daniel says she thinks her fellow former adviser’s memo “does not provide a comprehensive view of what was in the David Grossman report.”
She is sitting right next to Prescott while giving her assessment of what she says was “a personal account rather than a comprehensive review of everything that was covered in the (standards) committee.”
MP: “What do you think was missing?”
Daniel: “I think the David Grossman report covered a lot of ground, significant errors, like the coverage of the election and the use of polling, issues like who is being represented on programs, issues of impartiality.
There was obviously a BBC response to it as well, which was also significant. They did engage with each of the details of the David Grossman report.
Share
Key events
Show key events only
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Shah steps in to defend Gibb
The BBC Chair has also spoken up amid this grilling of Gibb’s political connections.
“Every week I spoke to Robbie. He was the head of that [political] department. And not one week did he ever play any politics or anything.
“I think it is unfair to say that Robbie comes with he’s principally a journalist. He was a journalist running the whole BBC political journalism, and he did that with great skill and great, commitment to impartiality. That’s my view about it.”
Share
MPs move questioning focus onto Sir Robbie Gibb
They are asking the former communications director for Theresa May and GB News co-founder about his “strong political convictions”.
He is asked how he manages his own biases given his role on a standards panel.
He says as a former BBC news producer for 25 years, who was also head of BBC Westminster, “I have a long track record. I primarily want to be defined as my commitment to the BBC not my two years working for Theresa May.”
He says he had impartiality drummed into him as a BBC reporter and that he has been mischaracterised in press reports. He says he was taught to leave politics at the door, and praised the BBC for instating a strong social media policy preventing its news journalists from showing their political leanings.
“I’m absolutely delighted to come here and give an opportunity to set out my case where hopefully I can demonstrate that the perception [on my political leanings] is actually wrong.”
Robbie Gibb speaks to MPs on Monday Photograph: Parliament LiveShare
Updated at 12.53 EST
Board member Thomson says she felt Panorama edit was misleading, while News argued it was ok
Another board member, Caroline Thomson, facing questions alongside Shah and Robbie Gibb, also steps in.
She says she and Shah and other board members felt the Panorama edit did constitute a breach of editorial guidelines, while the BBC News team did not.
“There was a continuing and sharp difference of opinion between, the chairman and me and others on the board, with the director of news about whether we were going to apologise just for the edit or whether the impact of the edit and indeed the position of the Proud Boys material had given a misleading impression. We felt that it had.
“And News [department] continued to maintain that actually the impression given despite the edit, was correct, because the gist of the speech by Trump had, for example, the use of the word ‘fight’ 15 times and only talked peace once. They felt that it was that the edit was justified, but it should have been a more transparent edit.
We felt that the edit had led to a more profound problem. And indeed, your quotation of the editorial guidelines is absolutely right. We felt it violated them.”
Share
Updated at 12.44 EST
Shah is pressed again as to why there was such a “big delay” in the board replying to the editorial error in the Panorama edit.
An MP suggests it was due to “chaos on the board” and “division” among members as to how to respond.
Shah says it was not chaos, and that he replied to the committee within the deadline specified.
“I wanted to investigate what went wrong and get it right, and I needed to make sure the board were with me and we discussed this. I don’t think there was any chaos or difficulty there.”
Share
MP: “As soon as the Telegraph started publishing this memo and and its coverage of it, there was just a vacuum in the BBC for nearly a week where there was no comment given in any meaningful way to the substance of it. Why didn’t you get on the front foot with either apology or some kind of defence of what would have happened?”
Shah: “Precisely for the question, you’ve just raised, I needed to understand what went wrong and to get the right answer. Getting the right answer was really important.”
The BBC Chair appears to be sticking to the answer he gave two weeks ago to the committee and also to his own staff; that he and the board took their time to come back with a response because they needed to check the story’s details. During that period, the director general and head of news resigned.
Share
Second panel session begins with focus on the Chair
Lawmakers are now interviewing the BBC Chair Samir Shah, who has faced immense pressure and criticism from BBC staff that he has not stepped up to defend their journalism properly.
The first two questions out of the gate:
MP: Did you and the rest of the BBC board block the head of news [Deborah Turness] from apologising for the Panorama programme on the 10th of November?
Shah goes on to give a long answer detailing the timeline of what he and the board did when the Panorama complaint was raised. He does not appear to answer the question as to whether he blocked Turness from addressing the Panorama edit.
Samir Shah giving evidence on Monday Photograph: Parliament LiveShare
Updated at 12.40 EST
First panel session over
The first panel has concluded its questioning of the two external advisers to the standards committee. Michael Prescott was grilled over whether he himself showed bias in the editorial concerns he’d raised in his memo, the dossier which triggered the crisis.
Caroline Daniel repeatedly offered a robust defence of the BBC’s editorial inquiries, saying the organisation was rigorous in examining complaints and was constantly interrogating if a line had been crossed. She said it’s the most scrutinised news organisation in the UK and the constant self-examination was a sign of a “very healthy” organisation.
Share
Response to misleading BBC Verify story didn’t go far enough, says Prescott
Prescott has been questioned again by lawmakers on whether his concerns all came from a certain bias.
He pivots away from the US election story and raises a complaint on a BBC Verify story which alleged that people from migrant backgrounds in the UK were being charged more from car insurance. The report didn’t take into proper account other market factors, Prescott said.
He says it’s a prime example of BBC News departments not responding properly when editorial concerns are raised, and what he seems to be alluding to is, a lack of questioning given the “cultural biases” he says are a problem in the newsroom.
“Of all the people across the BBC who heard that report, was there no professional scepticism? Jeez, we better have another look at that. This was multiple levels of failure and that’s why I put it in the memo.”
He says the response was “just not enough. This was a horrendous and embarrassing error one, by the way, that could have damaged community relations in this country.
“I mean, if you’re a black teenager sitting at home all day listening to that stuff, how would it make you feel?And it was all untrue.”
He says the BBC should have had “a full on inquest”.
Share
Caroline Daniel says from her experience on the standards committee there was always active discussion on editorial bias.
“It’s put the spotlight on issues of impartiality, which in my view, the BBC was actively engaging with on a regular basis.
“The fact that the committee was extremely robust, discussions were had, research was commissioned on a regular basis, and it was challenging research, I think that’s a really healthy organisation and a very healthy debate.”
Share
Prescott memo did not reflect full report on BBC’s US election coverage – other adviser
Caroline Daniel says she thinks her fellow former adviser’s memo “does not provide a comprehensive view of what was in the David Grossman report.”
She is sitting right next to Prescott while giving her assessment of what she says was “a personal account rather than a comprehensive review of everything that was covered in the (standards) committee.”
MP: “What do you think was missing?”
Daniel: “I think the David Grossman report covered a lot of ground, significant errors, like the coverage of the election and the use of polling, issues like who is being represented on programs, issues of impartiality.
There was obviously a BBC response to it as well, which was also significant. They did engage with each of the details of the David Grossman report.
Share
Panorama inaccuracy does not undercut broader BBC principles of accuracy, Daniel says
Caroline Daniel, the other external adviser to the standards committee alongside Prescott has also stepped into defend the Panorama edit.
“Obviously, issues of trust are foundational to the BBC. It is very important that they take inaccuracies extremely seriously,” she says.
She adds that it was “regrettable that this wasn’t recognised at the time” and that probably by the time Panorama was alerted to it, it was too late for the BBC to take practical action – more than a year after the episode had been broadcast.
She also stresses that David Grossman’s 20-page report on the US election “was really about a much broader, comprehensive view about US election coverage.”
“It wasn’t to try and micromanage a particular programme, edit an individual issue out of principle… I personally think that the BBC did take issues of impartiality and accuracy incredibly seriously. It’s the reason that the one of the most trusted news brands in the world.”
Share
Prescott says Panorama edit ‘probably’ does not damage Trump
Prescott has been pressed again by Liberal Democrat MP Cameron Thomas to answer whether he agrees with Trump’s argument that the 12-second video edit of his January 6 speech damages his reputation.
Thomas: “Do you agree that Donald Trump’s reputation has been tarnished by this documentary?”
Prescott: “Probably not”.
He offers a rueful smile.
Share
Updated at 11.58 EST
Committee questions Prescott on his own bias in leaked memo
MP Rupa Huq questions Prescott on his own political bias in his memo, noting that many of his concerns appear to come from a certain slant.
She points out some of the language he used are common phrases used in right-wing ideological circles, or that experts he references are “not completely neutral people”.
Prescott says that he didn’t have a “tick list”, and his memo just reflected reports “commissioned by the entire (standards) committee” for editorial adviser David Grossman to look into.
“We never knew what he would come back with. And if you take American presidential race, for example, it did come back saying, well, actually, it’s a little unbalanced.”
Huq says she watched the whole 70-minute Panorama documentary last night, and the 12-second edit does not change what the topic was about, which she says Trump would probably like because it includes many MAGA supporters.
Share
Updated at 11.36 EST
Prescott is asked if he agrees with Trump that the BBC documentary constitutes defamation, given the US president has been indicted over the January 6 riots.
“I can’t think of anything I agree with Donald Trump on,” Prescott replies.
Share
Watch the questioning live
Just a reminder to readers, the live feed from the House of Commons session can be viewed right here in the stream embedded at the top of this blog.
Share
Glastonbury apology a sign of improvement- Daniel
Daniel however, the other external adviser, says there have been improvements including after systemic reviews on certain subject matters.
She gives the example of Tim Davie’s immediate response after the BBC’s live broadcast of Bob Vylan’s set at Glastonbury Festival where the singer chanted “Death to the IDF”.
I think that was a speedy apology, and rightly so. I think there are probably many other examples where the BBC has apologised, in the last few years.
But I would say I think the real issue is the culture of the BBC in terms of the level of attention paid to these issues. And again, in my view, the fact that we had a robust committee to debate issues of impartiality, the fact that we had David Grossman being commissioned to ask questions about the BBC’s coverage in order to help inform future coverage, was actually really significant.
I think there are a few organisations when you actually have that level of auditing internally on a regular basis, and this is an ongoing issue. This is not one and done.
Share
Updated at 11.12 EST
Editorial mistakes weren’t being thoroughly addressed- Prescott
Much of the criticism from Prescott is around what he says is BBC News departments failing to throughly address editorial mistakes when pointed out by the panel.
What I was frequently seeing was that the BBC’s idea of dealing with something was to change the editors around, tweak the written guidelines, but there was never, it seemed to me, any willingness at exactly what went wrong and whether there were deep implications.”
He has described some of the responses as “defensive” and he says there’s a problem of some “cultural forces” within the BBC, without specifying what exactly.
When questioned further by the committee, he mentions: “You’ve got urban rural bias, possibly a London focus, London values versus values outside of the capital”.
Share
Updated at 11.23 EST
‘No idea’ how memo was leaked – Prescott
Prescott is questioned on how his memo of editorial concerns was leaked to the Telegraph report.
“I have no idea”, he says.
His dossier pointed out failings in the editing of a Trump speech, allegations of bias in its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and trans issues.
He’d said that he had also sent the memo off to the Ofcom regulator after sending it to the BBC board to highlight what he thought were editorial concerns.
He says the memo was “all my own work” and that he’d not written it with anyone else.
Share
Updated at 11.21 EST
‘I’m a centrist dad’ – Prescott
Prescott is questioned on his own personal biases and refers to reports about Robbie Gibb’s Conservative background.
The Committee chair has been asking if one personality was more dominant than the other members on the standards committee. It has been alleged that Gibb’s political views steered the panel one direction.
“You’re asking about my preferences. I am no ideological soul mate of Robbie Gibbs. I’m a centrist dad.”
He is asked whether the fact his company received more than £100,000 in donations from a conservative Republican donor influenced him. He says he did want the BBC to be completely impartial.
Share
Updated at 10.59 EST
