Head of Commons media committee denies writing article accusing BBC of bias | BBC
It was a crisis that brought down the BBC director general and its news chief. Both Tim Davie and Deborah Turness left the firm following contentious accusations of bias by a former outside consultant, Michael Prescott.
At the height of the media storm last November, the company was dealt another blow. The chairman of the House of Commons culture, media and sport committee, one of the key figures examining the BBC, reached an equally damning verdict.
One Article for ConservativeHome websiteConservative MP Caroline Dinenage said Prescott’s allegations “make clear what many viewers have felt for some time: a pattern of institutional bias in BBC News and current affairs”. It also accused him of “deep anti-Israel bias.”
The issue, he wrote, “does with the culture, editorial mindset and assumptions that have shaped the BBC for many years”.
This was a strong approach from someone who would undoubtedly be involved in examining the claims made by Prescott. But a problem arose with the scolding article; Dinenage now says he didn’t write it.
The BeebWatch podcast, led by former BBC Radio 4 presenter Roger Bolton, asked Dinenage about the article. However, before the episode aired, Dinenage’s office contacted the podcast to say that neither he nor his team wrote the article, which did not accurately reflect Dinenage’s views.
“[The article] “There was strong information coming from the so-called independent chairman of a committee that helps decide the future of the BBC, so naturally I made these statements in our interview with Ms Dinenage,” Bolton said.
“We had a heated discussion in which he did not question the authenticity of the article, and I specifically objected to his suggestion of institutional bias.
“However, shortly after recording the interview, her office contacted us to say that Caroline Dinenage did not write the article or that anyone was in her office and that she did not hold some of the beliefs attributed to her.”
The episode in question was cut from the podcast.
ConservativeHome, meanwhile, said it could not find exact details of how the article reached its team but stood by its publication.
“ConservativeHome cannot find a record of who exactly sent the article Caroline Dinenage wrote in November 2025,” the statement said. “However, it was received in the ordinary way, subject to our usual processes, and we believe the article is genuine, posted in good faith and remains on our website as a record of that day.”
The strange dispute sheds light on the process of drafting opinion pieces that appear under the name of a prominent politician. It is not uncommon for such articles to be prepared by media officials and then approved by the politician in question.
In this case, although the original “author” is unknown, it is possible that a misunderstanding occurred as to whether Dinenage approved the work.
“Given this questionable originality, we have reluctantly decided to edit out the portion of the discussion that relates to the controversial article,” Bolton said. “There seem to be only two possibilities. Ms. Dinenage or her office wrote the article. Someone pretending to be her wrote the article.”
“Whatever the truth, it sat on the ConservativeHome website for several months without anyone apparently noticing. It’s still there to be read. It’s all a rum thing.”
