\n<\/p>\n
Caroline Daniel <\/strong>says she thinks her fellow former adviser\u2019s memo \u201cdoes not provide a comprehensive view of what was in the David Grossman report.\u201d<\/p>\n She is sitting right next to Prescott while giving her assessment of what she says was \u201ca personal account rather than a comprehensive review of everything that was covered in the (standards) committee.\u201d<\/p>\n MP: \u201c<\/strong>What do you think was missing?\u201d<\/p>\n Daniel: \u201c<\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Share<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Key events<\/p>\n <\/span>Show key events only<\/p>\n Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n The BBC Chair has also spoken up amid this grilling of Gibb\u2019s political connections.<\/p>\n \u201cEvery 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.<\/p>\n \u201cI think it is unfair to say that Robbie comes with he\u2019s 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\u2019s my view about it.\u201d<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n They are asking the former communications director for Theresa May and GB News co-founder about his \u201cstrong political convictions\u201d.<\/p>\n He is asked how he manages his own biases given his role on a standards panel.<\/p>\n He says as a former BBC news producer for 25 years, who was also head of BBC Westminster, \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m 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.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/span>Robbie Gibb speaks to MPs on Monday<\/span> Photograph: Parliament LiveShare<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a012.53 EST<\/p>\n Another board member, Caroline Thomson<\/strong>, facing questions alongside Shah and Robbie Gibb, also steps in.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>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.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cAnd 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 \u2018fight\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a012.44 EST<\/p>\n Shah is pressed again as to why there was such a \u201cbig delay\u201d in the board replying to the editorial error in the Panorama edit.<\/p>\n An MP suggests it was due to \u201cchaos on the board\u201d and \u201cdivision\u201d among members as to how to respond.<\/p>\n Shah says it was not chaos, and that he replied to the committee within the deadline specified.<\/p>\n \u201cI 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\u2019t think there was any chaos or difficulty there.\u201d<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n MP: <\/strong>\u201cAs 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\u2019t you get on the front foot with either apology or some kind of defence of what would have happened?<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n Shah: <\/strong>\u201c<\/em>Precisely for the question, you\u2019ve just raised, I needed to understand what went wrong and to get the right answer. Getting the right answer was really important.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2019s details. During that period, the director general and head of news resigned.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The first two questions out of the gate:<\/p>\n MP: <\/strong>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?<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/span>Samir Shah giving evidence on Monday<\/span> Photograph: Parliament LiveShare<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a012.40 EST<\/p>\n The first panel has concluded its questioning of the two external advisers to the standards committee. Michael Prescott<\/strong> was grilled over whether he himself showed bias in the editorial concerns he\u2019d raised in his memo, the dossier which triggered the crisis.<\/p>\n Caroline Daniel<\/strong> repeatedly offered a robust defence of the BBC\u2019s editorial inquiries, saying the organisation was rigorous in examining complaints and was constantly interrogating if a line had been crossed. She said it\u2019s the most scrutinised news organisation in the UK and the constant self-examination was a sign of a \u201cvery healthy\u201d organisation.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Prescott has been questioned again by lawmakers on whether his concerns all came from a certain bias.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t take into proper account other market factors, Prescott said.<\/p>\n He says it\u2019s 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 \u201ccultural biases\u201d he says are a problem in the newsroom.<\/p>\n \u201c<\/em>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\u2019s why I put it in the memo.\u201d<\/p>\n He says the response was \u201cjust not enough. This was a horrendous and embarrassing error one, by the way, that could have damaged community relations in this country.<\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>I mean, if you\u2019re a black teenager sitting at home all day listening to that stuff, how would it make you feel?And it was all untrue.\u201d<\/p>\n He says the BBC should have had \u201ca full on inquest\u201d.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Caroline Daniel says from her experience on the standards committee there was always active discussion on editorial bias.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s put the spotlight on issues of impartiality, which in my view, the BBC was actively engaging with on a regular basis.<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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\u2019s a really healthy organisation and a very healthy debate.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Caroline Daniel <\/strong>says she thinks her fellow former adviser\u2019s memo \u201cdoes not provide a comprehensive view of what was in the David Grossman report.\u201d<\/p>\n She is sitting right next to Prescott while giving her assessment of what she says was \u201ca personal account rather than a comprehensive review of everything that was covered in the (standards) committee.\u201d<\/p>\n MP: \u201c<\/strong>What do you think was missing?\u201d<\/p>\n Daniel: \u201c<\/strong>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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Caroline Daniel,<\/strong> the other external adviser to the standards committee alongside Prescott has also stepped into defend the Panorama edit.<\/p>\n \u201cObviously, issues of trust are foundational to the BBC. It is very important that they take inaccuracies extremely seriously,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n She adds that it was \u201cregrettable that this wasn\u2019t recognised at the time\u201d and that probably by the time Panorama was alerted to it, it was too late for the BBC to take practical action \u2013 more than a year after the episode had been broadcast.<\/p>\n She also stresses that David Grossman\u2019s 20-page report on the US election \u201cwas really about a much broader, comprehensive view about US election coverage.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt wasn\u2019t to try and micromanage a particular programme, edit an individual issue out of principle\u2026 I personally think that the BBC did take issues of impartiality and accuracy incredibly seriously.<\/strong> It\u2019s the reason that the one of the most trusted news brands in the world.\u201d<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Prescott has been pressed again by Liberal Democrat MP Cameron Thomas to answer whether he agrees with Trump\u2019s argument that the 12-second video edit of his January 6 speech damages his reputation.<\/p>\n Thomas: \u201cDo you agree that Donald Trump\u2019s reputation has been tarnished by this documentary?\u201d<\/p>\n Prescott: \u201cProbably not\u201d.<\/p>\n He offers a rueful smile.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a011.58 EST<\/p>\n MP Rupa Huq<\/strong> questions Prescott on his own political bias in his memo, noting that many of his concerns appear to come from a certain slant.<\/p>\n She points out some of the language he used are common phrases used in right-wing ideological circles, or that experts he references are \u201cnot completely neutral people\u201d.<\/p>\n Prescott<\/strong> says that he didn\u2019t have a \u201ctick list\u201d, and his memo just reflected reports \u201ccommissioned by the entire (standards) committee\u201d for editorial adviser David Grossman to look into.<\/p>\n \u201cWe 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\u2019s a little unbalanced.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a011.36 EST<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cI can\u2019t think of anything I agree with Donald Trump on,\u201d Prescott replies.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong> however, the other external adviser, says there have been improvements including after systemic reviews on certain subject matters.<\/p>\n She gives the example of Tim Davie\u2019s immediate response after the BBC\u2019s live broadcast of Bob Vylan\u2019s set at Glastonbury Festival where the singer chanted \u201cDeath to the IDF\u201d.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s coverage in order to help inform future coverage, was actually really significant.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a011.12 EST<\/p>\n Much of the criticism from Prescott<\/strong> is around what he says is BBC News departments failing to throughly address editorial mistakes when pointed out by the panel.<\/p>\n What I was frequently seeing was that the BBC\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n He has described some of the responses as \u201cdefensive\u201d and he says there\u2019s a problem of some \u201ccultural forces\u201d within the BBC, without specifying what exactly.<\/p>\n When questioned further by the committee, he mentions: \u201cYou\u2019ve got urban rural bias, possibly a London focus, London values versus values outside of the capital<\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a011.23 EST<\/p>\n Prescott is questioned on how his memo of editorial concerns was leaked to the Telegraph report.<\/p>\n \u201cI have no idea\u201d, he says.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n He\u2019d 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.<\/p>\n He says the memo was \u201call my own work\u201d and that he\u2019d not written it with anyone else.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a011.21 EST<\/p>\n Prescott is questioned on his own personal biases and refers to reports about Robbie Gibb\u2019s Conservative background.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s political views steered the panel one direction.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re asking about my preferences. I am no ideological soul mate of Robbie Gibbs. I\u2019m a centrist dad.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n He is asked whether the fact his company received more than \u00a3100,000 in donations from a conservative Republican donor influenced him. He says he did want the BBC to be completely impartial.<\/p>\n Share<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a010.59 EST<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Prescott memo did not reflect full report on BBC’s US election coverage – other adviser Caroline Daniel says she thinks her fellow former adviser\u2019s memo \u201cdoes not provide a comprehensive view of what was in the David Grossman report.\u201d She is sitting right next to Prescott while giving her assessment of what she says was<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35039,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[7479,19824,4430,4668,1052,1193,2350,5031,414,1021,293,2315,127],"class_list":{"0":"post-35038","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-politics","8":"tag-bbc","9":"tag-bbcs","10":"tag-coverage","11":"tag-election","12":"tag-full","13":"tag-latest","14":"tag-leaked","15":"tag-memo","16":"tag-mps","17":"tag-reflect","18":"tag-report","19":"tag-told","20":"tag-updates"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35038","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=35038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35038\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/35039"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=35038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=35038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=35038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Shah steps in to defend Gibb<\/h2>\n
MPs move questioning focus onto Sir Robbie Gibb<\/h2>\n
Board member Thomson says she felt Panorama edit was misleading, while News argued it was ok<\/h2>\n
Second panel session begins with focus on the Chair<\/h2>\n
First panel session over<\/h2>\n
Response to misleading BBC Verify story didn’t go far enough, says Prescott<\/h2>\n
Prescott memo did not reflect full report on BBC’s US election coverage – other adviser<\/h2>\n
Panorama inaccuracy does not undercut broader BBC principles of accuracy, Daniel says<\/h2>\n
Prescott says Panorama edit ‘probably’ does not damage Trump<\/h2>\n
Committee questions Prescott on his own bias in leaked memo<\/h2>\n
Watch the questioning live<\/h2>\n
Glastonbury apology a sign of improvement- Daniel<\/h2>\n
Editorial mistakes weren’t being thoroughly addressed- Prescott<\/h2>\n
‘No idea’ how memo was leaked – Prescott<\/h2>\n
‘I\u2019m a centrist dad’ – Prescott<\/h2>\n