It has been a tumultuous fortnight at the BBC, with the sudden resignations of director general Tim Davie, CEO of News Deborah Turness, and board member Shumeet Banerji, all against the backdrop of a controversy that has shaken the broadcaster’s leadership to its core. The fallout, triggered by a Panorama episode that selectively edited a 2021 speech by US President Donald Trump, has exposed deep divisions within the BBC board and raised urgent questions about governance, transparency, and the future direction of the UK’s storied public broadcaster.
The crisis began in earnest when a leaked memo from Michael Prescott, a former external adviser to the BBC, landed on the board’s desk. Prescott’s memo, which was swiftly and predictably leaked to the press, accused the BBC of systemic problems in its coverage of contentious issues, notably its handling of Trump, Gaza, and transgender rights. The memo’s publication in the Daily Telegraph set off a chain reaction, with mounting scrutiny from the press and politicians alike.
As the controversy swirled, the BBC’s board found itself under immense pressure to respond decisively. According to BBC News, the board blocked Turness and her news division from issuing an immediate apology for the Panorama episode, instead opting for a more cautious approach. Chair Samir Shah explained to a parliamentary committee, “I needed to make sure that what I was apologising for was fully sourced and fully right.” Meanwhile, US President Trump threatened to sue the BBC for defamation, demanding financial compensation. The BBC issued an apology but stopped short of meeting Trump’s demands.
Within days, both Davie and Turness announced their resignations. The departures of two of the BBC’s most senior and respected executives sent shockwaves through the media world. Shumeet Banerji, a non-executive board member since 2022 and founder of a tech advisory firm, followed suit on Friday, November 21, 2025, citing grave concerns about the board’s governance. In his resignation letter, Banerji wrote, “I am resigning because I will not be seen as a participant in a board decision on which I was not consulted, nor one which in my view has had adequate discussion.”
Banerji’s letter, made public on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, paints a damning picture of dysfunction at the highest levels of the BBC. He described his shock at learning, during a board call, that Turness had already been told she lacked the confidence of the majority of the board—a decision on which he claims he was not consulted. “I was not invited to any meeting where a matter of such importance was to be discussed,” Banerji stated. He went further, suggesting the board had acted “in the white heat of press excoriation,” and warned, “The lesson for detractors of the BBC is leak and launch.”
Banerji’s account directly contradicts that of BBC chair Samir Shah. Shah, a former documentary maker, told a parliamentary select committee that he believed he had consulted Banerji in a 26-minute phone call over the weekend of the resignations. “I am both disappointed and surprised by what he has to say,” Shah told MPs. He maintained that he had spoken to each director individually, seeking their views on the crisis. But Banerji disputes this, stating that the call occurred only because he requested it, and that reasoned, collective discussions—so vital to the function of any board—had not taken place.
The row has not gone unnoticed in Westminster. Dame Caroline Dinenage, head of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, described Shah’s evidence to the committee as “wishy-washy” and said she would be following up with him later in the week. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The Media Show, Dinenage said, “I think at the moment, I would advise against any further large-scale changes at the head of the BBC. They need to be selecting a new director general and now a new director general deputy, they also need to start the process of Charter Review. And I think they do need to have a good hard look at themselves and demonstrate that they are able to provide effective leadership.”
Other MPs have been equally forthright. Labour’s Rupa Huq said, “The resignation of Mr Banerji and the reasons he cites in his letter—inadequate consultation with board members—demonstrates that all is not well on the BBC board, despite the polished and well-rehearsed performances of the representatives who appeared on Monday at our committee.” Liberal Democrat Cameron Thomas added, “Though Dr Shah claims to enjoy the backing of those remaining board members, these three resignations at the top of the BBC continue to leave a question mark over his credibility.”
Behind the public statements, there are signs of a deep and possibly irreparable rift within the BBC’s governing body. Banerji’s resignation letter, as reported by The Guardian and others, accuses the board of failing to allow “reasoned discussions” and acting precipitously in response to media criticism. He wrote, “It is inconceivable to me that Tim Davie did not see this as a direct assault on himself, as the editor-in-chief and CEO.” Banerji, who regarded Davie as “an exceptional, ethical and values-driven leader,” doubted that the forced departures would strengthen the BBC, asking pointedly, “Will the departures of two of our most senior, respected and loved executives make the BBC stronger? I doubt it, very much.”
Insiders suggest that Deborah Turness had already decided to resign, having lost confidence in the board’s handling of the crisis. One source described the board as a “circular firing squad,” with unity in public masking “a continuing and sharp difference of opinion” behind the scenes. The BBC’s 12-member board, which includes both executive and non-executive directors, is charged with ensuring the corporation delivers on its public service mission and sets its strategic direction. The current crisis has exposed the fragility of this governance structure when tested by scandal and external pressure.
As the BBC braces for a period of uncertainty—needing to appoint new leadership and begin the critical process of Charter Review—calls for reform are growing louder. Dinenage, while advising against immediate further upheaval, insists that “some real fundamental changes from within” are needed. For now, Samir Shah remains in post, pledging to “fix problems at the BBC” and declaring, “I am not someone who walks away.” Yet with MPs vowing to continue their scrutiny and the search for Banerji’s replacement already underway, the broadcaster’s enemies—and its supporters—are watching closely to see whether the BBC can weather this storm and emerge with its reputation, and its leadership, intact.
For the BBC, the coming months will be a test not only of its ability to manage crisis but also of its commitment to the principles of transparency, consultation, and public trust that have long defined its role in British society.
