Naga Munchetty has announced she is leaving BBC Breakfast in January after 17 years to become co-presenter of BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast.
The announcement came last week, with Rick Edwards and Rachel Burden moved to the weekday mid-morning show. Burden, who had helmed the 5 Live Breakfast slot for 15 years, spoke of her "sad exit," and the reshuffle has been described as feeling out of the blue and unfair to her.
In a statement, Munchetty said: "It has been a privilege to be part of the BBC Breakfast TV team for the past 17 years, working alongside an incredibly talented and hard-working group of journalists who are not only outstanding colleagues but also great friends." She added: "Presenting a flagship programme on 5 Live is an opportunity that was simply too good to pass up."
Claims of special treatment at 5 Live
The BBC has not addressed reports of backstage "turmoil" at Breakfast. However, according to The Mirror, Munchetty has allegedly negotiated a new working arrangement that will see her present three days a week in the Salford studio and two days a week from London, near her Hertfordshire home. Her future co-presenter, who is yet to be named, is expected to work five days a week in Salford.
A source told The Mirror: "Many don't feel that is particularly fair, and that bosses have afforded her special treatment."
"There is disquiet that the role has been handed to her on a plate, whereas prospective co-presenters will have to battle it out for the job," the source said. "Naga was a shoo-in, whereas her co-presenter is expected to jump through various hoops…it doesn't strike some as particularly fair."
Fairness questions and bullying allegations
Last August, Munchetty was accused of workplace misconduct and bullying over a three-year period. The outcome of that investigation has not been revealed. With that in mind, the fact that 11 months later she has secured another gig, replaced a radio star with 15 years' experience, and secured flexible working arrangements is raising eyebrows.
For an organisation that is continuously accused of bias, and in theory trying to move away from that narrative, it seems counterproductive to give special treatment to a presenter who has faced allegations of misconduct. The decision raises questions about transparency and impartiality, and suggests that the more famous you are, the more exceptions and opportunities you are allowed. It feels like another brush under the carpet for the BBC, and another example of perceived partiality.
