BBC chairman survives MP questions – but crisis not over

If you had expected Monday’s Culture, Media and Sport committee hearing to be a gladiator match, you would have wondered where the swords were.

There have certainly been occasions when Select Committee hearings were worthy of the Colosseum in Rome, with MPs standing in the stands and delivering blows.

After two turbulent weeks with the BBC crisis under pressure, Samir Shah looked nervous as he began his session in front of MPs.

But after about ten minutes, the president seemed relieved. This may be the moment when lawmakers realize they are ill-equipped for a deadly war. There should have been no fatal blows.

The most important thing for Shah and the BBC was to show that he had control of the company. He was asked twice whether he should resign. He said his job now is to “steer the ship” and begin the search for the next chief executive.

Board member Caroline Thomson, sitting next to Shah, said he had the unanimous support of the board.

He neglected to mention the resignation of the board member Shumeet Banerji on Fridayreferring to “management issues.”

This clearly increased the pressure on the Shah before he joined the committee, and this is part of the evidence of his revival.

Although he praised Banerji, he pushed back on the feeling that the former board member was not consulted about the events that led to the resignations of chief executive Tim Davie and News chief executive Deborah Turness.

Shah claimed twice that he had a 26-minute meeting with Banerji.

The BBC chief entered his session with MPs in a very weak position and was accused of losing his grip on the board.

Looks like he came out stronger. If the BBC wanted to show unity, it succeeded. After two weeks of hearing about divisions at the top (including allegations of divisions between the news division and the executive board, as well as allegations that the board itself is divided), the BBC’s three board members have formed a united front.

It certainly wasn’t gripping TV.

Media regulator and former BBC correspondent Richard Ayre was particularly vocal about the length of the session.

“I started about four hours ago – it feels like four years ago – by saying that this looks a bit like an episode of The Traitors and the question is who will be the next person to dust it off,” he told BBC News as the session ended.

“I think after reviewing these two interrogations of the MPs, there will be no deportation this evening and they will come down to breakfast tomorrow morning.

“Over the last two weeks we’ve had countless reports in the media about tensions within the BBC board… And yet the picture we got… today was all peace, all light; everyone has full confidence in each other.”

Journalist and former BBC presenter Andrew Neil was equally unimpressed.

“The thought that comes to my mind is that I had a more interesting time in the afternoons watching the paint dry,” he told BBC News. “So this is a low-level committee. It wasn’t the Watergate hearings.”

“The quality of the problem was appalling, they lacked any forensic approach, they were uninformed, some could only string six words together into a coherent sentence.

“Those hoping to scalp chairman Samir Shah or non-executive director Robbie Gibb, or discredit Michael Prescott, the author of the report that caused all the trouble, will be deeply disappointed because no one has actually reached out to them.

“And if the BBC is worried that this could be the start of its own downfall, then it should have a big gin and tonic tonight because nothing has happened to cause any harm.”

But we learned some information.

Shah was asked about the vacuum created by Donald Trump’s failure to apologize after his misleading edit was made public in the Telegraph newspaper.

He claimed that he did not accept the apology offered by news executives because it was not sufficient.

Caroline Thomson, sitting next to him, noted that there was “a constant and sharp difference of opinion between the chairman and myself and others on the board and the news director.” He said it was about whether an apology should be made for the edit or whether the effect of the edit gave a misleading impression. Some board members felt that was the case.

We also heard for the first time from Downing Street communications chief under Theresa May, Sir Robbie Gibb, a former BBC executive and a political appointee to the board.

He is accused of some political interference.

He denied it on Monday, saying it had been weaponized and that impartiality was in his bones.

And when Sir Robbie was asked directly whether it was a politically motivated coup, as some people have suggested, he said it was a ridiculous accusation, complete nonsense and an insult to the board members.

Whether this is enough to silence critics is another matter.

Michael Prescott, whose leaked memo caused all this, also spoke for the first time.

He said he did not think the BBC was institutionally biased. However, the Committee was unable to fully establish the veracity of its claim about systemic problems in the way the BBC operates. That’s still hanging over him.

Another former advisor, Caroline Daniel, who attended the same meetings as him, did not reach the same conclusion. He wasn’t asked many questions, but his answers stood out.

He said the BBC took impartiality issues incredibly seriously. “That’s why they’re the most trusted news brand in the world.”

To take a step back from this, every single one of those who testified today expressed great support for the BBC.

But this crisis is far from over, given the divisions and mistakes that have become clear over the last few weeks, leading to massive resignations at the BBC’s top levels, as well as Donald Trump’s legal threat.

The Shah lives to fight another day, but with the BBC under siege, another day is bound to come when another problem arises.