Best Of

Sadly it is, without doubt, “an attack by those with an agenda.”

This is not some staff member within the organisation whistleblowing.

Those who can't see that it's part of a concerted cultural attack by the right just don't want to see.

True- though that doesn't mean that the criticisms are wrong, or even silly. (Though some, like the 'where was the balancing documentary on what's bad about Harris?' surely were.)

Yes agreed. The Panorama edit was poor but hardly a 'phone-hacking' level crime. You'd think maybe a retraction and apology would be in order.

I'm reminded of a comment made by a Private Eye hack that many newspaper corrections add to the inaccuracy of the newspaper publishing the correction. (Yes, that seems paradoxical, but consider that the correction will be steered by one participant in the story.)

I suspect that the Prescott report, by highlighting certain imbalances that some people see in BBC coverage, is having much the same effect.

Classic attacking the messenger there. Basically there are far too many people on here who either believe the BBC can do no wrong or, if they do wrong it is only against people you don't like anyway do it doesn’t matter.

You are just another bunch of apologists for your own special interests and it is amusing that you end up using many of the excuses Cyclefree highlights in her excellent article.

Cyclefree lists a bunch of things she's not really going to allow in defence of the BBC. Well that's like charging someone with a crime and then saying we're not allowing any of the usual defences like an alibi, CCTV, DNA evidence, witness statements, lack of motivation or opportunity, etc.

Just because @Cyclefree has listed them in a pre-emptive strike, it doesn't invalidate genuinely important points. Indeed most of her headlines have some validity in this case.

Most of all this was without doubt: 3. An attack by those with an agenda.

The so-called defences, that @Cyclefree are disallowing, are the generic bullshit reactions of organisations trying to shrug off problems.

Sorry, Timmy, you can't use "The Dog Ate My Homework" as an excuse.

@Benpointer is I am sorry to say talking nonsense because he has done what so many organisations do: formed his opinion (a right wing attack) without any regard to the underlying facts relevant to the criticisms. Also he thinks only an employee can be a whistleblower. Not true.

What I have set out are not in any sense "defences". They are the very common reactions to criticisms. They are hopeless. The best defence is evidence which shows the criticism to be wrong. That is precisely what the BBC is not doing. It is being its own worst enemy by not engaging properly with the criticisms and either accepting them, where valid, and putting matters right or explaining why they are wrong. It is a great pity.

As for having an agenda: all whistleblowers and complainants have an agenda. But an investigator who allows that agenda to stop them investigating properly is a very bad one indeed. An organisation who does that is an organisation in denial. That is their agenda and it is a harmful one.

I cannot assess the validity of the Prescott criticisms. Some seem a little overblown; others much more serious. The Trump Panorama one seems to my mind less serious than some of the others. The conflict of interest determining how women's rights should be discussed is much more serious both because it has been longer lasting but also because such conflicts are always by definition more serious and harder to resolve. It is notable that it is the one area which the BBC and many of its defenders have ignored in their responses. What's the agenda there?

I wrote this as a critical friend. It pains me to see organisations make such a hash of their responses to problems like this. It is not hard to get it right. It is so easy to get it wrong and it shouldn't be because so much should have been learnt from others. And there are lots of people who could help them get it right professionally. But too many organisations are too arrogant, stupid or panicky to realise that they need help. And so we see the shitshow we've been seeing in the last few days.

And those who will do anything to destroy the best of the BBC will get their chance. It is so important to distinguish between the destroyers and critical friends. The BBC needs critical friends right now. The John Simpsons and others are not being critical friends. They are reinforcing the impression of an arrogant aloof organisation which thinks it knows best. It is a great pity.