A parliamentary committee has investigated the explosive memo that triggered the resignation of the BBC's director general, Tim Davie, and head of news, Deborah Turness, exposing deep divisions within the corporation.
The Memo That Shook the BBC
Michael Prescott, the former external adviser whose document caused the crisis, faced questioning from the culture, media and sport committee. Prescott acknowledged his memo represented a personal account and was never intended as a comprehensive analysis of the BBC's internal reviews.
The controversy emerged when Prescott's memo was leaked after he circulated it to the BBC board, government departments and Ofcom. The document claimed the broadcaster faced serious and systemic problems regarding its coverage of the US election, Gaza conflict, racial diversity and transgender issues.
Bias Claims and Internal Divisions
Prescott made clear he doesn't believe the BBC is institutionally biased toward any political agenda. However, he expressed concern about incipient problems during his three years as an adviser that appeared to have systemic causes requiring urgent attention.
Caroline Daniel, another former editorial adviser to the BBC's standards committee, supported Prescott's characterisation of the memo as a personal account rather than a comprehensive reflection of David Grossman's internal reports on editorial issues.
Fallout and Future Reforms
The session revealed significant consequences from the memo's publication, including internal talk of a rightwing coup, board splits and operational delays. The BBC now faces a $1 billion lawsuit threat from Donald Trump related to a Panorama documentary mentioned in Prescott's analysis.
Both Prescott and Daniel agreed the director general role has become too large for one person. Prescott suggested creating an editor-in-chief position alongside the director general, while Daniel proposed establishing a deputy director general role to share the immense responsibility.
Regarding the Panorama documentary about Trump that sparked legal action, Prescott surprisingly downplayed its significance, suggesting the editing error could have been a weird accident or someone working under pressure rather than evidence of a broader institutional problem.
