The BBC is addressing its problems – we should allow it time to do so

Editorial: There would be little wrong in widening the BBC’s governance, so that it better reflects the nation it seeks to serve. However, the essential editorial independence and freedom of the organisation has to be protected

The BBC has already taken many steps to ensure such breaches of trust with the viewer do not occur again (Getty)

Boris Johnson is a man who was once, in the 1990s, sacked from The Times for making up quotes from an academic who happened to be his godfather. In his long journalistic career, he has also had his share of scrapes and controversies, and remains to this day deeply unloved on Merseyside.

As an authority on media ethics, then, he leaves something to be desired. Even so, he is right to speak out about the scandal surrounding Martin Bashir’s interview with Diana, Princess of Wales. As the Dyson inquiry laid out in detail, there was deceit, and the BBC’s subsequent cover-ups, now exposed, have done nothing to protect its reputation. Even without the dignified and dramatic interventions by Diana’s sons, the government should indeed, as Mr Johnson pledges, make sure that the BBC “will be taking every possible step to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again”.

The truth, though, is that the BBC has already taken many steps to ensure such breaches of trust with the viewer do not occur again, including commissioning the Dyson report and cooperating fully with it. As with the Savile scandal before it, and the reporting of both scandals, the BBC’s programme makers have shown themselves to be the best at investigating wrongdoing in the BBC itself, bizarre as a Panorama documentary about a Panorama interview might sound. It was, after all, an interview with John Humphrys on the BBC’s Today programme that led to the resignation of the then director-general of the BBC, George Entwhistle. When the BBC’s journalists believe that it has done something bad, the BBC becomes its own worst enemy.

The BBC has new leadership, in effect appointed by Mr Johnson, and BBC news journalism is still widely respected and trusted, both here and abroad. By comparison with what is known now about the Diana interview, the BBC Newsnight interview with Prince Andrew, a modern parallel, was a model of good journalism. The BBC secured that scoop with no subterfuge – anything but, and in fact the prince might well have not given his version of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein to any other media organisation. It was public service broadcasting in the public interest at its best, and proof that the BBC should break stories and not be confined to generic, vanilla news.

Nothing about Bashir’s behaviour a quarter of a century ago, or indeed the failures of BBC management then and more recently, should detract from the superb news, commentary and analysis the BBC routinely provides through all its channels. Nor should the vested commercial and political interests of those who attack it be forgotten. While it is true that the BBC and the government must find a way of balancing its public service output with the artificial commercial advantage of the licence fee, that is no excuse for emasculating its web news services or for abolishing the licence fee.

There is always more that can be done, and if ever stronger editorial procedures and oversight strengthen public faith in the BBC, that may be no bad thing. An immediate change – which could be applied to media operations more widely – is a statutory protection for “whistleblowers”. Had the BBC management not dismissed the member of the graphics team who was apparently told to fabricate bank statements, then much of the trouble that followed would have been avoided (and Martin Wiessler deserves the apologies and compensation that will be coming his way).

There would also be little wrong in widening the BBC’s governance, so that it better reflects the nation it seeks to serve. However, the essential editorial independence and freedom of the BBC has to be protected, because that is the only way journalism works. To cite the Emily Maitlis-Prince Andrew interview again, it would be intolerable if some royalist on an external scrutiny committee had decided that such an exercise was not somehow in the public interest because it might undermine support for the monarchy, and called it off. By the same token no Remain-supporting representative should be permitted to veto balanced coverage of, say, the Northern Ireland protocol. Journalism is not about pleasing committees.

Nor should such bodies have the kind of power that would have a chilling effect on the decisions editors, producers and reporters make. No other media organisation would stand for such a thing, but then the BBC is not like other media outlets, because of the special way it is funded via the licence fee – a great strength but also a weakness in asserting its independence. In any case, oversight should be strictly post-broadcast and shorn, as far as it can be, of any “political” dimension. Perhaps the BBC did indulge in too many lazy “left-wing” comedy shows that weren’t particularly funny or satirical, and allow its personalities to roam a little too dangerously across social media. Such failings can be addressed, without “defunding” the whole thing.

More broadly, though, as the dust settles on the Bashir scandal, it will become more clear that commercial threats to the BBC are more lethal. As the royal charter that gives the BBC its licence to operate comes up for its next renewal, due in 2027, the corporation’s new leadership – director-general Tim Davie and chair Richard Sharp – will now have to start to convince ministers that it understands the commercial and editorial challenges facing it in a world where the media landscape is changing at bewildering speed. The rise of Netflix and other streaming services, for example, needs to be answered by one of Britain’s creative powerhouses before audiences, especially younger ones, disappear.

The BBC needs new commercial partners at home and abroad, investment in world-beating technologies, to become less London-centric and more global, and to ensure that there is a sound, defensible unique case for every “market” it is in or it enters, from Radio 3 to Eurovision liveblogs.

The BBC is 100 years old next year. There is no reason why the next century shouldn’t be even more successful, but bullying it will not help.