The BBC, Britain’s storied public broadcaster, is once again under the microscope after a turbulent month that’s seen its top leadership shaken, its editorial practices questioned, and its very future governance called into doubt. The latest storm was triggered by the leak of a memo from Michael Prescott, a former external adviser, which alleged “serious and systemic problems” within the corporation. In the aftermath, both director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness resigned, and the chair of the BBC board, Samir Shah, has found himself in the hot seat, facing tough questions from Parliament and the public alike.
On November 24, 2025, Shah appeared before the Commons culture, media and sport committee to address mounting concerns about the BBC’s governance and editorial standards. The session, as reported by BBC News and The Guardian, was anything but routine. MPs described Shah’s evidence as “wishy-washy,” with Dame Caroline Dinenage, the committee’s head, voicing doubts about whether the BBC was “in safe hands” under his leadership. “He didn’t really have direct answers on the questions of how to get the BBC to act quicker, act more decisively... we were really looking for hard evidence that the BBC board are going to grip this... I’m not entirely convinced that they can and they will,” Dinenage told BBC’s World Tonight.
The immediate crisis stems from a memo written by Prescott, who during his three years as an adviser observed what he described as “incipient problems” that seemed to have “systemic causes.” Prescott was clear, however, that he did not believe the BBC was “institutionally biased.” “I wrote that memo because I am a strong supporter of the BBC,” Prescott told MPs, emphasizing that his intent was to spur action, not to expose an ideological agenda. He denied leaking the memo and accepted that it represented a “partial” and “personal” account rather than a comprehensive review, echoing the view of fellow former adviser Caroline Daniel.
The controversy reached fever pitch over the BBC’s handling of a Panorama documentary about Donald Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021. The program was criticized for editing together two separate parts of Trump’s remarks, which the BBC later admitted gave “the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.” The White House, more than a year after broadcast, demanded an apology and even threatened a $1 billion lawsuit—an extraordinary escalation. The BBC apologized for the edit, but not before internal disputes over the wording and extent of the apology led to damaging delays. Shah told the committee, “It took time to get it right, what the actual apology was for.”
The internal debate was fierce. Caroline Thomson, a BBC board member, revealed a “continuing and sharp difference of opinion” between the board—herself, Shah, and others—and the news department. While the board felt the edit had given a misleading impression and thus breached editorial guidelines, the news team argued the edit was justified and that the overall gist of Trump’s speech was accurately conveyed. “They felt that the edit was justified, but it should have been a more transparent edit,” Thomson explained. For the board, however, “the edit had led to a more profound problem. And indeed, your quotation of the editorial guidelines is absolutely right. We felt it violated them.”
Prescott, for his part, did not see the Panorama incident as symptomatic of a larger problem, suggesting it may have been “a weird accident or someone working under pressure.” He even doubted that the program had truly tarnished Trump’s reputation, a point that could help the BBC defend itself against the threat of legal action from the former U.S. president.
The leaked memo also highlighted concerns about the BBC’s coverage of sensitive topics such as the Israel-Gaza conflict and transgender issues. Prescott claimed there were “systemic” failings in these areas, though he stopped short of labeling the corporation as institutionally biased. The memo’s publication unleashed internal talk of a rightwing “coup,” board splits, and delays in addressing complaints—a chaotic scene that played out in public view over recent weeks.
The leadership vacuum at the BBC, following the twin resignations of Davie and Turness, has only heightened anxieties. Shah told MPs he would not walk away from the job, vowing to “steady the ship” and “fix it.” He announced that the search for a new director general had begun, and—agreeing with both Prescott and Daniel—proposed creating a deputy director general role, arguing the job was “too big for one person.” In an email to staff, Shah called recruiting a new director general his “top priority” and signaled a review of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee to ensure it represents “a broad range of voices” and is fully accountable.
Meanwhile, the influence of board member Sir Robbie Gibb, a former BBC editor and ex-communications director to Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May, came under scrutiny. Some accused Gibb of orchestrating a politically motivated coup, a charge he vigorously denied. “I have impartiality through my bones,” Gibb told MPs, insisting he had been “weaponised in terms of how I’m perceived.” Shah backed Gibb, describing him as “interested in impartiality and accuracy.” Gibb recounted how he had previously flagged a BBC story for lacking a union perspective, demonstrating his commitment to balance.
Ofcom, the UK’s broadcasting regulator, weighed in as well. Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s chief, told BBC Breakfast that the broadcaster had “serious issues recently with editorial decision making” and said the board had “a lot to do to set that right.”
As the dust settles, there are calls from all sides for the BBC to move quickly and decisively to restore trust—both internally and with the public. The review of the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, as well as the recruitment of new leadership, will be watched closely. For now, the BBC’s fate rests on whether it can demonstrate the “grip” and transparency its critics—and its supporters—demand.
In a media landscape where impartiality is both fiercely contested and fiercely valued, the BBC’s ability to weather this storm will shape not just its own future, but the expectations of public service broadcasting in the UK for years to come.
