BBC board
member with Tory links ‘led charge’ in systemic bias claims, say insiders
Sources
say Robbie Gibb amplified criticisms of Trump, Gaza and trans rights coverage,
and had ‘a lot of oxygen in the room’
Michael
Savage Media editor
Mon 10
Nov 2025 19.23 GMT
A BBC
board member with links to the Conservative party “led the charge” in
pressuring the corporation’s leadership over claims of systemic bias in
coverage of Donald Trump, Gaza and transgender rights, the Guardian has been
told.
Sources
said Robbie Gibb, Theresa May’s former communications chief who was appointed
to the BBC’s board during Boris Johnson’s time as prime minister, amplified the
criticisms in key board meetings that preceded the shock resignation of the
director general, Tim Davie, and the head of BBC News, Deborah Turness.
In an
article for the Guardian, the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, called for
Gibb to be removed from the BBC’s board before the search for a new director
general begins.
On
another extraordinary day for the BBC, Trump threatened it with a
billion-dollar legal action, after criticism of the way an edition of Panorama
broadcast more than a year ago edited one of his speeches.
The legal
letter demands that “false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory
statements” made about Trump must be retracted immediately.
The edit
was one of the criticisms raised in a memo by Michael Prescott, a former
independent external adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards
committee. He left that role in the summer.
After a
week in which the BBC’s leadership had been criticised by its own staff for
failing to respond to Prescott’s claims, the corporation’s chair, Samir Shah,
on Monday apologised for the Trump edit.
Shah said
there was an “error of judgment” over the way in which the programme spliced
together two parts of a speech by Trump made before the attack on the US
Capitol in January 2021.
However,
in his letter to the Commons culture, media and sport committee, Shah claimed
Prescott’s memo was a “partial” and “personal” account of BBC discussions and
did not reflect a full picture of the internal discussions and decisions taken.
“It is
not true to say that concerns have been ignored or action not taken,” the
letter added.
In a sign
of BBC journalists’ view of their board’s management of the crisis, Turness
received a round of applause from staff at an editorial meeting.
While BBC
insiders accept the Prescott letter contains some failings, there is also
concern that it has formed part of a political attack on the corporation from
within.
Concerns
centre on the relationship between Prescott and Gibb. Sources said Gibb, who
has previously been accused of interfering in editorial matters, had “led the
charge” at two BBC board meetings that discussed Prescott’s memo. The most
recent was last Thursday.
Gibb is
one of 13 board members. However, sources raised concerns about the editorial
experience of many of the other members. Some newer board members were said to
have agreed with Gibb, who has held the post for four years.
It is
understood that one board member who was supportive of the BBC’s editorial
efforts was away for last week’s meeting, in which more pressure was placed on
Turness over Prescott’s memo.
Insiders
said the board’s lack of editorial expertise meant Gibb had “a lot of oxygen in
the room”.
Suggestions
of a political effort to pressure the BBC from the right have been denied.
Johnson has rejected any such suggestion as “complete and utter bollocks”. The
BBC has said Gibb was only one of a four-person panel that appointed Prescott
and only one of 13 board members. In his letter, Prescott said his criticisms
“do not come with any political agenda”.
Asked to
comment on behalf of Gibb, the BBC said it did not comment on individual board
meetings and that the minutes would be published in the normal way.
In his
article for the Guardian, Davey called for Gibb’s immediate removal.
“Not only
was Gibb the director of communications for Conservative prime minister Theresa
May, and editorial adviser at GB News before being appointed by Johnson,” he
wrote. “He has also repeatedly been accused of interfering with editorial
decisions in a way that is totally unacceptable for a member of the board –
especially such a party political appointment.
“To
ensure the BBC’s independence, impartiality and trust, Gibb should have no role
in appointing the new director general. The government should remove him from
the board immediately – and end the practice of political appointments, which
so badly undermines the BBC, altogether.”
The
government does not have the formal power to remove a member of the BBC’s
board. Gibb’s tenure is due to run until 2028.
“That’s
for the board to grip,” a government source said. “Our hands are tied.” They
added that “we hope all of this can ultimately be a catalyst for change and for
the BBC to put itself in a stronger position”.
In his
response to Prescott’s memo, Shah pushed back against the broader allegations
of bias. He said Prescott “does not present a full picture of the discussions,
decisions and actions that were taken”. He also said that some of the problems
raised by Prescott were not new or had been previously examined by the BBC.
“Some of
the coverage of Mr Prescott’s memo has implied that he has ‘uncovered’ a list
of stories and issues that the BBC have sought to ‘bury’. That interpretation
is simply not true,” said Shah. “There is another view that has gained currency
in the coverage that the BBC has done nothing to tackle these problems. That is
also simply not true.
“During
the three years Mr Prescott was an adviser to the committee, the BBC produced
thousands of hours of outstanding journalism: on television, radio, online,
nationally, regionally and internationally. This does not diminish the
importance the BBC board places on addressing the issues that Mr Prescott has
raised. But it is also important that a sense of perspective is maintained.”
The BBC
is deciding how to respond to a legal letter to the BBC from Trump’s counsel
Alejandro Brito. It gives the corporation until Friday to respond to its
demands.
It warns
that should the deadline be missed, Trump will be “left with no alternative but
to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved
and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than
1,000,000,000 dollars in damages”.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário