BBC has ‘systemic problems of bias’, says leaked memo author

In his first comments since his 19-page dossier was leaked, Michael Prescott claims the BBC director-general Tim Davie suffered from an ‘editorial blind spot’.

Michael Prescott gives evidence to a hearing of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Picture: AFP / PRU

The author of the leaked memo that led to the resignation of the BBC director-general has claimed that Tim Davie suffered from an “editorial blind spot” and the broadcaster faces “systemic problems” of bias.

In his first comments since his 19-page dossier was leaked, Michael Prescott, a former BBC external adviser, said that the broadcaster was failing to tackle the “incipient problems” that it faces.

“The root of my disagreement and slight concern even today is that the BBC is not treating these [problems] as having systemic causes,” Mr Prescott told MPs during a select committee hearing in Westminster.

“There’s real work that needs to be done at the BBC.”

Mr Prescott, a former journalist turned PR executive, added that he wanted to prevent the BBC from squandering a valuable opportunity to become the world’s most trusted news provider.

“I am a strong supporter of the BBC,” he said. “But what troubled me during my three years on the standards committee is that I kept seeing incipient problems that were not tackled properly and were getting worse.”

Mr Prescott’s memo was based on a series of internal reports which focused on three core areas where he felt the BBC has made mistakes – its coverage of the US elections, the war in Gaza and trans rights.

The most serious error involved a 2024 Panorama episode which misled viewers by splicing together two separate sections of a President Trump speech and has led to him threatening to sue the BBC for up to $5bn.

“It is especially troubling at this time,” Mr Prescott said.

“In an era of fake news, the BBC faces this fabulous once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become the go-to provider of news for the entire world. But it can only do that successfully if it does a better job.”

He said that was why he sent the dossier to the BBC board, the broadcasting regulator Ofcom and the Department for Culture Media and Sport despite his belief that the broadcaster is not “institutionally biased”.

“There was no ideology or party politics at play here,” he said.

But Mr Prescott did raise concerns about Mr Davie, the director-general who resigned over the scandal alongside Deborah Turness, chief executive of news.

“I always liked the guy and most importantly he seemed to me to be doing a first-rate job across 80 to 90 per cent of the portfolio,” Mr Prescott said of Mr Davie. “It was just that he had this blind spot on editorial failings.”

He said that if the director-general was taking the concerns seriously then he saw no reason for him to have resigned.

“I would have hoped they would have got on top of these problems and started sorting them out in a systemic and methodical way. Then everything would have been fine.”

Caroline Daniel, another former BBC external adviser and Financial Times journalist, said it was “significant” that the BBC had a committee tasked with debating impartiality issues.

“There are a few organisations when you actually have that level of auditing internally on a regular basis,” she said.

“Michael’s account is a personal account rather than a comprehensive review of everything that was covered in the committee.”

Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, issued a fulsome apology to audiences and staff in rehearsed opening remarks to the committee.

“I would like to apologise to all the people who believe in the BBC and care for it and want it to survive and thrive,” Mr Shah said.

“I would also like to apologise to the licence fee payers who fund our vision and the thousands of staff who work with such dedication and commitment to deliver the output that we all enjoy so much.”

Mr Davie did not need to resign as director-general over the events, according to Mr Shah, who tried to talk him out of the decision.

“The director of news did the honourable thing in resigning for a mistake that happened in her department and I applaud her for it,” said Mr Shah. “I do not think that the director-general should have resigned. I wished he hadn’t.”

Mr Shah added that Mr Davie had the “full confidence” of the board but highlighted that his resignation letter referred to the other controversies that he had faced in his five year tenure.

These include the issues surrounding BBC Arabic, which Mr Prescott warned would not be solved by simply bringing in a new leader.

“There seem to have been changes of personnel in which the director-general seems to place great faith,” said Mr Prescott.

“But my view is that switching out an individual or two is not enough. When you are dealing with a shocking catalogue of seeming errors then there must be more going on than the editor on the day wasn’t up to the job.”

Staff were hopeful that the session will help the BBC to draw a line under the saga of recent weeks. “Overall it could have been a lot worse,” said one.

The Times